Abused by jogger

[ColinOldnCranky]

I'm sorry to sound slow but I'm not sure what you are saying about the difference between running on the road Vs footpath. I only ask because I've taken to jogging although the distance I jog aren't that great (circa 5km)

Have you ever been walking and not noticing a small step down? Think of what it feels like and you might see what I am referring to.

Running on roads you will seldom hit a significant variation in height. On the side it is quite common in a few km run to do so and you don't always notice it if you are focussing a bit forward (as you need to be).

And there is nothing more deadly than hitting an unnoticed depression. It jolts you right at lumbar and is not something healthy in regular doses. My point is that a jogger will quickly do damage, hence the predilection to run on the road. While that may seem silly to others it can make good sense to a jogger.

Note however my reference to the need to then be focussed on your environment. Which the subject of this tale seems to not be doing.

You are lucky if your run is even and flat. Some places and some councils are better than others. If you like to vary your run by regularly changing routes then you won't want to count on all routes being so sweet.

(The worst time for this is evenings of course but sometimes that is the only time a jogger gets the time. When I was studying evenings I used to have to do my run a couple of times a week around 11pm.)

[ozstriker]

Yeah, but also not legal, here in Victoria as well if there is a footpath present.

agree it may be preferred, but if it's not legal, then as with MHL, if you don't like the law, get them changed.

You pair had better point out where I claimed or even hinted it was legal........I can't find where I wrote it.

Not sure how that gives any understanding of the issue - he was abusive to other, equally legal, road users.

errr....try reading that as the issue of runners at times preferring to run on the road.
I am not condoning the runners abuse....my post was of an informative nature.

Try and mention something on these forums that may help in understanding other forms of travel or exercise is fraught with danger.
Too many of are prepared to read it as you would like it written so we can have a slap down or a good old session about downtrodden cyclists
I am a runner, cyclist and a motorist. I see good and bad in all.
As a cyclist ( legally.......based more on safety) can opt for road or bike lane then so at times a runner makes the same choice....for many reasons.....including safety.......the gist of my first post.
But I can understand that all members here have never run a red light,filtered illegally, ridden without lights at night ride with no bell, take their reflectors off the wheels.....shall I go on........so I guess it is fair to get upset about an odd runner they come across that may illegally use the road.

haha havent you realised every cyclist thinks they are a bloody lawyer, we are the worst when it comes to being sticklers for the rules. (Except for me )

[yarravalleyplodder]

I often think that a micro missile defense system installed on my helmet would be ideal for swooping magpies, Once its developed maybe it can be set up for rude joggers as well

[diggler]

I prefer running in the middle of the road. Footpaths have cracks, driveways etc. Roads are generally smoother. The general advice is to run against the traffic so you can see them coming. I don't like the side of the road because the camber has an uneven effect on the legs.

Can't run any more because I have run out of knee cartilage. Damn.

[Livetoride]

Was in the city yesterday and saw a jogger running on the road (in the same direction as the traffic) into the CBD, a couple of cyclists backed up behind him, the front one mentioned something to him, to which he arked up at him...

[VRE]

Was in the city yesterday and saw a jogger running on the road (in the same direction as the traffic) into the CBD, a couple of cyclists backed up behind him, the front one mentioned something to him, to which he arked up at him...

This jogger wasn't doing anything wrong. In fact this incident reminds me of a similar scenario: motorists backed up behind a cyclist because there's no way to safely overtake*, and abusing the cyclist for being a nuisance. In the above case, all the cyclists needed to do was overtake the jogger when it was safe to do so.

* Although that doesn't stop some motorists from doing it regardless.

[PB12IN]

Was in the city yesterday and saw a jogger running on the road (in the same direction as the traffic) into the CBD, a couple of cyclists backed up behind him, the front one mentioned something to him, to which he arked up at him...

This jogger wasn't doing anything wrong. In fact this incident reminds me of a similar scenario: motorists backed up behind a cyclist because there's no way to safely overtake*, and abusing the cyclist for being a nuisance. In the above case, all the cyclists needed to do was overtake the jogger when it was safe to do so.

* Although that doesn't stop some motorists from doing it regardless.

You are supposed to walk/run towards traffic not with it. so jogger was doing a little bit wrong.

[jasonc]

Was in the city yesterday and saw a jogger running on the road (in the same direction as the traffic) into the CBD, a couple of cyclists backed up behind him, the front one mentioned something to him, to which he arked up at him...

This jogger wasn't doing anything wrong. In fact this incident reminds me of a similar scenario: motorists backed up behind a cyclist because there's no way to safely overtake*, and abusing the cyclist for being a nuisance. In the above case, all the cyclists needed to do was overtake the jogger when it was safe to do so.

* Although that doesn't stop some motorists from doing it regardless.

it is against the law for a pedestrian to be on the road when there is a footpath available. that is illegal, hence, something wrong.

[VRE]

Was in the city yesterday and saw a jogger running on the road (in the same direction as the traffic) into the CBD, a couple of cyclists backed up behind him, the front one mentioned something to him, to which he arked up at him...

This jogger wasn't doing anything wrong. In fact this incident reminds me of a similar scenario: motorists backed up behind a cyclist because there's no way to safely overtake*, and abusing the cyclist for being a nuisance. In the above case, all the cyclists needed to do was overtake the jogger when it was safe to do so.

* Although that doesn't stop some motorists from doing it regardless.

it is against the law for a pedestrian to be on the road when there is a footpath available. that is illegal, hence, something wrong.

Given that Livetoride didn't provide any details of the road where this incident occurred, there's no indication that the pedestrian was doing anything illegal. The extract below is from the Victorian road rules. I don't know in which state the above-mentioned incident occurred, but I'm going to take a risk and assume the road rules for this state are similar to those below.

238 Pedestrians travelling along a road (except in or on a wheeled recreational device or toy)
(1) A pedestrian must not travel along a road if there is a footpath or nature strip adjacent to the road, unless it is impracticable to travel on the footpath or nature strip.

(2) A pedestrian travelling along a road—
(a) must keep as far to the left or right side of the road as is practicable; and
(ab) must, when moving forward, face approaching traffic that is moving in the direction opposite to which the pedestrian is travelling, unless it is impracticable to do so; and
(b) must not travel on the road alongside more than 1 other pedestrian or vehicle travelling on the road in the same direction as the pedestrian, unless the pedestrian is overtaking other pedestrians.

It's quite possible that (a) there was no footpath or nature strip or (b) they were impracticable to use, so in the absence of any details, I'm just giving the pedestrian the benefit of the doubt, rather than unfairly judging him. This unfair judgment is something I get sometimes from motorists because of their incomplete understanding of the cyclist-related road rules, and it would be a shame if cyclists similarly unfairly judged pedestrians before learning all the facts, because that would be a bit hypocritical.

[jasonc]

Was in the city

It's quite possible that (a) there was no footpath or nature strip or (b) they were impracticable to use, so in the absence of any details, I'm just giving the pedestrian the benefit of the doubt, rather than unfairly judging him. This unfair judgment is something I get sometimes from motorists because of their incomplete understanding of the cyclist-related road rules, and it would be a shame if cyclists similarly unfairly judged pedestrians before learning all the facts, because that would be a bit hypocritical.

he was in the city. I haven't seen an Australian city street without footpaths (well, not one that didn't have a sign stating "NO pedestrians").

[VRE]

Was in the city

It's quite possible that (a) there was no footpath or nature strip or (b) they were impracticable to use, so in the absence of any details, I'm just giving the pedestrian the benefit of the doubt, rather than unfairly judging him. This unfair judgment is something I get sometimes from motorists because of their incomplete understanding of the cyclist-related road rules, and it would be a shame if cyclists similarly unfairly judged pedestrians before learning all the facts, because that would be a bit hypocritical.

he was in the city. I haven't seen an Australian city street without footpaths (well, not one that didn't have a sign stating "NO pedestrians").

I've seen numerous examples of streets where it's more practical to walk on the road and with the flow of traffic, and I still think that the above posts regarding this pedestrian are much the same as the way motorists sometimes treat cyclists. This seems to be turning into an argument, though, so no further comments from me, as I don't wish to annoy anyone.

[master6]

remind him, quite politely

........really?..........

[Livetoride]

It was on Swanston street going into the city. No peds allowed on the road, not to mention he A- ran with the traffic and B- never tried getting out of the way... We can all share the road etc but if you're not supposed to be there, DON'T, whether your a cyclist ped or motorist.

[human909]

he was in the city. I haven't seen an Australian city street without footpaths (well, not one that didn't have a sign stating "NO pedestrians").

I've seen dozens. In fact I grew up on one!

Not to mention the many CBD street malls! Burke St Melbourne?

[jasonc]

he was in the city. I haven't seen an Australian city street without footpaths (well, not one that didn't have a sign stating "NO pedestrians").

I've seen dozens. In fact I grew up on one!

Not to mention the many CBD street malls! Burke St Melbourne?

A part of Bourke st is a mall. This is for foot traffic. The rest of Bourke st has a foot path on both sides.

EDIT: how about we let LTR's comment reign in this situation:

It was on Swanston street going into the city. No peds allowed on the road, not to mention he A- ran with the traffic and B- never tried getting out of the way... We can all share the road etc but if you're not supposed to be there, DON'T, whether your a cyclist ped or motorist.

pedestrian was breaking the rule. there was a footpath.

[TraceyG]

remind him, quite politely

........really?..........

Some injudicious editing and I could be taken out of context on this!

My original statement was "quick to remind him, quite politely in the circumstances"

So, yes, really. He wasn't abused, our language was significantly more moderate than his.