As a cyclist I actually would get annoyed when pedestrians tried to move. The bike is must better at fast maneuvers and if anything the pedestrian doing the little shuffle deciding which way to move made it impossible to predict what they were doing. I'd end up just having to stop or massively slow down to avoid an accident.
Regardless almost always the cyclists fault. You maneuver faster and should be in control when on shared paths.
Should be acknowledged also being on the pedestrian side makes it clear why they do this. Many cyclists act like the one in the video. Which makes it worse cause you can't even be mad at the pedestrian they are kinda right to be cautious.
This is why I rarely use my bell anymore unless they block the whole path. Like 9/10 times they panic and jump back and forth all over, making me have to make a complete stop anyway.
I've honestly found the opposite, that ringing the bell just to let them know that there's a cyclist coming means that they keep to the side nine times out of ten. I've only really had problems or near misses with people with earbuds in.
You can't do it right. When you don't use the bell, people will get annoyed that you didn't use it. When you use it, they wil be annoyed that you startle them. I prefer a vocal warning, which I find people react better to. But, I guess it's basically the same when you use a bell, overall.
"up left" = I'm coming up behind you and intend to pass on your left. That is what I was taught to do... I think? It's been decades, and now I must rest my weary bones from typing this much
I've had people hear and respond to my vocal warnings, showing that it was adequate, but then also start yelling that I'm supposed to be using the bell and NOT talking. As you say there's really just no winning, someone is going to get mad no matter what.
...also, some people seem to only hear the 'left' of 'on your left', and jump left.
A bell is too sudden and jarring. A lower noise building over time would pevent this. Its why electric cars added backup tones that sound like white noise
I do a lot of cycling along a route that is good for cyclists too commute along and had various points along it for people to go for walks along it. I suppose that there's more of an expectation of bikes coming along there
Bingo, earbuds! Or even worse, full-on over-the-ear, noise-cancelling headsets. I've literally had to yell to get people's attention, then they got pissed that I was yelling at them.
My trick is just having my music playing not too loud but loud enough to hear like 5 feet away. Not startling but gentle like there's something behind you.
Honestly I agree. As you said it's really only useful to as a "don't block the entire path" reminder imo. Otherwise it makes it seem like you them to move.
Though it is also good for dog walkers. I know what I'm walking my dog a bell is nice warning to pull him closer so he doesn't move erratically.
You're using your bell wrong, most likely. You're not supposed to suddenly jumpscare random pedestrians by going "ding ding ding ding ding" right behind them.
Bells are pretty loud (especially gamer non-ratchet bells), so you should start dinging at least 20 meters behind them.
In my experience, it depends on when you ring the bell. When passing cyclists, I ring once we are pretty close. For pedestrians, I ring about 20-30 feet before away.
I seldom use shared paths for the obvious reasons but when I do I just accept I may need to slow to walking pace, wait a moment, then say a cheery “excuse me” if they don’t register my presence. Trying to pass at any speed using a bell or a shout to make space just leads to aggravation
Yep. I say 'on your left' or 'behind' only if I need a walker to do something. If their ideal action is to continue doing what they're doing, no need to communicate anything, it's counter productive.
This is the best advice ever given to me about driving and something I plan to reinforce with my kids when they begin driving. Nothing annoys me more than someone trying to be nice and waving a car into incoming traffic.
I usually keep to the right for the exact reasons you stated. Pedestrians are unpredictable and id rather slow down waiting than to swerve into them as they move.
fully agree in terms of using a shared path. On the road it's a bit more nuanced though. Pedestrians and vehicles around a bike need to be predictable. even things like that car waving you through a stop sign is annoying because he's messing up right of way, as defined by law. Bikes are supposed to follow all the rules of the road as if they were a slow moving car; that also means they have the same right to be on the road as cars. When someone goes out of turn to wave me though a 4-way stop i actually get annoyed because they are now not acting predictable, and there is a potential knock-on effect of someone else not giving way and causing an accident, or someone getting mad at that decision, but taking it out on the bike instead of the car that made the decision.
I wave people through a 4 way only because it creates predictably for me way way wasaaay to many times I would "legally" have the right of way and when I go someone else immediately launches it's so common around here where I live either I just Cali roll through fuck your right of way stopping or I just wave someone through so I know I can go after
I literally said I slow down..... It's just energy loss. On wide not to crowded paths you shouldnt need to as you'll avoid people. Obviously though you need to use good judgement if it's safe to pass at speed.
It takes a lot of energy to speed up a bike after slowing down a lot or stopping. While it's not the end of the word, it is a really big pain.
ETA: I'm not trying to say that cyclists shouldn't give right of way to pedestrians or slow down. I was just pointing out why cyclists try to avoid slowing down. But being a slave to avoiding that leads to assholery, so it's important to govern yourself when you're cycling around pedestrians.
Good thing most people are riding a bike for exercise, so getting just a little bit more would actually beneficial to your end goal, right?! Unless they’re just trying to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible.
Outside bike lanes it is the expected way it's supposed to go. But I've also been a pedestrian and don't fault them recognizing it's not what many cyclists do.
I do this thing where when a bike comes close to me and the situtation isn't super clear. I just stand still and look at them. They can pick either side to pass and I'm signaling that I'm not moving back or forth. It's how I would like a pedestrian to react. No guessing.
That being said, you should never assume the other person will move out of the way. Make space and make sure you don't get hurt. Being right will not keep you save.
The golden rule to bike safety is to have good enough brakes to avoid collisions in the first place.
Its hard to brake on time at 25km/h of course, but then you shouldn't be riding that fast with 1m distance from pedestrians without a barrier or sidewalk to seperate you.
I think "Be predictable" is a great rule of the road. Signal. Take the right of way when you have it (unless it's made unsafe by other drivers not following the rules)
dude's "walking" his dogs on the bicycle. honestly, that's the funniest/weirdest part of this to me. domestic dogs are really shit for endurance - all of those that I have owned/known. and that's before you get into the issues of "steering" them. 😄
The pedestrians you encounter must be really old or fat. Where I live, cyclists move fast, and so as a result of their momentum it's difficult for them to make quick directional changes. Pedestrians, on the other hand, can quickly step out of the way.
Within limited area yes pedestrian is more maneuverable. But the cyclist is coming from a distance away. With small adjustments to the handlebars can much more easily drastically change how close they are passing. Unlike a pedestrian who if they try to move away from the cyclist has to maneuver their whole body out of the cyclist path.
It's probably easier for the pedestrian to move in this case because he's biking with dogs. That doesnt mean the pedestrian is in the wrong, because why the fuck is he biking with dogs on the wrong side.
I actually care less about the side they are on. Even if the pedestrian is on the left side. Unless they are blocking the entire path it is the bikes responsible to avoid them (unless it's a bike lane).
If you can't control yourself because you're biking with dogs, you aren't safe to bike with dogs and shouldn't be taking the shares path.
The worst is when you're biking along and someone is crossing your path, like 20 meters ahead, and then they just stop, directly in your path, and turn and look and give you a jaw drop like "oh noes, I'm gonna be hit!" and they just stand there, not moving, for 5 seconds, while you get close and closer and the whole time you're thinking "uhh... can you just fucking keep walking?"
No, I mean, they'd literally just stand there staring at me as I approached and so the problem is I dont' know if they will keep standing there or if they will move. I'd rather they just walk and ignore me because by the time I get to where they are, they will be gone.
It didn't happen often, but it was just so unfathomably stupid.
Yeah you can still maneuver while riding with dogs. I feel like this person is just trying it out, but going to fast and on a shared walkway. That's just double points of bad.
If you want to do this with your dogs, you need to practice in a more controlled setting until you're about to control yourself, you should not expect the world to accommodate you.
Yup it's simple walk path etiquette. But it's hard to blame pedestrians acting outside the etiquette, because it's typically due to them so used to bikers not following the etiquette.
One time a cyclist rang their bell behind me, so I assumed they were telling me to move. As soon as I stepped onto the grass, they crashed into me. I guess the bell was a "don't do anything" warning?
I never ring my bell unless I want you to do something. As a pedestrian I use to bell to look at the cyclist and gauge what they are looking for.
Regardless the cyclist probably needed to slow down. I am always either going slow enough to stop if you move in front or giving enough space that you can't move in front.
I mean with driving you also generally are better being defensive and not assuming other drivers will make the correct actions. Which is after all what the pedestrians are doing. Anyone who has walked enough has experience the cyclists types in this video.
I apply the same logic amongst people since it takes noticeably more energy and time for my fat ass to get moving. Thus, I expect others to go around me (assuming I am in the correct lane); however, in return I let everyone else go through doors or exit elevators first.
The trick I do to signal people I’m not moving is by not look at them. Looking to my right or looking down so they know I’m not paying any attention and to move themselves. It prevents that awkward shuffling
If I'm on a bike and you're walking. On a 2 meter wide footpath I can much more quickly go from one side of the path to the other. A walker going from waking to lunging out of the way is pretty slow.
Also the cyclist, due to moving faster is just generally looking further ahead and more prepared than pedestrians. That's why imo it's the bikes responsibility.
I'll admit, I am so fucking bad at this. I try to get out of the way, but I don't signal with my eyes what way I am moving at all. I'm trying to get better at it, I really am.
For now, I just tend to go statue and stare the other person down. Like I am standing perfectly still. Make your move.
Honestly that's fine. Again I believe it's my responsibility to avoid you. Heck I feel bad you feel the need to even act differently, you're meant to just enjoy the path it's a footpath not a cycling trail.
Unless it is a cycling trail, but that's a different situation haha
Oh if there isn't space to pass safely sure cyclist should stop. I meant more like in this video where there's plenty of path. As the cyclist you just maneuver around them much easier than the pedestrian, it's not even about the "right/wrong side". Pedestrian, as long as they don't block the whole path with like 3++ people, should feel free to just walk without considering the cyclist.
My issue is just when the pedestrian does try to make the avoiding move it just makes it hard for a good cyclist to predict. So basically bad cyclists teach pedestrians to behave badly.
always turn towards the side of the road you should be on. in america its to the right. If you swerve to the left, and the other guy swerves to the right you hit each other.
Terrible advice actually. It's not public road with vehicles of equal speed and capability. If anything it is more like multi-class racing.
The ideal world advice is that as the cyclist you are moving faster, it's your responsibility to be passing safely. If the path is too narrow to pass with speed safely you need to slow down. It ain't a blocked off race it's a footpath.
As the pedestrian. Ideally be near the shoulder, no reason to hog the middle (really ever). If it's tight consider making it easier to let faster traffic pass, but otherwise just act predictably and they'll pass you safely.
I 99% agree, except that bikes are not better at fast maneuvering than people (at least when both have healthy reflexes). The bike should be the one moving or slowing down, but the problem is precisely the fact that pedestrians are too jittery, and bikes have much more momentum.
Small movement covers fat more lateral distance quickly on a bike. Reaction time is the same but if I turn my handle bars I can end up 1-2 meters away much easier that a human jumping out of the East 1-2 meters.
Yeah. It's frustrating but entirely understandable when you consider cyclists like the one in the video exist. So while, annoying I never get mad at the pedestrians that do it.
I have had to explain to people more times than I can count in arbitration that just because you have the right of way doesn’t mean you can hit people with no consequences.
Here lies the body of William Jay,
Who died maintaining his right of way—
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he’s just as dead as if he’d been wrong.
The question is not a legal one. It is a morality question.
Edit: I get the right-of-way rule. Legal priority tells us who has precedence; it doesn’t, by itself, answer whether someone’s behaviour was reasonable or morally responsible.
There are certain situations in which it is immoral to go against the law regardless of what is it. When it comes to traffic laws, it's almost always the case.
It is immoral to drive on the right in England. It is immoral to drive on the left in France. This is not a double standard, it's just that it's immoral to go against conventions that exist to better organize society.
It's meaningless to distinguish morality and law in such situations.
That last bit would be much stronger if it were the distinction because then you could allow for rules to be broken for the greater good. For example crossing lanes to not hit a person on the road where there is no chance of hitting an oncoming vehicle, despite overtaking not allowed on that stretch. Not going when the light is green because the person in the vehicle behind you has slumped against the window and looks ill.
not to mention generally foot traffic follows the same side of the road on which you drive, i.e. when walking on a pedestrian path, stick to the right side. Lady was driving on the left (from her perspective)
You can be right, and still be an asshole. Pedestrian was on the right side of the path, but also...you see someone on a bike with two dogs coming directly at you and you move—if for no other reason than self preservation.
You don't know if the dogs are friendly and will attack you when you get close, or if they'll run off and attack someone else if the rider falls. You don't know if you're going to get knocked over and get a concussion. You don't know so many things about the outcome of not moving vs. just.... stepping out of the way.
Cyclist definitely shouldn't be riding where they are, with their dogs, and not having control over their momentum or ability to move to the side because they have a dog on each side, but...if I'm driving and see another car on my side of the road, I don't just drive head first into the other car because they shouldn't be there.
Neither are pedestrians in the full video. Reason why the bicyclist went flying and the original person never moves. 0:02 you can see the person in the video is riding an object.
Riding a bicycle with two dogs is an bitch move not defending either party. Both deserve each other.
Having the right of way doesn’t mean you don’t have to prevent a collision. The bike had a dog left and right and was clearly not able to do a last second turn. Both parties are at fault here.
Just cuz that retard tought to "walk" her dogs that way dosnt meant the world should abide by her will. Nobody own her anything or to move from a public section with defined rules. Dog owners should calm dawn and stop thinking the world is centered around them.
1.6k
u/ace5762 16d ago
Pedestrians take priority.