http://www.ctc.org.uk/article/cycling-guide/sharing-paths-walkers-code-of-conduct-for-cyclists
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Sharing paths with walkers: a Code of Conduct for cyclists"
(47 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
As a Strava user, I do agree 100% with this. I did temporarily try to hammer down the bike path from the Red Bridge to Ocean Terminal when Strava took off, but there's just so many people (high school kids mainly) on them, it's both pointless and dangerous.
These days, I tend to do my Strava times on road-based stretches instead.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"As a Strava user, I do agree 100% with this"
I see the CCE 'club' has 43 members -
http://app.strava.com/clubs/city-cycling-edinburgh
Some are regular users, but I suspect others have moved to the next 'app fad'.
Posted 12 years ago # -
You now have me intrigued. What is the next app fad?
Posted 12 years ago # -
"What is the next app fad?"
To some extent different for different people.
I imagine some people will have used things like MapMyRide more before Strava came along, and now?
Certainly I have changed travel/train/etc. apps as others with more/suit-me-better functions have come along.
With Strava there was certainly a rush of people trying it out, improving their personal bests and beating/not others - but I suspect that faded...
Posted 12 years ago # -
I think Strave will be more intesting/useful this year when I can compare my times with last year's best.
The KOM thing was okay for a while. Now it is dominated by riders who seem to be going out just to get KOMs. The only one I got that wasn't accidental*; the one that took several tries and some serious effort because I saw it as my hill, I lost the next day to someone who saw it fall off his five page list of KOMs and wanted it back. He can have it. I decided I have better things to do.
But it is still a useful training and ride logging tool.
*there was one other but it got flagged as dangerous and disappeared.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The next app fad will probably be something else aimed at time-offset SCRists, perhaps allowing them to record how many people they overtake then automatically boasting about it on the internet.
Posted 12 years ago # -
http://app.strava.com/stand-with-us
From Section 1: We Know The Rules
"Cycling, running and swimming are inherently dangerous"
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Tom - yeah, I think I'm in the same boat as you, tbf.
Posted 12 years ago # -
wingpig: "allowing them to record how many people they overtake then automatically boasting about it"
Ha, yes. It could be called Scalper (from those annoying accounts of sportives which describe the number of other cyclists overtaken or "scalped").
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'll abide by the code of conduct when the dog walkers do. Fair? The minute all dogs are on a lead/under close control, then we'll see that it's not just cyclists who are expected to follow the rules.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I signed the e-petition on strict liability last week. So if it means that the insurer of the car will always be claimed against regardless of blame, which is my interpretation, then I think I have to agree with sustrans as far as incidents with pedestrians, even when they don't look or even when they don't have their dog under control.
of course shared use has many interpretations. On the canal once I was ringing my bell at an older person, they were unmoved, so I slowed right down, indeed to a halt and I asked i might squeeze past the older person who was in a kind of semi catatonic state, she declined to move. Believe it was her view that cyclists should dismount and push around her, which is certainly one perspective
Posted 12 years ago # -
This seems to demonstrate the limitations of shared use paths.
Also the implicit liability aspect is worrying. Some pedestrians are "shared path incompetent" and some can be just plain malicious. Certainly not all keep an ear/eye open for cyclists on these paths. And few have lights or reflectives in the pitch dark in places like the Innocent. And they may have same mass or greater than the cyclist. I am happy to accommodate them but not to accept liability.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Yes amir but presumably you do not want car drivers to be held responsible insurance wise for all accidents with cyclists as is the case in some European countries, whereas I am saying I do because I believe this would actually change driver behaviour more meaningfully than any helmet debate, hi-viz debate, speed limit debate etc. I know I am in a minority, possibly even on this forum.
as that is my position I feel I must be consistent with walkers and dog walkers, despite numerous encounters with people who have gone out for a stroll and left their marbles at home.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The concept of a hierarchy of responsibility (car>cycle>foot) is flawed in my view. Car drivers are moving around at speed in heavy vehicles. Cyclists are similar weights to pedestrians with speeds that are lower.
I would like far mote journeys to be taken by bike or by foot. We need safe but efficient routes. I don't think that cyclists taking on strict liability for pedestrians would help at all.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The original piece had a para. On a clip from road wars showing a cyclist hitting a pedestrian. The cyclist was going round the pedestrian who made an unexpected movement into the cyclist's path. Sustrans still arguing the cyclist responsible. As I do not see a flaw in the hierarchy car, bike, pedestrian I am agreeing with sustrans.
On middle meadow walk, a pedestrian can be in the bike lane but a bike shouldn't be in the pedestrian lane
Posted 12 years ago # -
My understanding of 'strict liability' is that in a motorist vs cyclist collision, the burden of proof would be on the motorist. i.e. the motorist would be liable by default unless he/she could prove otherwise.
So for a cyclist/pedestrian collision, the cyclist would be held liable unless he/she could prove the pedestrian is at fault.
(It's not quite the same as the motorist always being liable)
Posted 12 years ago # -
@crowriver
And what do you say if a dog walker, provided with a code of conduct, says, "I'll abide by the code of conduct when the cyclists do" ?
Someone has to be big enough to take the first step. Or pedal.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Good to see a code of conduct for shared paths
Posted 12 years ago # -
[OT]
Some are regular users, but I suspect others have moved to the next 'app fad'.
I've not used Strava for 4 months.
LargelyEntirely because I've not been on the bike for 4 months.However, it will prove very useful in a slightly more extreme version of Tom's comparing this year's times to last year's. Strava's got a record of me at my very fastest up Arthur's Seat, so I'll have a true gauge of where I am in my return from injury.
I guess if Strava didn't exist I could try to decipher that info from my Garmin records, but those segment times make it a hell of a lot easier.
[/OT]Posted 12 years ago # -
I'll abide by the code of conduct when the dog walkers do. Fair? The minute all dogs are on a lead/under close control, then we'll see that it's not just cyclists who are expected to follow the rules.
That's the argument a lot of drivers use. "I'll respect cyclists when they stop jumping red lights". You shouldn't treat people badly based on the actions of a minority, or lump people together in a group and judge them based on the actions of a few members.Posted 12 years ago # -
"The purpose of the European directive is to put the primary burden of care where it belongs - with the primary cause of danger. It doesn't excuse anyone being stupid, but applies to cases where there's no immediate blame that'll stand up in court and assigns a presumption of responsibility.
In other words, it says that when you wield a deadly weapon, it's up to you to take care with it, not up to everyone else to get out of your way. But it still is up to everyone else not to jump out into your way." Nick Kew
I once had the misfortune to hit a child who ran out in front of me when I was on my bike. We both landed in the road but got up unharmed. This shows, I think, the difference between cars and bikes: there's not the same amount of danger and not the same need to allocate blame.
Posted 12 years ago # -
To those making parallels between motorists' attitudes to cyclists, and cyclists' attitudes to pedestrians: they are not the same thing.
Firstly, there's the territorial issue. On roads, motorists perceive (justifiably or not) that the roads are 'theirs' and cyclists should not be 'in the way' or even on the road at all. On paths, regardless of shared use markings/signs, pedestrians perceive (justifiably or not) the paths are 'theirs' and cyclists should not be bothering them. So cyclists are the unwelcome 'outsiders' in both territories, regarded as a nuisance, etc. I suggest it does not make much difference whether you obey the actual rules as a cyclist, you will always have broken the de facto rules by being there in the first place. Even when there is clear demarcation (ie. road/path markings) the majority users feel free to ignore these and impinge on cyclists' 'territory' at will.
Then there's the question of the 'danger' or threat posed by cyclists to pedestrians, which I'd say has to be pretty low, simply because in any collision the cyclist will come at least as badly if not worse.
The dog thing is related to the territory point above. The reason why dog owners only rarely control their dogs on shared use paths (let alone put them on a short lead) is because many clearly think that cyclists should not be there (even if technically allowed), therefore why should they consider how they might inconvenience cyclists? The owners often give the impression (though only a minority vocalise it) of only putting up with cyclists under suffereance, or even active antagonism. I'm sure those sentiments are reciprocated by many cyclists.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Crowriver, everythng you say above is correct, but that still doesnt negate bdellar's points.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm afraid the "cyclists aren't as dangerous to pedestrians as cars are to cyclists" is rather blinkered, as is the persecution perception therefore we have no need to change the (poor) way we act until others do the same.
About time to take one of my regular breaks from here I think. Does me good to have a break from teh interwebs arguments every now and then, and this feels like the right place. See you all in a couple of months!
Posted 12 years ago # -
I've been here before with misunderstood shared use paths and pedestrian behaviour.
I suppose behind what I say is I'm not as dangerous to pedestrians as cars are to me. It's easy to fall into the trap of talking about and on behalf of all cyclists at which point you have to defend the indefensible. My point is that strict liability isn't needed for cyclists because there is neither the harm nor the need to find blame for that harm. But if it came in for motorists and cyclists I'd be happy.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@SRD, the point was couched in rather emotive terms ie. "You shouldn't treat people badly". I don't recall advocating that!
@WC, a pity you are disappearing but I know what you mean. Thinking of taking a breather myself.
I don't buy the "persecution perception" line, nor do I think most cyclists' behaviour is poor. The consequences of dog walkers being presented with a code of conduct are likely to be less than spectacular I suspect, much as the effect on those cyclists who do charge around recklessly will be minimal. The de facto rules will continue to prevail, just as they do on the roads, despite the existence of the Highway Code.
It's simple majority/minority, ingroup/outgroup behaviour. Written rules do very little, if anything to change the unwritten ones.
Posted 12 years ago # -
@Tom
It isn't ever going to happen in this country (as I said, not even everyone on this forum wants strict liability). So it doesn't really matter that you are happy with it between cars and bikes but not bikes and peds? That is hardly a vote winner. I think there is a hierarchy of damage that can be done by a car, a bike and a pedestrian. In that order. I also feel if we were going to anticipate a law that would change driver's behaviours to cyclists then I would hope it would also help with cyclists' attitudes to pedestrians. There are a tiny number of bike-ped collisions reported so that is good, but their is some aggro out there. I would have hoped cyclists and pedestrians could get along better.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I sent this to Strava customer support:
"""
On the 'This is what we stand for' web page, section 1, 'We Know The Rules' (http://app.strava.com/stand-with-us), you state: "Cycling, running and swimming are inherently dangerous".In fact, cycling, running and swimming are inherently safe. What is inherently dangerous is inactivity and a sedentary lifestyle. For example, you are 20 times more likely to die early from obesity, stroke, diabetes, or heart-attack caused by a sedentary lifestyle, than you are in a cycling accident (source BMA).
Furthermore, cycling on its own very rarely kills anyone. What kills cyclists is incompetent drivers of motor vehicles - motor vehicles are inherently dangerous, cycles are not. However, cycling does carry some risk (note the word 'risk' is different to 'dangerous'). This risk is created mainly by motor vehicles. The risk of being killed or seriously injured while cycling is not significantly different to the risk of being killed or seriously injured while driving. You are just as unlikely to die while cycling as you are to die while driving.
Day-to-day decisions result in different risks being taken. For example, you would not agonise over whether to drive on a single-carriageway road or a motorway (freeway), even though the risks are different.
I would suggest you update the text on the web page accordingly. I would suggest something along the lines of:
"Laws and rules are created for our protection. Cycling, running and swimming are inherently safe. However, by following the law, and common sense, when it comes to traffic, weather, or conditions, it reduces our odds of getting hurt or hurting others. It's as simple as that"
"""and got this response:
"""
Mat Gordon, Jan 13 11:08 am (PST):
Hello-Thanks for your thoughts. I certainly can't make any promises, but I appreciate your time and sentiment - and I'll pass this along.
Thanks very much!
Mat
strava.com/athletes/mat_gordon
Strava Support Team
"""Posted 12 years ago # -
"I certainly can't make any promises, but I appreciate your time and sentiment - and I'll pass this along."
Well worth writing/sending.
Posted 12 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
