Hikers who REFUSE to move over even a little bit

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 66809 wrote:

Dont take what Im about to say as advocacy of anything, but as musings and questions

1. A single ped is walking southbound. A cyclist is riding northbound, and is behind a pair of peds walking northbound. The southbound ped is staying to HER far right (the westernmost part of the MUT). If the folks walking Nbound get single file to the right, its possible to bike up the center line of the MUT. Do you consider that dangerous? I understand you can wait, but if there are LOTS of peds in both directions, you are going to wait a long time. Its similar to some sidewalks. [/quote]

Yes, I consider it dangerous unless you’re also at walking speed. Why? First, let’s assume a 10 foot MUT. Let’s then assume a 2 foot width for each pedestrian and the cyclist. That allows a 2 foot spacing between everyone assuming the pedestrians are right against the edge, nobody is wider than two feet, and nobody stumbles or swerves. That’s not a lot of margin for error at 15MPH, and there is absolutely no bail-out if something unexpected happens. (E.g., if the person on the right turns around, your margin is gone on that side, and if you jerk your handlebar you just hit the person on the left.) By contrast, passing in the left lane, assuming the pedestrians are on their side of the line, I can give 3 feet of clearance, and if something unexpected happens I can bail out off the path on the left. Again, if you’re down to walking pace, do whatever the situation demands. At that point if you hit someone it’s basically like you tripped and fell on them, and you’re not likely to do much damage; I basically consider a really slow cyclist to just be a wheeled pedestrian.

Can you get away with this most of the time? Sure. But every once in a while someone gets pretty seriously hurt, and there’s another call for cyclists to get banned. All from a completely preventable accident caused because someone didn’t want to slow down for a few seconds.

Quote:

2. The peds are not walking but standing. Or the ped on one side is standing

They’re only standing until they start moving, and you don’t know when that will be. Be careful. If they’re not standing off the trail, I consider it fairly likely that they’re going to do something else stupid, also.

Quote:

3. There is a cyclist going Nbound, behind a runner going Nbound, behind two walks going NBound. If the walkers stay two abreast, the runner will need to go to the opposite lane. At that point should the cyclist to go to the opposite lane, and pass the runner within lane? Or wait (which is always a solution but depending on traffic, can impair the utility of the trail). In that case if the walkers went one abreast, the jogger could pass in lane easily, while the cyclist could pass in the opposite lane.

Passing someone who’s passing someone is a jerk move no matter what. The runner isn’t expecting it, and if he has to suddenly swerve he’s not going to expect you to be there. So slow down and wait.

Quote:

Again, as a walker, I will routinely walk two abreast, but when there are lots of cyclists around, or when there is one coming up right behind, I make it a point to switch to single file. It just doesn’t make sense to me to come closer to faster traffic. Perhaps I am not enough of a “vehicular hiker”?

It’s a multi use trail, and people have every right to simply be recreating and spending time with someone else; it’s not a dedicated thoroughfare or a race track. I think the attitude from some cyclists that pedestrians need to get out of the way causes us all a lot of problems. There are a lot of times/places on the trails where you can go faster on a bike safely, but I think it’s reasonable to just relax when it isn’t one of those times/places. If you want to avoid slowing down for pedestrians, the proper place to ride is on the road. At no time is it reasonable to intimidate pedestrians or suggest that they need to stop reasonable activity because a cyclist has a superior right on the MUT. More, I think pedestrians should be encouraged to feel free to enjoy the trail as they wish, as long as they’re staying on their side of the line and not intentionally causing problems for others–if pedestrians don’t feel comfortable on the trails, we lose a lot of the community support we need to keep the trails.

@jabberwocky 66810 wrote:

Personally, if I can give everyone 2-3 or so feet, I’ll pass up the middle (slowing down first). Generally, that requires a single pedestrian on each side staying pretty close to the edge of the trail. If I can’t give that much space, I wait. Occasionally I screw up and misjudge and pass a little close, but I try my best to avoid that.

See above on distances; on most of our trails you’re just not going to get 3 feet in this situation, and you’re probably a lot closer than you think (while the pedestrian is fully aware of just how close you came). Now if you’re actually slowed to a pedestrian pace, carry on.

[lordofthemark]

@jabberwocky 66810 wrote:

Personally, if I can give everyone 2-3 or so feet, I’ll pass up the middle (slowing down first). Generally, that requires a single pedestrian on each side staying pretty close to the edge of the trail. If I can’t give that much space, I wait. Occasionally I screw up and misjudge and pass a little close, but I try my best to avoid that.

My mindset is that I try and ride like I would like cars to ride around me when I’m on the road. I hate it when cars buzz me because they are being impatient. I imagine pedestrians hate being buzzed because cyclists are being impatient.

I tend to agree but I would note – the difference is that a driver can always make it up the next hill. For many cyclists who are less skilled on hills, have bikes less suitable to climbing, etc, slowing for peds at certain key spots introduces problems beyond simply the time it takes to slow down till one has a spot to pass. at least on certain of the hillier MUT’s.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 66813 wrote:

I hear you, I am trying to clarify why. The difference between passing a jogger passing some peds, and a faster cyclist passing a slower cyclist passing some peds, is that the Nbound jogger can pass the peds within the Nbound lane. IF (as has been stated above) its safe for a Nbound ped to walk on the left edge of the Nbound lane, while a cyclist passes Nbound in the opposite lane, why is it dangerous to pass a Northbound jogger staying in the nbound lane while a ped swerves to the right edge of the Nbound lane? The distance from the left most non cyclist trail user to the passing cyclist is the same in both cases. Is it a matter of being spooked while passing, quite apart from the geometry?

If the jogger is passing in-lane, it might be ok for the cyclist to pass to the left of the left lane. But that was only a footnote in your original situation. It’s also going to a bad place if you take that next step and say that pedestrians need to be in single file, so joggers are compelled to pass in-lane, so cyclists can go as fast as they want. It’s also not clear that it’s always safe for a jogger to pass in-lane or that the jogger will remain in-lane while passing. And if the jogger does need to cross the line while passing, they’re going to do it much faster than a walker would.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 66814 wrote:

Yes, I consider it dangerous unless you’re also at walking speed. Why? First, let’s assume a 10 foot MUT. Let’s then assume a 2 foot width for each pedestrian and the cyclist. That allows a 2 foot spacing between everyone assuming the pedestrians are right against the edge, nobody is wider than two feet, and nobody stumbles or swerves. That’s not a lot of margin for error at 15MPH, .

OP is 58, is a newbie, and seems to indicate a lack of skills and confidence on the bike. I am assuming, based on my own experience, that OP is NOT riding at 15MPH (though granted OP says they are riding a road bike and not a department store MTB with 24″ wheels ) I think my assumption about the speed of this kind of cyclist, on a MUT, is different from yours.

Now I know the thread the needle folks who we notice most, and who probably create the most common issues, are folks going at 15MPH or more. I was trying to address spefically the issues of folks going slowly (who are the folks most likely to be petrified of road riding, I think).

Now if you are going at the paces of the walkers on the MUT, you dont need to pass them. But if they are walking at 2MPH (not uncommon) even a cyclist going at 3MPH will need to pass peds. As will naturally cyclists going 6 MPH. Or 8 MPH.

Thats what I had in mind, not someone going 15 MPH (which is basically the limit on most MUTs IIUC)

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 66815 wrote:

I tend to agree but I would note – the difference is that a driver can always make it up the next hill. For many cyclists who are less skilled on hills, have bikes less suitable to climbing, etc, slowing for peds at certain key spots introduces problems beyond simply the time it takes to slow down till one has a spot to pass. at least on certain of the hillier MUT’s.

You’re arguing that someone needs to pass fast and dangerous because they’re on an hill (where someone might be coming fast and blind from the other side)? If someone really has a bike that for some reason makes it impossible to travel at safe speeds, they need to take that bike somewhere else or get a better bike. I’m also a bit skeptical that someone who has this bike that can barely make it up the hill is actually going very fast…

[jabberwocky]

@mstone 66814 wrote:

See above on distances; on most of our trails you’re just not going to get 3 feet in this situation, and you’re probably a lot closer than you think (while the pedestrian is fully aware of just how close you came). Now if you’re actually slowed to a pedestrian pace, carry on.

I’m fully aware of that. Most of my MUP experience is on the W&OD, which is pretty wide, but you are correct that it really requires both people to be at the edge to actually give that much space (which does happen; many people run right on the edge or even on the gravel/grass on the W&OD).

@lordofthemark 66815 wrote:

I tend to agree but I would note – the difference is that a driver can always make it up the next hill. For many cyclists who are less skilled on hills, have bikes less suitable to climbing, etc, slowing for peds at certain key spots introduces problems beyond simply the time it takes to slow down till one has a spot to pass. at least on certain of the hillier MUT’s.

I sympathize, but honestly thats not really an excuse. MUPs contain pedestrians, who have the same right to the trail that cyclists do. If a cyclist is incapable of riding in a considerate, safe manner, they shouldn’t really be on the MUP.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 66817 wrote:

OP is 58, is a newbie, and seems to indicate a lack of skills and confidence on the bike. I am assuming, based on my own experience, that OP is NOT riding at 15MPH (though granted OP says they are riding a road bike and not a department store MTB with 24″ wheels ) I think my assumption about the speed of this kind of cyclist, on a MUT, is different from yours.[/quote]

I’m basing my assumptions on the type of cyclists I typically see passing down the middle. Most of the really cautious slow cyclists on the beginner bikes, I don’t see doing that. YMMV.

Quote:

Now if you are going at the paces of the walkers on the MUT, you dont need to pass them. But if they are walking at 2MPH (not uncommon) even a cyclist going at 3MPH will need to pass peds. As will naturally cyclists going 6 MPH. Or 8 MPH.

And I addressed that: if you’re going at a walking speed, I think of you as a pedestrian, and expect you to pass as any other pedestrian would (that is, essentially randomly maybe with a nice “hello”). This whole thing is only an issue if you’re going at a pace where you pose a risk to others.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 66814 wrote:

Again, if you’re down to walking pace, do whatever the situation demands. At that point if you hit someone it’s basically like you tripped and fell on them, and you’re not likely to do much damage; I basically consider a really slow cyclist to just be a wheeled pedestrian.

At this point it would be helpful if OP could tell us just how fast he actually rides on the trail. I am not going to embarass myself further by calling yet more attention to my slow speed I hope to have a significantly faster bike before I again find myself on a paved MUT (other than the very short section of the MVT that is part of my commute, which seldom has peds at rush hour)

[consularrider]

@lordofthemark 66822 wrote:

At this point it would be helpful if OP could tell us just how fast he actually rides on the trail. I am not going to embarass myself further by calling yet more attention to my slow speed I hope to have a significantly faster bike before I again find myself on a paved MUT (other than the very short section of the MVT that is part of my commute, which seldom has peds at rush hour)

She said she was riding about 8 mph. Don’t know if that was her impression or if she had a bike computer.

[lordofthemark]

@jabberwocky 66819 wrote:

I sympathize, but honestly thats not really an excuse. MUPs contain pedestrians, who have the same right to the trail that cyclists do. If a cyclist is incapable of riding in a considerate, safe manner, they shouldn’t really be on the MUP.

I think Im being misunderstood. I’m not advocating for anyone to pass closely or thread the needle or whatever. I think that if pedestrians would forego their right to the entire right half of the trail (and many, if not most, pedestrians do) it would help other trail users a great deal, especially those cyclists whose speeds and confidence make the roads particularly challenging.

[lordofthemark]

@consularrider 66823 wrote:

He said he was riding about 8 mph. Don’t know if that was his impression or if he had a bike computer.

Why so he did. I apologize for not rereading the OP in full.

I return to my questions, with the specification that the rider is going 8MPH.

I fully agree that a rider who is capable of going 15MPH, and is not willing to slow for peds does belong on the roads (though I suspect that there are some parts of FFX county, at least, where even they will have few good choices.)

[mstone]

@jabberwocky 66819 wrote:

I’m fully aware of that. Most of my MUP experience is on the W&OD, which is pretty wide, but you are correct that it really requires both people to be at the edge to actually give that much space (which does happen; many people run right on the edge or even on the gravel/grass on the W&OD).

I think the W&OD is 10 feet for most of the length, some places a bit more and some places a bit less. That isn’t really that much when you start doing the math even if it seems luxurious compared to some of the substandard 6 foot trails. As far as the gravel, I think of that as a separate path. (So, for example, I don’t change lanes to pass someone who’s on the gravel, though I will move over.)

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 66820 wrote:

if you’re going at a walking speed,…this whole thing is only an issue if you’re going at a pace where you pose a risk to others.

I’m trying to clarify at what pace a rider is a risk to othes. There is a difference between riding at 3MPH and at 8MPH – at least I think so. I tend not to think of 8MPH (or 6MPH) as walking pace.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 66824 wrote:

I think Im being misunderstood. I’m not advocating for anyone to pass closely or thread the needle or whatever. I think that if pedestrians would forego their right to the entire right half of the trail (and many, if not most, pedestrians do) it would help other trail users a great deal, especially those cyclists whose speeds and confidence make the roads particularly challenging.

I think that it’s pretty darn rare that you don’t get an opportunity to pass out-of-lane. And if it is so busy that you can’t, then it’s unlikely that you’re going even 8MPH. (The last time it happened to me I got stuck in the middle of a fun run.) Again, I think it’s unreasonable to demand that everyone else on the trail voluntarily give up their right to use it the way they want, just so someone else doesn’t have to slow down for a few seconds here and there. his really isn’t a big deal, if you go in with a generous attitude and don’t get bent out of shape about slowing down.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 66827 wrote:

I’m trying to clarify at what pace a rider is a risk to othes. There is a difference between riding at 3MPH and at 8MPH – at least I think so. I tend not to think of 8MPH (or 6MPH) as walking pace.

I think someone who can’t control their bike going 8MPH does pose a risk to others. Does that help?

[Author]

Posts