Hikers who REFUSE to move over even a little bit

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 66829 wrote:

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

no, as someone who can’t control their bike at 3MPH also poses a risk to others.

I assume the typical rider has more control at 8MPH than at 15, and less then at 3MPH. and of course that the danger increases with velocity, independent of the question of control.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 66828 wrote:

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.

And I would also suggest that moving over to the right now and then (or even walking off the trail in many places) isn’t that big a deal – and I say this is someone who has probably spent MORE time on MUTs as a pedestrian than as a cyclist.

I also note my experience as a rider, on MUTs, other than that very short section of the MVT noted above, is entirely on weekends, usually when the weather is good. There are lots of places where, riding at 6 to 8 MPH, the question of passing between pedestrians comes up regularly at those times. Again, I’m not suggesting passing closely, or that pedestrians must walk single file at all times. I am merely suggesting the guidance provided by NVRPA for example (with whom we may disagree on some matters but they do own and maintain the W&OD) is not unreasonable – though NVRPA does not phrase it as a demand, and neither do I. All I am asking is that more of my fellow trail walkers, consider walking the way I do.

[DismalScientist]

The Washington area is the center of douchebaggery of the entire universe. This is reflected in the way we drive, bicycle and walk. If I am in the situation were I can make it easy for someone to pass me without any skin off my nose, I will let them do so. That the hikers say (correctly) that they have no legal obligation to move over after you repeatedly requested only further indicates that they are douchebags.

[Occasional rider]

@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.

OP here! I definitely do NOT go 15 mph, even downhill! I was going 8 mph at the time of the incident and when there are no pedestrians, I tend to go 9-10 mph, depending on terrain and substrate. I am riding for enjoyment and I like to go slowly enough to enjoy the scenery.

Look, I want to make sure everyone understood that I didn’t say that the pedestrians had an obligation to move over. I was saying that I thought it would be great if everyone was considerate. Which is, I know, about as likely as winning the lottery.

The fact is that there is enough room for two people to walk side-by-side without being all the way to the far left-side of the lane; I didn’t realize that I was obligated to pass in the oncoming lane so I appreciate learning that. It is also a fact that taking a step to the right indicates that they heard my bell. Just a good thing for everyone, even if I’m passing by moving into the oncoming lane, because this way I know they aren’t going to move LEFT or cross the trail – which has also happened to me – people decide to head back and make a U-turn without looking, or cross the trail to look at something and don’t bother to look over their shoulder to see if anyone is coming.

I have been checking MD law (statute and regs) and can’t find anything that says that pedestrians have the right of way over bikes except on a sidewalk. I’ll continue to look and if I find anything, will post it here.

[jabberwocky]

@Occasional rider 66840 wrote:

I have been checking MD law (statute and regs) and can’t find anything that says that pedestrians have the right of way over bikes except on a sidewalk. I’ll continue to look and if I find anything, will post it here.

Pedestrians don’t have any special right of way over bikes in most situations, its merely that the party being passed (and oncoming traffic) has right of way over anyone passing.

Most MUPs (multi use paths, like the Mt. Vernon trail, the W&OD, the Custis, the Capital Crescent, etc) will have their own specific rules as well. You’ll find the vast majority do require that cyclists yield to slower trail users.

[Amalitza]

@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?

1) There’s a difference between 2 people who know each other and are walking or jogging together, intentionally at the same pace, and are therefore predictable to each other, vs. two strangers at different speeds passing each other. If you and I are out for a walk together, we can safely and predictably (unless a snake jumps out at us:p) walk so close we are nearly touching each other. If I am jogging and about to pass a stranger, I can’t pass that closely without risking that he will move left, put an arm out in my face, stop to tie a shoelace, something like that. There should be, and almost always is, more distance between the passing strangers than the walking-together friends.

2) If I am a cyclist about to pass a jogger who is about to pass a walker, both of whom are strangers to me, even if it is theoretically possible for the jogger to safely pass the walker within the lane, it is not safe for me to assume that is what he will do. Maybe he will, or maybe he will swing a bit wide as he passes this stranger. You don’t know for sure what the jogger is going to do until he is actually side-by-side passing the slower guy. You don’t know if the northbound jogger is going to stay in the northbound lane, until he’s actually done it. True, you can’t be 100% positive that two people walking side by side will not drift over to the left while you’re passing, but it’s much more of a sure thing.

[lordofthemark]

I just want to add that despite many people insisting on their rights when a small concession of them could help others, and the far more serious case of people actually doing dangerous and improper things (whether its cyclists going too fast, passing to close, or not calling passes, joggers and peds doing crazy ivans, etc, etc) the fact is the trails work remarkably well, with most people doing a wonderful job of sharing them. DESPITE the heavy usage and the inherent difficulties that come with the variety of uses and speeds.

I still come away from my time on trails (whether as walker or cyclist) generally with very positive feelings. I would prefer to push for MORE trails, to at least address to some extent the crowding on the existing ones.

[NicDiesel]

@DismalScientist 66839 wrote:

The Washington area is the center of douchebaggery of the entire universe. This is reflected in the way we drive, bicycle and walk. If I am in the situation were I can make it easy for someone to pass me without any skin off my nose, I will let them do so. That the hikers say (correctly) that they have no legal obligation to move over after you repeatedly requested only further indicates that they are douchebags.

If I could give you a MEGA-ULTRA-TO-INFINITY-ELITE I would have for this beautiful summation of this situation. I’m shocked that people would argue the legality of something so banal but that’s DC for you.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 66843 wrote:

I just want to add that despite many people insisting on their rights when a small concession of them could help others,

Asking two people walking together on a path to march single file is not a small concession. It basically means they can no longer enjoy a companionable time idly conversing with their partner. Saying they don’t have to do it all the time, but only when it’s convenient for a cyclist, is just arrogant.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 66845 wrote:

Asking two people walking together on a path to march single file is not a small concession. It basically means they can no longer enjoy a companionable time idly conversing with their partner. Saying they don’t have to do it all the time, but only when it’s convenient for a cyclist, is just arrogant.

No one has to do it any of the time.

And of course lots of us have companionable times hiking with partners without being side by side (not being side by side is pretty standard on actual hiking trails.) Now, it may be that you and your partner are walking on a MUP precisely because you want the kind of conversation you can’t have on the Billy Goat Trail, say. But maybe, just maybe, you aren’t, and you are just walking side by side because you aren’t thinking about it either way. Thats possible too. In that case, it might be nice, to go single file to convenience others.

Do you think that when I choose to walk single file, I am endangering others – by encouraging cyclists to pass in lane?

We need more support to have more trails (and better conditions on the trails we have). Cyclists, joggers and walkers (and the occasional roller blader and equestrian) are all constituents for trails. None of us own the trails, and we should all try to make the experience better for each other. The rules of most trails give pedestrians ROW over cyclists – and thats as it should be, AFAICT, for reasons of safety. But that does not mean cyclists are guests of pedestrians on the trails, as they are on sidewalks, IIUC. So that means some concession of legal rights is called for. But a voluntary concession of legal rights must be about good will, and a spirit of being on the same side. Not about cyclists demanding things, and not about pedestrians seeing any expression of the desirability of such a concession as a demand.

[mstone]

@NicDiesel 66844 wrote:

If I could give you a MEGA-ULTRA-TO-INFINITY-ELITE I would have for this beautiful summation of this situation. I’m shocked that people would argue the legality of something so banal but that’s DC for you.

I don’t think anyone is talking about legality so much as morality. Which is worth doing in a place where SUV drivers expect cyclists to get off the road for their convenience and cyclists expect pedestrians to get off the trails for theirs. All while wrapping their selfish desires in language about courtesy.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 66847 wrote:

I don’t think anyone is talking about legality so much as morality. Which is worth doing in a place where SUV drivers expect cyclists to get off the road for their convenience and cyclists expect pedestrians to get off the trails for theirs. All while wrapping their selfish desires in language about courtesy.

Ah. I thought that was in the back of this SUV/bike/road to cyclist/ped/trail

First of all of course many (most) cyclists do try to make it easier for motor vehicles to pass safely. The problem is that there are so many places where its not as safe as drivers think. There are few such instances where walking to the right on a MUP is dangerous.

Second that SUV driver has probably not ridden a bike or at least not ridden it on a road. I venture that 100% of cyclists on trails have walked, and the majority have walked on trails. We DO understand the issues walkers face. (if not always the issues that joggers face.)

And the physics is different. As I said above. There are plenty of folks who can ride 8 MPH on a flat trail, or somewhat faster on a moderate downhill, who will really benefit from momentum going uphill.

And the politics is different. Profoundly different. There are no cyclists pushing to ban pedestrians from MUTs. There is no ongoing meme being pushed of pedestrians engaging in a war on cyclists.

There is legality. There is morality. And there is courtesy. That some drivers and some pundits abuse the discussion of courtesy on roads to push an anti-bike agenda, is no reason we can’t all use courtesy on the trails.

[mstone]

@lordofthemark 66848 wrote:

Ah. I thought that was in the back of this SUV/bike/road to cyclist/ped/trail[/quote]

Yes, I’m very consistent in my insistence that all modes should defer to more vulnerable users. It’s a very simple and defensible guideline.

Quote:

First of all of course many (most) cyclists do try to make it easier for motor vehicles to pass safely. The problem is that there are so many places where its not as safe as drivers think. There are few such instances where walking to the right on a MUP is dangerous.

Baloney: I already listed the numbers; there is not sufficient space for cyclists to safely pass in the middle the way that we’ve all seen ELITE cyclists do. I understand that you’re trying to create this straw man about cyclists who need to do it all the time but only at a safe speed (because that sounds better), but it’s ridiculous. Go out and observe actual behavior, and you’ll see that you’re just attempting to rationalize jackholery.

“Try to make it easier to pass safely” is an interesting concept. What, exactly, does that mean to you? To me, it means not shoving myself over to the right and encouraging people to make unsafe passes. It also means pulling over completely if there isn’t anywhere to pass safely and someone is stuck behind me. Are you seriously arguing that the MUTs have no opportunities to safely pass?

Quote:

Second that SUV driver has probably not ridden a bike or at least not ridden it on a road. I venture that 100% of cyclists on trails have walked, and the majority have walked on trails. We DO understand the issues walkers face. (if not always the issues that joggers face.)

Really? I’m seeing precious little evidence of empathy for people who are often literally (and justifiably) concerned about their safety, and a lot of blaming them for not being “considerate” enough.

Quote:

And the physics is different. As I said above. There are plenty of folks who can ride 8 MPH on a flat trail, or somewhat faster on a moderate downhill, who will really benefit from momentum going uphill.

Tell that to the woman who got killed by a cyclist on a MUP last year. A couple hundred pounds of bike + rider going 10+ MPH is plenty to mess someone up or worse if they’re particularly vulnerable. If you can’t make it up the hill, get off the f’ing bike and walk up the hill. It won’t kill you, and it will only embarrass you if you’re overly vain. Or you can HTFU. But justifying putting other people in danger so you can maintain “momentum” is just poor.

Quote:

And the politics is different. Profoundly different. There are no cyclists pushing to ban pedestrians from MUTs. There is no ongoing meme being pushed of pedestrians engaging in a war on cyclists.

Actually, the politics aren’t so different. There’s a fairly regular push to get cyclists banned from trails, or ridiculously low speed limits imposed. Some of that is just haters being haters, and some of that is people who really are concerned about the safety of themselves and their children, based on interactions with entitled cyclists who can spend all day coming up with reasons why they shouldn’t have to slow down for someone else. Go ahead and read the comments to any bike/trail story and you’ll see people complaining about cyclists passing too close. To some degree I discount the evil cyclist meme, but then I see cyclists complaining about pedestrians who won’t GTFO of their way and I just facepalm.

Quote:

There is legality. There is morality. And there is courtesy. That some drivers and some pundits abuse the discussion of courtesy on roads to push an anti-bike agenda, is no reason we can’t all use courtesy on the trails.

Again, this is a strawman. There is nothing “courteous” about walking single file and giving up your time with your companion so someone else can avoid slowing down. There is nothing “courteous” about gluing yourself to the edge of the trail so someone can more easily pass you unsafely. There is nothing “courteous” about getting irate about other people trying to have a pleasant time on a shared trail. Sure, if someone walks to the right of their lane instead of the left it’s nicer for everybody. But if they don’t, it takes an awful big ego to make it about you. And a bigger ego to call them selfish for not thinking more about you.

[ebubar]

What’s that golden rule? Treat others how you would like to be treated? That’s how I tend to ride. There are many times when i’ve had to slow down or stop because of the situation described by the OP. So if I can’t pass in the opposite lane, I don’t do it and wait. If it happens on a hill, then I just get stronger by having to ride that hill without the crutch of using momentum. If i’m so feeble that I can’t stop and start on hills, then I shouldn’t be trying to bike 15 miles to work in the first place.

I think others have already said how it, but my rules:
1) Defer to more vulnerable users. I think cars need to do this for bikes (unfortunately they often don’t…sad face). I hope for some good karma by doing this for pedestrians.
2) Ride how I would want someone to ride if I was walking. I don’t like being buzzed by cars and i’m sure peds don’t like being buzzed by bikes.
3) Always use a bell and thank people whether they acknowledge you or not.
4) Assume that your bad interactions are flukes and one time mistakes. I make stupid passes because i’m not thinking sometimes. I assume others do the same and give the benefit of the doubt.
5) Chill out and enjoy the ride!

[lordofthemark]

MStone

I feel like this discussion is about a position and attitude I have not actually expressed You are taking a position I mostly agree with and if you saw me riding on the trails, I think you would find my biking in precisely the way you approve of. So I think this argument is mostly pointless.
Maybe I can still learn something more from it, though.

” To me, it means not shoving myself over to the right and encouraging people to make unsafe passes.”

As a walker, should I go out of my way to be at the center of the lane to discourage unsafe passes? That would be the analogy to taking the lane on the road, would it not?

“A couple hundred pounds of bike + rider going 10+ MPH is plenty to mess someone up or worse if they’re particularly vulnerable. “

Okay, now we are getting somewhere. The danger point, in your view, it seems, is 10+ MPH, not 15MPH. And walking pace, which remains undefined, is not unsafe (for passing between peds on the edges of the trail). So we are somewhere between 4MPH and 9MPH? Depending, I presume on the rider’s skill, the maneuverability of the bike, the terrain, etc?

I would note that in the case of the ped killed (tragically) on the 4MRT the rider was (IIRC) passing appropriately, and the ped moved improperly.

And the calls to ban cyclists from trails are not similar to calls to ban cyclists from roads – they are the equivalent of calling to ban motorists from roads. So, as I said, the politics is different.

[Author]

Posts