[lordofthemark]

I may be thinking about this differently because I do some of my biking, and most of my local trail walking on the Cross County Trail in Fairfax, large parts of which are not paved. That means there often is no clear center line, and often the entire trail width is not very rideable due to rocks, tree roots, ruts, etc. And OTOH the side of the trail does not have a 2 inch drop. It may not even be well defined either. There are also paved trails in parks that lack clear center lines, and that have tree roots creating difficult riding conditions (I know, HTFU, got that.)

So some of my points may be irrelevant or wrong WRT to the W&OD or the MVT.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 66892 wrote:

I don’t know exactly where the danger point is, and I have no burning desire to find out. For me, courtesy is not trying to push the limit to find out exactly where it is.

Agreed. That makes sense.

I really don’t know why you keep arguing about this when it is just so easy to slow down for a moment until there’s a safe opportunity to pass. If you’re going slow enough to pass without posing a danger to others you already know it (because you’re thinking primarily about someone else), and if you’re arguing about just how fast you can get away with, you’re probably being a jackhole.

Forgive me. Since this is, after all, a biking forum, and the OP was posting about his experience as a cyclist, so its natural to discuss this from the POV of a cyclist and to assume my point was from my POV as a cyclist. I was in fact mostly thinking about this from my POV as a walker (though informed by my experiences as a rider). I have only gotten back into riding in the last two years, but have walked the trails of FFX county for more than 10 years. In particular I walk on the Cross County Trail a great deal. I do not claim to be the walking equivalent of this
http://talesfromthesharrows.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-ideal-cyclist.html and do not think walkers should have to be. But I do feel better, when I walk, following the widespread trail sharing advice of staying to the right, perhaps especially on the trails I walk on which are often not as wide or in as good conditon as the W&OD (which I have walked on occasionally, but not often). I feel like I’m being told that I’m walking incorrectly – that I’m the walking equivalent of a gutter rider. I do not think that is the case.

[lordofthemark]

@mstone 66849 wrote:

Sure, if someone walks to the right of their lane instead of the left it’s nicer for everybody. .

I think we are getting hung up on language. To me the above IS courtesy. To me saying X is courteous, does not mean not doing X is rude. Courtesy is going beyond what is required. Trying to make it nicer for everybody is all I was talking about. And yes, I see lots of people do that.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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.)

[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]

@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)

[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)

[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.

[Author]

Posts