Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner

1 - 20 of 45 Posts

·
I'd rather be on my bike
Joined
·
2,749 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Throughout the campus here, there is a network of pedestrian and cycling paths that sprawl over a good part of the campus. Where the cycling paths end, there are bike lanes. Getting around the campus is pretty friendly for bikes, pedestrians and even cars. I often find myself on the campus since it is such a nice place to ride through most of the year. There are several very old buildings to see, along with a nice river and the feel of a well established university. This university recognized that there are a lot of people walking and lots of students on bikes, so they did a pretty good job designing a network of sidewalks, paths and cycling only paths that help split everything up to keep things moving and people safe. I mentioned this in another thread, and was accused of having a sense of self entitlement when I spoke of pedestrians using the cycling paths even though they are specifically marked as cycling paths and not for pedestrians. I was told to contact the campus police and file a complaint. I was told to slow down. I was told that I am impatient with pedestrians. I was told that I have an entitled attitude.

I would like to present you all with the pictures taken today, on a Sunday, down on the campus.

These are prominent at any intersection where the pedestrian sidewalk crosses the bike only path. Both paths run together at this point because the football stadium is to the left. This helps to ease foot traffic both coming and going from a home game. I can understand this. They are however clearly marked as you can see, and the bike path has a lane just like a road and is clearly a different color.



Every hundred feet or so, the bike only path is marked as such. It is very clear that this is for bikes only, and not pedestrians. This was taken a little further west of the stadium. The pedestrian path is adjacent to the bike only path.



This is a VERY common sight on the campus. He saw me as I had stopped and gotten off my bike before he got to me. I was setting up to take a picture. He had his headphones in, and continued on the path completely oblivious to the fact that he was on the wrong side. I was sure to check the path for oncoming cyclists, and you will notice that I am standing in the oncoming lane so that if one did come I would see it and vacate the path for them to pass. The worst part about this is that the pedestrian path is to the left less than 10 feet away.



Not 2 minutes later, a woman walked by, on the correct path, as shown in the picture. Headphone guy still oblivious to his surroundings further up the path. Even if a cyclist called out to him, he more than likely would not hear them.



Now, I don't know about anyone else, but to me the paths look pretty well marked. Pedestrians crossed out, and arrows telling cyclists which side to ride on. It is clear as day for me. Warning signs at intersections where the paths may cross. They did a pretty good job of laying this out and marking it. I don't feel like getting pissed at pedestrians who CLEARLY ignore the signs and just walk where they want to gives me a sense of entitlement. Headphone guy might have gotten semi buzzed as I went by because he was still walking on the bike only path further up.
 

·
I'd rather be on my bike
Joined
·
2,749 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,348 Posts
So there's a clearly posted rule that pedestrians aren't allowed, you're following the rules, they're not and YOU'RE the one who is entitled? I would say the people who feel as though it's okay for them to break the rules are the entitled ones. But you're on a bike, so you're automatically wrong. That seems to be the general sentiment in the US.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,821 Posts
It's really weird to see any sort of infrastructure reserved for bikes.

Like completely alien.

Cyclists are, by law, secondary users who "must yield" everywhere I've ridden. Even on-street bike lanes (the few not blocked my parked cars) require yielding to pedestrians if they happen to be there.

And there are several places in the city where a "bike path" and a much wider pedestrian-only walkway are side-by-side, and bicycles are of course still required to yield to pedestrians should they choose to walk on the bike path.

It doesn't really bother me, but perhaps my expectations have been lowered too much over the years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
I wish the multiuse paths in my area had 2 way traffic. It would prevent a lot of close calls. Governments here have to realize bike as a transports can be a viable and cheap alternative for all. We just need the patsh.
 

·
I'd rather be on my bike
Joined
·
2,749 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
So there's a clearly posted rule that pedestrians aren't allowed, you're following the rules, they're not and YOU'RE the one who is entitled? I would say the people who feel as though it's okay for them to break the rules are the entitled ones. But you're on a bike, so you're automatically wrong. That seems to be the general sentiment in the US.
I was told that by another member of this forum in the commuting section. I was hoping that he/she would give us their thoughts on this but they have not so far.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
726 Posts
Hell yes that looks awesome! I wish UGA would implement something like this. Would you mind taking a few more pictures of this and similar infrastructure you see on campus so that I might present it to the planning commission at the next session?
 

·
I'd rather be on my bike
Joined
·
2,749 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Sure thing! For most of the layout - this is how it looks. I don't know how many miles exactly it is and if there are multiple paths like this so I will have to do some exploring to find out. The path is really nice when used correctly. I find that getting across the campus on this particular one is rather quick if there are no pedestrians. Cyclists that do use it for the most part use it correctly, and don't use the pedestrian path.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,321 Posts
One other thing to remember is that since this is a university campus, I'm sure that a surprisingly huge portion of the population is trying to be very conspicuously rebellious and non-conformist. "Lines are a tool of our capitalist oppressors" et al.

Thinking about it, a campus is just about the worst place to waste nice infrastructure like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,255 Posts
Oh jeez. I agreed with you that peds. should not walk in a marked bike lane. You're sense of entitlement is this: you stated that you buzz peds. walking in the bike only lane because they don't belong there. *edit: You admit again to intentionally buzzing people, good job*. The entitlement comes with the buzzing. The fact remains, as was stated above, bicycles must yield to peds, and pass them with safety and care, no matter where they appear. All users of vehicles have a duty to avoid collisions with any other vehicle or pedestrian. Intentionally buzzing a ped. because they are in the wrong is callous, selfish, discourteous, and entitled. It's exactly parallel to a motorist buzzing a cyclist on the road, because the motorist thinks they don't belong there.

In the picture you showed with the ped. in the bike lane: where's the problem? There is so much room to announce yourself, slow down, and pass with care. If it really upsets you, maybe, politely remind the peds. that they're walking in a bike only lane? Don't buzz the person. They're just trying to get where they're going. It's not some pedestrian conspiracy to ruin your day.

Here's the short response: intentionally riding your bike at an unsuspecting person to intimidate them is ****ed. Stop doing it.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,886 Posts
It's really weird to see any sort of infrastructure reserved for bikes.

Like completely alien.
Honestly, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I've never had the good fortune to ride in a bike only infrastructure and have the chance to feel entitled.

I'd chalk up the ped in bike lane behavior, 80% to being oblivious (headphone people.... :madman:) and 20% to giving a finger to the man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,255 Posts
In areas where motor traffic is removed and bike/ped traffic is allowed, a totally different type of riding is required. Pedestrian traffic is the least predictable. It takes a different mindset. Instead of 'this space is mine' it needs to be 'this space is ours'; free of the dangers of fast moving vehicles. The problem is as much your mindset as that of pedestrians.

Peds see that lane as a calm place to walk, free of the threat of motorized vehicles. You see it as your personal freeway through an area filled with unpredictable people. It's amazing how stress melts away when the notion of 'this is mine, that is yours' is replaced with 'this is ours, let's all get where we're going safely and enjoy the landscape and presence of human beings without the threat of motorized vehicles.'
 

·
since 4/10/2009
Joined
·
30,799 Posts
Michigan State University in East Lansing, MI.
They've come a long way since I lived in the area (05 or so when my wife graduated). I used to work at Central Park Bikes in Okemos, FWIW. Used to live in the apartments on Okemos Rd just south of the river.

Back when I lived there, bikes were INSTRUCTED to use the sidewalks instead of the roads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,348 Posts
It's exactly parallel to a motorist buzzing a cyclist on the road, because the motorist thinks they don't belong there.
.
Not really "exactly parallel". The difference is that when drivers think cyclists shouldn't be in the road, it's their opinion and the law isn't on their side. In this case, TenSpeed is correct in saying that pedestrians aren't allowed. Does it make it okay to purposely buzz by them? No. But your comparison certainly isn't accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,255 Posts
Not really "exactly parallel". The difference is that when drivers think cyclists shouldn't be in the road, it's their opinion and the law isn't on their side. In this case, TenSpeed is correct in saying that pedestrians aren't allowed. Does it make it okay to purposely buzz by them? No. But your comparison certainly isn't accurate.
I'd doubt there is a law banning peds from that bike lane: another problem with infrastructure in this country, no standards of implementation or rules of use.

The comparison is a parallel, certainly: two modes of transport with disproportionate rates of travel and a mindset of 'I belong here and you don't,' i.e. entitled.
 

·
I'd rather be on my bike
Joined
·
2,749 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
In areas where motor traffic is removed and bike/ped traffic is allowed, a totally different type of riding is required. Pedestrian traffic is the least predictable. It takes a different mindset. Instead of 'this space is mine' it needs to be 'this space is ours'; free of the dangers of fast moving vehicles. The problem is as much your mindset as that of pedestrians.

Peds see that lane as a calm place to walk, free of the threat of motorized vehicles. You see it as your personal freeway through an area filled with unpredictable people. It's amazing how stress melts away when the notion of 'this is mine, that is yours' is replaced with 'this is ours, let's all get where we're going safely and enjoy the landscape and presence of human beings without the threat of motorized vehicles.'
That space is MINE. It clearly says no pedestrians, and cycles only. If I am on my bike, that space is mine. It is a personal freeway, as it is for cycles only, not pedestrians. I am not sure that you can grasp the concept of the pictures that I posted here. There is a walking path for pedestrians, but it is NOT in the cycle only lane.
 
1 - 20 of 45 Posts
Top