Robbie wrote:
> The way I explain it is to say, "You as a bicyclist (no, not you
> personally, Steve) know what it's like to be passed way too fast and too
> close by a car on the road. Well, that's what it feels like to a
> pedestrian when we pass too fast or too close on the path."
My mild distaste for the term, "path," aside, it seems that we could
avoid much of this problem of passing pedestrians if we would follow the
standard rules of the road--pedestrians should walk facing wheeled
traffic. But for some reason, someone's come up with an opposite set of
rules for mixed-use bikeways that pedestrians walk on the right.
Yes, I call out an "on your left" (or sometimes right, or even between
depending on conditions) to pass, whether passing a bicyclist or
pedestrian, and wait not so much for a "response" but some subtle
acknowledgment that I've been heard and understood (most of the time
someone will move and all I really need is for the person not to be
startled or do anything unexpected). To the extent that there are
conflicts, it's that the bicyclist is coming up BEHIND a pedestrian. If
we didn't reverse the standard expectation of the rules of the road, the
pedestrian would see the bicyclist approaching and can respond
appropriately.
Now go have a beer,
Bob Paolino
"Are Canadians just Americans who carry hockey sticks instead of guns,
or is there more to it than that?"
--"This Canadian Existence"
Wisconsin Public Radio
( ) ASCII ribbon campaign
X against HTML e-mail:
/ \ Friends don't send friends HTML-bloated messages!
A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
Q: Why is top-posting frowned upon?
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
