On Jul 2, 2007, Jeff Schimpff wrote:
My version of reality is that when we walk on shared trails, we
should do so facing traffic in our lane, just like walking along a
street with no sidewalk. That way, as a pedestrian you have a
chance to protect yourself against inattentive cyclists - unless
you are an inattentive pedestrian. The bike/shared use trails
should be signed as such, because most pedestrians seem to have no
knowledge of that practice.
That brings the question: what IS the legal nature of the SW Path,
Cap City Trail, etc? Roadway? Sidewalk? Something in between?
That would seem to affect the way everyone should use it.
Arthur Ross wrote something about this a while back. Here's the
relevant bit:
---
"On a "shared use path" the pedestrian is [not] a second class user.
The path is both street for the bicyclist and sidewalk for the
pedestrian. As such, both have equal status. Faster users (skaters,
bicyclists) have a greater responsibility to avoid crashes with
slower users by slowing down and warning others before passing, and
giving adequate clearance when passing and only passing if it is safe."
---
<http://www.danenet.org/mailman/private/bikies/2005q3/005413.html>
If cyclists using roadways are going to expect motor vehicle
operators to slow down and pass safely, it seems only reasonable that
pedestrians could expect the same from cyclists on shared-use paths.
For myself, I would prefer everyone going the same direction on the
same side. I've already encountered situations where a combination of
couple of counterflow pedestrians and oncoming bike traffic have
actually caused me to come to a complete stop to wait for an
opportunity to pass. If the peds had going in my direction, I could
have just slowed to walking speed while waiting for the opportunity
to pass.
Personally, I'd like to see separate wood-chipped walking trails
designated on each side.
Alternatively, it would have been good for the path to be a
consistent 10-foot width continuing past Commonwealth (the point at
which I think it goes from 10 feet down to 8 feet.) It's a noticeable
difference.
In this instance, if both parties were east-bound, there is the
potential that the sun was in the rider's eyes. At least, if I was
the defense attorney, that might be what I'd have the cyclist
testify. Or, maybe they were the type of cyclist who usually rides
head down and doesn't look much
Unlikely to have been the sun. By 9 a.m., it's pretty high--about 40
degrees off the horizon. That particular stretch of the Southwest
also has a dense tree canopy. I doubt the heads-down defense would
hold up either. I'd probably go with the "looking down my throat in
the rear-view mirror" excuse--at least there's precedent. (The last
sentence is biting sarcasm, btw.)
My guess (and I'd be happy to be proven wrong) is that the cyclist
was in a hurry or not paying attention and failed to yield to the
pedestrian as required.
Michael Lemberger
Madison, WI
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
