zener
1 kW
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2014
- Messages
- 353
Lol, just have spotted a pedestrian on the most advanced fast cycle path.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me6Yg5ViSKI#t=3m54s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me6Yg5ViSKI#t=3m54s
Should pedestrians be permitted on bike paths?
- Thread starter argggh
- Start date
The fingers
10 TW
Not very fast at all by ES standards. :lol: Was that a raised center rib on the curve at 5:50? That would cause an accident and lawsuit in Cali. within a week. The led lighting is cool, we had similar ones installed along a very dark section of the boulevard after I nearly got mugged by a couple of cholos on my High Sierra one memorable very early morning commute several years ago. 
Ykick
1 GW
Netherlands has it going on!
I wonder if there's been any economic study comparing road surface costs between bike/walk paths and heavy vehicle roads? Seems like there would be much less repair required if stupidly heavy vehicles weren't beating the shit out of the road surface?
I wonder if there's been any economic study comparing road surface costs between bike/walk paths and heavy vehicle roads? Seems like there would be much less repair required if stupidly heavy vehicles weren't beating the shit out of the road surface?
alsmith
100 kW
I was just out and there was a horse refusing to go the way the rider wanted. There's little to do but watch and wait. And well back from them!
GiantEV
100 W
dogman said:
I've got a lady like this who pushes her dog around in a baby stroller on the bike path near my house. I just find that amusing. What I don't like is people with headphones in who can't hear my bell. That's when I give a little honk on the horn.
cal3thousand
10 MW
GiantEV said:dogman said:
I've got a lady like this who pushes her dog around in a baby stroller on the bike path near my house. I just find that amusing. What I don't like is people with headphones in who can't hear my bell. That's when I give a little honk on the horn.
Carry some dog treats and throw them in the stroller every time you pass. Dog owners hate it when you "spoil" their "well-trained" dogs.
999zip999
100 TW
How about the chick with two dogs on two 20 foot leashes. And the dogs have always been the boss.
Dogman get a airhorn.
Dogman get a airhorn.
999zip999
100 TW
I was given a ringer bell two days ago and it works great as I ride with headphones so I can't hear it but just ringing away everbody does move. This is because they know the sound just like when I had the squee brakes and everyone got out of the way of my squee brakes, but had to.change those pads. I wish I had a horn with the sound of a squee brakes.
A customer has a fat bike with a air horn ucking loud. Too loud wow.
A customer has a fat bike with a air horn ucking loud. Too loud wow.
WOW !!!
The OP of this thread and maybe a few others on it seem to have a rather bad case of infection of "The Tyranny of Speed". A anti-social disease of the selfishness family recognized by its symptoms of a “Get out of the way or it’s your own fault if I hit you and hurt you attitude” and a disregard for the rights, property, health, and in very bad cases even the very lives of other innocent people. It’s a sickness, a disease of the mind similar to alcoholism and they need help.
-----------------------------------------------------
Let me try to explain this, at least in the U.S.A. innocent people have a constitutional right to travel unmolested on the public right of ways within the Federal boundaries and across state and territorial lines as already well established by multiple Federal and State court cases up to and including the State Supreme Courts of multiple states and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals level with multiple common law legal precedent making decisions on the books for literally well over a century.
HOWEVER, the courts have also ruled that such a “right” DOES NOT include operating a large, heavy, and/or fast moving vehicle that represents a significant potential danger to other innocent public right of way users. That is only a “privilege” not a “right” and has also been well established for decades in significant legal precedent both in the State and Federal courts. This is why mandatory drivers licensing is completely legal for drivers of cars (its been challenged many times) where as mandatory drivers licensing for drivers of horse drawn carriages and pedal only bicycles is not legal and cannot be required (several jurisdictions have tried to implement such and have been defeated in the courts as illegally attempting to turn a constitutionally guaranteed right into a privilege.)
That whole “right” vs. “privilege” to travel on the public right of ways now clearly pointed out where exactly the line is draw between the two does vary between the individual states and territories of the U.S.A. Universally, walking as a pedestrian and riding a horse or other animal is acknowledged as a “right” and not a “privilege”.
And then almost universally, riding a human pedal only powered bicycle or driving a horse or other animal drawn carriage is also considered a “right”. However, there are a few exceptions, for example in the state of Texas a human pedal only powered bicycle that has a weight of over 80-pounds not including the weight of the rider(s) is by court case precedent considered to be not a right but rather a privilege to operate on the public right of way and thus must be operated with greater care and yield accordingly. This came out of a case where a pedal only cyclists with a heavily loaded touring cycle running someone down and claiming it wasn’t their fault because he couldn’t stop his heavy bike in time and since that state clearly limits electric bicycles to 80 pounds weight or less for safety reasons by law it was established through the results of that court case that it was reasonable to apply that same weight limit as to whether pedal only bicycles where considered a privilege to operate and not a right and could be held fully accountable accordingly. As to animal drawn wagons, there are a couple states and local jurisdiction that at one time had laws and local ordinances on the books that required special licensing for operation of an animal drawn heavy freight wagon or freight wagon trains and these laws have stood up in the courts because of the greater danger such heavily laden freight wagons represent if not driven with extra caution and care (although the cases obviously date back quite a ways and I have not been able to confirm any of them that are still on the books and in force today).
The deciding principle in both those cases (80+ pound weight bicycles and e-bikes in Texas and the old heavy freight wagon ordinances) being at what point a vehicle is big enough, heavy enough, and/or fast enough that it represents a significant enough hazard to require mandatory licensing of operators to help ensure safe operation and thus becomes a privilege rather then a right. (Lots of court precedent on the speed factor which is what primarily makes car and motorcycle mandatory government licensing for operation fully legal and enforceable and has been upheld under many attempted challenges.)
Some jurisdictions notably the state of New York have so far drawn the line that anything with a motor even an e-bike is a privilege and not a right. Others like my state of Montana have drawn the line a little further out where so long as it doesn’t go faster then 30-mph or have a motor with more then 2-brake-horsepower or 50cc if an internal combustion engine its considered a right and is not a privilege and no licensing or permission of any kind is required and at least in my state that has gone all the way to our State Supreme Court and been upheld that pedestrians, animal riders, animal drawn carriages, human pedal only powered bicycles, and any motorized bicycle or moped that does not go faster then 30-mph and have a bigger motor then 2-hp/50cc is a right not a privilege and that no licensing of either the vehicle or driver can be required and they cannot be banned from any roadway in this state, period.
To travel slow and/or with a small vehicle that doesn’t represent a significant danger to others is a right and it can’t be “banned” as the OP suggests. Where as to travel fast and/or with a large enough heavy enough vehicle that it does represent a significant danger to others is only a privilege and it can be licensed, controlled, restricted, and/or out right banned.
The privilege of speed is secondary to the right to travel of which most supreme of all is the most ancient and longest established forms of travel. Which, yes, include just simply walking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, that basic foundation of “rights” vs. “privileges” explained lets now get into the other side of the coin where it is both legal and legitimate to establish rules, standards, ordinances, and laws which prevent people from abusing their rights. No right is absolute and so long as the foundation of the original right is respected and upheld it is fully legal and legitimate to prevent and place legal consequences for those individuals who choose to abuse their rights to the determent of others.
For example in my state by its laws and established court precedent pedestrians can be and are prohibited from abusing their right to travel by walking along the improved section of the right of way inhibiting the travel of wheeled road vehicles if separate pedestrian facilities are provided or the unimproved areas of the public right of way to the edges of the road is easily passable.
If it is a situation where there are not separate pedestrian facilities and the unimproved areas of the public right of way to the edges of the road is not easily passable then they can indeed walk right on the road and they do have right of way when doing so and road vehicles must yield to them. In addition my state does not require them to walk facing traffic they may walk either direction on either side and if you run them down then you are at fault for doing so, either negligent criminal endangerment charges or deliberate assault and/or attempted or actual homicide charges if they can prove you did it deliberately. In fact if you get any closer then 3-feet to them which is the mandatory minimum safe distance by court precedent based on the federal highway department standards which have been adopted then you can be charged with assault or endangerment.
If you couldn’t see them in time to stop and that is your excuse for failure to respect their right to travel unharmed and unmolested then by your own admission you were driving too fast for conditions to be able to avoid hitting something right in front of you. Under my states law and court precedent you cannot drive down any road faster then you are able to stop in time to avoid hitting something in the road ahead of you and if you do so it’s a matter of negligent or reckless driving on your part. And, yes, I know of cases where that has been enforced and it does include bicycles drivers as well even though your mode of travel is also a right you can’t abuse that right by excessive speed for conditions and run down people right in front of you and get away with it.
In fact if the road is narrow enough that its not possible for a vehicle to pass a pedestrian walking on the edge of the roadway and still give them the minimum three foot clearance without crossing the roads center line then such a pedestrian is not only allowed to dominantly walk right down the middle of that half of the road to force vehicles to wait to pass until the other side or the road is clear to do so case law precedent in my state actually establishes that as the correct and safe way to walk on such a narrow road where there are no separate pedestrian facilities and the unimproved right of way to the edges of the road is not easily passable.
Thus ----- on a narrow two lane bridge with no pedestrian walks OR a mountain road with a steep up bank and/or rock wall on one side and a steep drop off or cliff on the other OR a narrow two lane road in the winter hedged with high snow banks covering the sidewalks or unimproved portion of the right of way to the edges of the road ----- in my state by the letter of the law and established common law state precedent even if it is a road with a large volume of 70-mph high speed vehicle traffic a pedestrian can “take the lane” and walk right down the middle of the lane to pass through such a narrow “pinch point” and is fully legal in doing so and you must yield to them and you do not get to run them down in cold blood or endanger or harass them.
And, yes, in this state we do have a lot of such narrow bridges and narrow mountain roads with those kinds of conditions and during the winter even city streets can end up with the big snow bank problem that blocks the sidewalks and all the unimproved edges of the right of way and its either walk in the road, climb and clamber over snow banks, or trespass on private property through peoples yards. Both walking in the road and climbing and clambering over the snow banks are legal options of your choice and your not required to do the snow bank one.
So your rights as a pedestrian are pretty clearly established and protected, but you aren’t allowed to abuse them. If there are separate pedestrian facilities or the unimproved portion of the right of way to the edges of the roadway are easily passable then you are to use them and if you just decide to be a jerk and abuse your rights and hold up traffic by walking down the middle of one of the road lanes then you can and most likely will get in trouble for it, disorderly conduct and creating a public disturbance being the most common charges. But at the same time when you come to that narrow two lane bridge with no pedestrian walks you do have the right to use it and other people driving cars which is just a privilege and not a right do have to yield accordingly.
You have your rights and when necessary you may assert them, but you aren’t allowed to abuse them either.
Almost the exact same applies to pedal only bicycles, animal riders, animal drawn carts/carriages/wagons, and e-bikes/motorized-bicycles/mo-peds/etc that are under the 30-mph 2-hp/50cc limit. Except they are not required to use the side-walks or unimproved sections of the right of way to the edge of the roadway but are always allowed to use the roadway and are only even required to use the edge of the roadway if the road is wide enough for them to still have their space on the roadway (4 foot wide minimum up to however wide they are if they are wider then that 4 foot minimum) plus a three foot minimum safe passing distance and room for the passing vehicle without it having to cross the center line of the road. If there isn’t that much room then they are not only allowed to “take the lane” but by court precedent they are directed to do so as the correct and safe way to travel on such a narrow road. Yes, there is a slow moving motor vehicle law as well which requires pulling off the road occasionally to let people by if they can’t easily pass but court precedent in interpretation of that law has limited it to only applying to motor vehicles that are capable of high speed but their drivers choose to operate them on a high speed road at a speed of 25-mph or less and that it does not apply to forms of travel that are considered a right and are not normally capable of high speed.
Long story short, any of the forms of travel that fall under the “it’s a right” category such a right takes precedence over faster more dangerous forms of travel that are only a privilege.
Yes, there are some standards to keep you from drastically abusing that right and just making a jerk out of yourself. Basically you don’t get to hold up traffic just for the sake of doing so but so long as you have a valid reason either a matter of safety to prevent people passing too close with oncoming traffic when there isn’t room or not using the side-walks or your reason for not using the unimproved edge of the road if you’re a pedestrian is because in that spot they really aren’t easily passable your good to go.
And then animal riders (usually horses but plenty of other animals are legit as well), animal drawn cart/carriage/wagon, and bicycles/e-bikes/motorized-bicycles/mopeds/etc don’t even legally have to consider using the side-walks or unimproved section of the right of way to the edges of the road. They always are permitted to use the road just a question of whether the road is wide enough or not for them to be safe from unsafe passing if they stay to the edge. If it is, and they aren’t making a left turn or passing someone even slower or going as fast as other traffic then they are required to do so and not make a jerk out of themselves by abusing their rights and unnecessarily holding up traffic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Conclusion:
As you probably already figured out, In my state there is no laws that prohibit pedestrians for MUP’s or bicycle paths or trails that are part of the public right of way and by the precedents already established all the way up to the State Supreme Court if such a ban where attempted it would easily fall to any legal challenge.
I support that and agree with it in principle.
HOWEVER, it is unfortunately also true that unlike normal roadways there has been no attempt to prevent pedestrians from abusing their rights and unnecessarily inhibiting the flow of cyclist traffic on such paths and that could be legally implemented just as it is for regular roads. And I most assuredly would support such. A good start would be limiting all path users to using only the right half side of the path unless the path is so narrow safe passing on the path is not possible. There is just as much if not more issues with multiple cyclists riding side by side as a group taking up the whole freaking path so no one can get around coming or going when it isn’t necessary. I wouldn’t support going so far as to limit pedestrians to walking on the unimproved portion of the right of way (usually in the grass) to the edge of the path unless it isn’t easily passable like is done with regular roads but unless the path is very narrow they can certainly be legitimately limited to having a little bit of respect for other people and not abusing their rights and just using half the path so other people can get around them both going the other direction and same direction faster users passing. But it is by no means just the peds that need to be kept from abusing their rights on that score. Other users are just as guilty of it.
The OP of this thread and maybe a few others on it seem to have a rather bad case of infection of "The Tyranny of Speed". A anti-social disease of the selfishness family recognized by its symptoms of a “Get out of the way or it’s your own fault if I hit you and hurt you attitude” and a disregard for the rights, property, health, and in very bad cases even the very lives of other innocent people. It’s a sickness, a disease of the mind similar to alcoholism and they need help.
-----------------------------------------------------
Let me try to explain this, at least in the U.S.A. innocent people have a constitutional right to travel unmolested on the public right of ways within the Federal boundaries and across state and territorial lines as already well established by multiple Federal and State court cases up to and including the State Supreme Courts of multiple states and the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals level with multiple common law legal precedent making decisions on the books for literally well over a century.
HOWEVER, the courts have also ruled that such a “right” DOES NOT include operating a large, heavy, and/or fast moving vehicle that represents a significant potential danger to other innocent public right of way users. That is only a “privilege” not a “right” and has also been well established for decades in significant legal precedent both in the State and Federal courts. This is why mandatory drivers licensing is completely legal for drivers of cars (its been challenged many times) where as mandatory drivers licensing for drivers of horse drawn carriages and pedal only bicycles is not legal and cannot be required (several jurisdictions have tried to implement such and have been defeated in the courts as illegally attempting to turn a constitutionally guaranteed right into a privilege.)
That whole “right” vs. “privilege” to travel on the public right of ways now clearly pointed out where exactly the line is draw between the two does vary between the individual states and territories of the U.S.A. Universally, walking as a pedestrian and riding a horse or other animal is acknowledged as a “right” and not a “privilege”.
And then almost universally, riding a human pedal only powered bicycle or driving a horse or other animal drawn carriage is also considered a “right”. However, there are a few exceptions, for example in the state of Texas a human pedal only powered bicycle that has a weight of over 80-pounds not including the weight of the rider(s) is by court case precedent considered to be not a right but rather a privilege to operate on the public right of way and thus must be operated with greater care and yield accordingly. This came out of a case where a pedal only cyclists with a heavily loaded touring cycle running someone down and claiming it wasn’t their fault because he couldn’t stop his heavy bike in time and since that state clearly limits electric bicycles to 80 pounds weight or less for safety reasons by law it was established through the results of that court case that it was reasonable to apply that same weight limit as to whether pedal only bicycles where considered a privilege to operate and not a right and could be held fully accountable accordingly. As to animal drawn wagons, there are a couple states and local jurisdiction that at one time had laws and local ordinances on the books that required special licensing for operation of an animal drawn heavy freight wagon or freight wagon trains and these laws have stood up in the courts because of the greater danger such heavily laden freight wagons represent if not driven with extra caution and care (although the cases obviously date back quite a ways and I have not been able to confirm any of them that are still on the books and in force today).
The deciding principle in both those cases (80+ pound weight bicycles and e-bikes in Texas and the old heavy freight wagon ordinances) being at what point a vehicle is big enough, heavy enough, and/or fast enough that it represents a significant enough hazard to require mandatory licensing of operators to help ensure safe operation and thus becomes a privilege rather then a right. (Lots of court precedent on the speed factor which is what primarily makes car and motorcycle mandatory government licensing for operation fully legal and enforceable and has been upheld under many attempted challenges.)
Some jurisdictions notably the state of New York have so far drawn the line that anything with a motor even an e-bike is a privilege and not a right. Others like my state of Montana have drawn the line a little further out where so long as it doesn’t go faster then 30-mph or have a motor with more then 2-brake-horsepower or 50cc if an internal combustion engine its considered a right and is not a privilege and no licensing or permission of any kind is required and at least in my state that has gone all the way to our State Supreme Court and been upheld that pedestrians, animal riders, animal drawn carriages, human pedal only powered bicycles, and any motorized bicycle or moped that does not go faster then 30-mph and have a bigger motor then 2-hp/50cc is a right not a privilege and that no licensing of either the vehicle or driver can be required and they cannot be banned from any roadway in this state, period.
To travel slow and/or with a small vehicle that doesn’t represent a significant danger to others is a right and it can’t be “banned” as the OP suggests. Where as to travel fast and/or with a large enough heavy enough vehicle that it does represent a significant danger to others is only a privilege and it can be licensed, controlled, restricted, and/or out right banned.
The privilege of speed is secondary to the right to travel of which most supreme of all is the most ancient and longest established forms of travel. Which, yes, include just simply walking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, that basic foundation of “rights” vs. “privileges” explained lets now get into the other side of the coin where it is both legal and legitimate to establish rules, standards, ordinances, and laws which prevent people from abusing their rights. No right is absolute and so long as the foundation of the original right is respected and upheld it is fully legal and legitimate to prevent and place legal consequences for those individuals who choose to abuse their rights to the determent of others.
For example in my state by its laws and established court precedent pedestrians can be and are prohibited from abusing their right to travel by walking along the improved section of the right of way inhibiting the travel of wheeled road vehicles if separate pedestrian facilities are provided or the unimproved areas of the public right of way to the edges of the road is easily passable.
If it is a situation where there are not separate pedestrian facilities and the unimproved areas of the public right of way to the edges of the road is not easily passable then they can indeed walk right on the road and they do have right of way when doing so and road vehicles must yield to them. In addition my state does not require them to walk facing traffic they may walk either direction on either side and if you run them down then you are at fault for doing so, either negligent criminal endangerment charges or deliberate assault and/or attempted or actual homicide charges if they can prove you did it deliberately. In fact if you get any closer then 3-feet to them which is the mandatory minimum safe distance by court precedent based on the federal highway department standards which have been adopted then you can be charged with assault or endangerment.
If you couldn’t see them in time to stop and that is your excuse for failure to respect their right to travel unharmed and unmolested then by your own admission you were driving too fast for conditions to be able to avoid hitting something right in front of you. Under my states law and court precedent you cannot drive down any road faster then you are able to stop in time to avoid hitting something in the road ahead of you and if you do so it’s a matter of negligent or reckless driving on your part. And, yes, I know of cases where that has been enforced and it does include bicycles drivers as well even though your mode of travel is also a right you can’t abuse that right by excessive speed for conditions and run down people right in front of you and get away with it.
In fact if the road is narrow enough that its not possible for a vehicle to pass a pedestrian walking on the edge of the roadway and still give them the minimum three foot clearance without crossing the roads center line then such a pedestrian is not only allowed to dominantly walk right down the middle of that half of the road to force vehicles to wait to pass until the other side or the road is clear to do so case law precedent in my state actually establishes that as the correct and safe way to walk on such a narrow road where there are no separate pedestrian facilities and the unimproved right of way to the edges of the road is not easily passable.
Thus ----- on a narrow two lane bridge with no pedestrian walks OR a mountain road with a steep up bank and/or rock wall on one side and a steep drop off or cliff on the other OR a narrow two lane road in the winter hedged with high snow banks covering the sidewalks or unimproved portion of the right of way to the edges of the road ----- in my state by the letter of the law and established common law state precedent even if it is a road with a large volume of 70-mph high speed vehicle traffic a pedestrian can “take the lane” and walk right down the middle of the lane to pass through such a narrow “pinch point” and is fully legal in doing so and you must yield to them and you do not get to run them down in cold blood or endanger or harass them.
And, yes, in this state we do have a lot of such narrow bridges and narrow mountain roads with those kinds of conditions and during the winter even city streets can end up with the big snow bank problem that blocks the sidewalks and all the unimproved edges of the right of way and its either walk in the road, climb and clamber over snow banks, or trespass on private property through peoples yards. Both walking in the road and climbing and clambering over the snow banks are legal options of your choice and your not required to do the snow bank one.
So your rights as a pedestrian are pretty clearly established and protected, but you aren’t allowed to abuse them. If there are separate pedestrian facilities or the unimproved portion of the right of way to the edges of the roadway are easily passable then you are to use them and if you just decide to be a jerk and abuse your rights and hold up traffic by walking down the middle of one of the road lanes then you can and most likely will get in trouble for it, disorderly conduct and creating a public disturbance being the most common charges. But at the same time when you come to that narrow two lane bridge with no pedestrian walks you do have the right to use it and other people driving cars which is just a privilege and not a right do have to yield accordingly.
You have your rights and when necessary you may assert them, but you aren’t allowed to abuse them either.
Almost the exact same applies to pedal only bicycles, animal riders, animal drawn carts/carriages/wagons, and e-bikes/motorized-bicycles/mo-peds/etc that are under the 30-mph 2-hp/50cc limit. Except they are not required to use the side-walks or unimproved sections of the right of way to the edge of the roadway but are always allowed to use the roadway and are only even required to use the edge of the roadway if the road is wide enough for them to still have their space on the roadway (4 foot wide minimum up to however wide they are if they are wider then that 4 foot minimum) plus a three foot minimum safe passing distance and room for the passing vehicle without it having to cross the center line of the road. If there isn’t that much room then they are not only allowed to “take the lane” but by court precedent they are directed to do so as the correct and safe way to travel on such a narrow road. Yes, there is a slow moving motor vehicle law as well which requires pulling off the road occasionally to let people by if they can’t easily pass but court precedent in interpretation of that law has limited it to only applying to motor vehicles that are capable of high speed but their drivers choose to operate them on a high speed road at a speed of 25-mph or less and that it does not apply to forms of travel that are considered a right and are not normally capable of high speed.
Long story short, any of the forms of travel that fall under the “it’s a right” category such a right takes precedence over faster more dangerous forms of travel that are only a privilege.
Yes, there are some standards to keep you from drastically abusing that right and just making a jerk out of yourself. Basically you don’t get to hold up traffic just for the sake of doing so but so long as you have a valid reason either a matter of safety to prevent people passing too close with oncoming traffic when there isn’t room or not using the side-walks or your reason for not using the unimproved edge of the road if you’re a pedestrian is because in that spot they really aren’t easily passable your good to go.
And then animal riders (usually horses but plenty of other animals are legit as well), animal drawn cart/carriage/wagon, and bicycles/e-bikes/motorized-bicycles/mopeds/etc don’t even legally have to consider using the side-walks or unimproved section of the right of way to the edges of the road. They always are permitted to use the road just a question of whether the road is wide enough or not for them to be safe from unsafe passing if they stay to the edge. If it is, and they aren’t making a left turn or passing someone even slower or going as fast as other traffic then they are required to do so and not make a jerk out of themselves by abusing their rights and unnecessarily holding up traffic.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In Conclusion:
As you probably already figured out, In my state there is no laws that prohibit pedestrians for MUP’s or bicycle paths or trails that are part of the public right of way and by the precedents already established all the way up to the State Supreme Court if such a ban where attempted it would easily fall to any legal challenge.
I support that and agree with it in principle.
HOWEVER, it is unfortunately also true that unlike normal roadways there has been no attempt to prevent pedestrians from abusing their rights and unnecessarily inhibiting the flow of cyclist traffic on such paths and that could be legally implemented just as it is for regular roads. And I most assuredly would support such. A good start would be limiting all path users to using only the right half side of the path unless the path is so narrow safe passing on the path is not possible. There is just as much if not more issues with multiple cyclists riding side by side as a group taking up the whole freaking path so no one can get around coming or going when it isn’t necessary. I wouldn’t support going so far as to limit pedestrians to walking on the unimproved portion of the right of way (usually in the grass) to the edge of the path unless it isn’t easily passable like is done with regular roads but unless the path is very narrow they can certainly be legitimately limited to having a little bit of respect for other people and not abusing their rights and just using half the path so other people can get around them both going the other direction and same direction faster users passing. But it is by no means just the peds that need to be kept from abusing their rights on that score. Other users are just as guilty of it.
Eskimo
1 kW
Meanwhile in Finland...our police chief told media this morning that it is likely that 25 km/h speed limit is coming for all bicycle paths and MUT"s.
Links would be only in finnish so i don"t put them here.
Some readers may understand, why we few E-bikers are grinning a bit here right now
I mean , there"s FURIOUS OUTRAGE on our bicycle forums right now because of this may-come new limit.
Links would be only in finnish so i don"t put them here.
Some readers may understand, why we few E-bikers are grinning a bit here right now
I mean , there"s FURIOUS OUTRAGE on our bicycle forums right now because of this may-come new limit.
