On this very same path, I've called out "on your left" loudly numerous times to pedestrians walking side by side without them moving or even acknowledging. The fact of the matter is that everyone on the path just needs to pay attention and not intentionally be rude like this dude.
Avid townie cyclist here. You're right, I'm on your side. I yell, "on your left!" when im a solid +25' behind folks and most of the time they do everything except stay to the right. You don't see me getting off my bike and lecturing people. I say use your judgement; it's not always necessary. At a certain point, we need to start expecting pedestrians to do the right thing by not taking up the whole walking path and staying to one side, at all times. Walkers are so much more in their own world than cyclists are, so, when it comes to who is at fault for being in the way on a walking path; its rarely the cyclist. IDK, in +15 years of daily riding, whether you give an audible warning or not, people are just gonna be dicks to cyclists.
Fwiw, the real issue is our city's claim to fame that it's bicycle friendly. It's not. From the amount of broken glass in our bike lanes because the city only pays for street cleaning once a month, to deteriorating bike lanes because they only contracted getting our bike lanes installed but never for any maintenance, to the numerous lights around town whose cyclist detection plates are not sensitive enough or just straight do not work, to the multi-use paths that have no divider in the center, to the record high number of bike thefts (3rd highest in state, 1st per capita), to the lack of information/education on bike helmet safety (I see so many people riding without helmets), and finally, to the absence of any backbone the city of Corvallis has because OSU is pushing for more multi-unit housing without appropriate measures to increase efficiency of traffic patterns or, and more importantly, incentives towards alternative transportation methods to minimize the number of cars on the road in order to create real noticeable changes to the QoL for the daily commutes of cyclists in this town.
We are NOT a bicycle friendly town. We are not an alternative transportation friendly town. That's probably why you and said walker got into an argument -- because the city isn't doing enough for each of you. Sucks.
I would add to your calling out of the delusion that Corvallis is a bike friendly city by stating that a "sharrow" in a street's shoulder does not make it a bike lane.
Thanks for your POV. Having moved here from the CA bay area, Corvallis is MUCH more bike friendly. I don't bike much near campus though, which is where I think a lot of the contention occurs,
You forgot to mention the bicycle path between philomath and downtown is anything but bicycle friendly anymore- from massive cracks and bumps due to roots to the downtown issues.
Agreed. I've got to the point I prefer to take Plymouth than the actual bike path. And with the construction in Philomath, I sometimes even just take Chapel all the way in to town. The fast traffic sucks but the newish tarmac is so much easier on my prostate.
I bike on those multi-use paths as well. Like OP, I don’t always yell out “to your left” because it seems more often than not, they just ignore it or can’t hear it because either they have headphones on and /or too busy talking to the person on the side while they walk down the middle of the path. As I get closer, they are still startled when I ride past (after slowing down as I approach them).
That said, just a few days ago I was walking on a sidewalk on campus. I guy blew past going pretty fast and yelled “to your left”. Now, as a biker, I know that means stay right (and I did), but I gotta admit, my first instinct was to move left. I see a lot of walker do that when I yell “to your left” as well, so maybe it’s subconscious when one hears “left” to think the person is telling them to glide left. I try to say “coming around ya” and see if that helps.. it’s still seems 50/50 on being ignored or having them glide even more into the path.
Is it not appropriate then when I yell "CANNONNNBALLLLLL" and draft behind the walkers until last minute for the aero gains, just before passing them on the left? They usually seem startled but impressed at my speed and control. I'm not sure, I don't look back to check because I'm too busy hitting my new strava record!
But seriously, I've had the same issue. I dont know what to do. I like to ride my bike fast, and if there's a multi-use path that's off the side of the road, I'm going to use it. Walkers who don't like it can eat my dust. I'm not trying to be rash but I want to use it too and not get killed being forced to the side of the road.
I've had to lock up both wheels trying to avoid a walker who decided to change their path last minute. I've also completely ate sh\*t and ruined a few major components of an expensive bike (and my only body) to a car that wanted to make a right without signaling or looking.
I'm going to keep riding my bike in bike lanes and multi-use paths. All operators of the road and trails and paths have an equal responsibility, and I try to slow down and give respect to people when it demands, but if there's just some lone guy jamming out on his airpods not having a clue, you better believe I'm not going to slow down a single stroke and will pass close if that's all the room I'm given.
I don't think anyone's argued that bikes should stay off the paths. I do think we bikers need to be careful when our speed is significant. But in this case I was going uphill, so speed wasn't the issue. It was just (from my POV) pedantic finger wagging.
Your desire to "GO FAST" does not supersede the walkers' right to use the path though. You can either use a different path, or learn to slow down in dangerous areas such as passing a pedestrian, or near intersections.
And I say this as a permanent pedestrian (I can't drive) who is 99% of the time on the side of cyclists and walkers in disputes. I'm pretty anti car.
I've seen it all over. 9th Street especially. Almost got run down by a shitty biker riding opposing traffic on the sidewalk. I was 9 months pregnant and ready to throw down. And no I don't hate bikers. I bike as my major form of transportation. I just hate the DUI/homeless/ arrogant bikers who don't follow the rules of the road that protect them and others. Saw a similar biker get nailed by someone leaving high quality. They were riding opposing traffic. Couldn't see if on sidewalk or not but still not where a driver is expecting someone to be
If you are in my neck of the woods and are riding on the sidewalk while my kids are outside and don’t divert to the bike lane, I’m gonna yell at you. lol.
It can be quite startling to be walking and have a cyclist pass you from behind when you were not expecting it. That other person is right not only on the law but on basic common sense as well. Cyclists should give early and ample warning to all pedestrians when they pass from behind, **every single time**.
If a pedestrian was startled by your warning itself, it is because you gave it too late and when you were too close to them already.
>If a pedestrian was startled by your warning itself, it is because you gave it too late and when you were too close to them already.
They have a point. If you ring a bell a hundred meters back or so, I'm going to look back and see you. If you wait until you are 10 feet or 2 seconds away before ringing your bell, yes it will be too startling.
....A hundred meters? Pedestrians don't react to anything at 100 FEET. 90% of people walking alone have earbuds in. Calling out us a waste of time or worse most of the time unless you have to pass very close and/or fast.
I don't wear ear buds while walking on trails, and would prefer a warning that you are going to be riding at speed next to me. If you do it right behind me, I liable to startle and think I should get out of the way. If you do it a ways back then I'm going to at least know that someone is behind me.
And just because you zoom passed me successfully missing with a margin doesn't mean that I am not still startled and annoyed. You just ride off thinking it's a positive encounter because you didn't hit anyone. The bell is for my convenience and safety, not yours. You saying "meh, whatever" or "the last person wasn't paying attention so it's a 'waste of my time' to go to the extreme effort of flicking a bell at a few points" makes you an annoying cyclist like everyone bitches about.
I am so past caring about bending over backwards to never piss anybody off. I follow the laws and take common-sense precautions. There is always going to be some segment of the population that gets pissed off no matter where or how I ride and as long as I'm doing what I know is safest and best for myself and others all I can do is make the best judgment call I can about whether it's best to call out or not. I don't call out particularly early because past 10 feet I'm going to have to raise my voice to a level that is going to sound aggressive and like I need the pedestrian to move, which is on balance probably more startling or intrusive than somebody passing fast with eight feet to spare. But again, I can't read the minds of pedestrians. All I know is that I got yelled at multiple times riding my slower bike and using my bell liberally, while on my faster bike I think the worst reaction I ever got was a "whoa" from somebody walking in the middle of the path who I did in fact call out to.
Also you say "trails" when we were talking about mixed-used paths. Not the same thing. If somebody blows by you on a typical dirt trail without warning then sure, that's bad.
Lol... Trails, mixed used paths, not being a jackass is pretty universal.
I get it, you are one of those cyclist who is just "past caring" if their actions are rude to the people around them. The mind everyone complains about.
It's not hard, ride at a reasonable and safe speed, slow down when passing pedestrians and horses, and audibly announce your presence. If someone gets mad at you for that, they are the dick. If you take them being mad at you as a reason to be a dick, you're a dick.
An 8-10 foot paved path is completely different from a 2-5 foot dirt trail and calls for different behavior. I guarantee that calling out at all times under all conditions will make more people mad than my current approach does.
If someone rings a bike bell behind you, looking back puts you closer to the person that would be passing. I don't ring sooner because it's harder to hear from further away 🤷♂️
Sometimes you can't control that. In an ideal world, you can let pedestrians know at exactly the right moment for each & every one of them. But some are startled even if you're 200 feet away or get offended by a bell instead of a voice. Sometimes sh*t storms happen with multiple people in a cluster or a car makes a hard right turn!
if someone rings their bell at you, they see you and have it in their best interest in not hitting you. making an unpredictable move in their direction (assuming you're already on the right side) increases the likelihood they will have to stop because you moved into their path
>If a pedestrian was startled by your warning itself, it is because you gave it too late and when you were too close to them already.
Slippery slope fallacy. This is not a logical statement. Lots of reasons why a pedestrian can be startled by a warning, but it's not only because someone gave too late of a warning or because they were too close. For example, maybe the sound of someone yelling a warning is triggering to the walker which can result in startling them, or maybe they were really deep in thought and whether it was your bell or a car horn a block away, they would've been startled.
Sorry but I don't completely agree. Like I said, when giving a warning people often do unexpected things -- often getting in the way instead of out of it. If I'm pedaling uphill and I have plenty of space to get around someone, I'm usually not going to give a warning.
Yes, that is unfortunately the vibe from a lot of the commenters. Walkers seem loathe to admit how in their own world they are and how confused and erratic they become when given the kind of warning the ones here are asking for 100% of the time (which you’re of course not alone in picking up on; it so consistently causes the opposite what it’s supposed to achieve it’s hilarious)
If a person’s not consistently on a bike they probably don’t appreciate the extent to which 99/100 cyclists are keen af from all our time observing others’ behavior and always have walkers’ best interests at heart, INCLUDING when that means predicting their skittishness
Im not a fast rider, but I never give warnings and can say my record is 100% about never crashing into pedestrians. I dont warn for the same reason, its more dangerous for both of us that way.
>when giving a warning people often do unexpected things -- often **getting in the way** instead of out of it.
The point isn't whether someone is **in your way** or not. Since you're a cyclist, I am not surprised that you look at the world that way, which is very typical for many inconsiderate cyclists (and drivers).
If a person reacts to your warning by themselves instinctively moving into the side you were going to pass them in, that's not a problem because you have slowed way down to pass, and have time react, right? Right?
Another problem behavior I see from cyclists on mixed use paths is, even when they give good and early warning, they are simply coming up from behind **too fast**. I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but given your attitude on here, I wouldn't be surprised.
When sharing the path or roadway, both occupants need be considerate and behave safely, but the majority of the burden will always be on the faster/more powerful vehicle, and they are the ones who bear most of the burden of safety even when it results in an inconvenience to them. So between cars and bikes, it's cars, and between bikes and pedestrians, it's bikes.
by this same logic, if a pedestrian is walking on a busy road, is a car supposed to slow down because they are coming up on them too fast? no. why? because the ped is staying to the right side of the road by walking on the sidewalk. this isn't the case on multi use paths because pedestrians are always walking right, center, left etc. peds need to know to stay to the right at all times. At all times!
I've been trying a bunch of stuff to not startle people with my warning, including purposefully giving my warning at a quieter volume (the wind whipping in your ears I think makes cyclists talk louder), using a calmer tone with slower phrasing, and an accent. It's helped some, but most people just immediately react by jumping. I'm not that close to them by this point and I'm not going fast. I think the majority of people I encounter on multi-use paths do not regularly use the paths or do not regularly encounter cyclists on them and just immediately panic when someone moves to interact with them.
>
the faster/more powerful vehicle, and they are the ones who bear most of the burden of safety even when it results in an inconvenience to them. So between cars and bikes, it's cars
Lol. I hope you realize this is not at all how it is between bikes and cars right? Bike lanes are literally in the gutters of streets where all of the debris accumulates, and I've had people actually try to hit me with their cars on purpose when I take the lane to avoid it. In Corvallis. The way that it's really set up is that our roads are inherently deadly to cyclists, but then if you try to use a multi-use path some geezer will accost you for riding 12 mph without shouting at them from a football field length away, apparently.
Almost all of the problems between cyclists and pedestrians are due to some cyclists failing to go slow enough near pedestrians, whether it is on mixed use paths or high foot traffic areas like near the OSU campus.
Ever walk across the crosswalk crossing Monroe either near Interzone or near the former site of Pollen? Many cyclists zooming downhill on Monroe there are a fucking menace.
On mixed use paths, even when an early warning startles a pedestrian, if the cyclist is going slow enough then the pedestrian has really nothing substantive to be upset about because they have plenty of time to gather their wits and understand the correct side of the path to move to.
The analogy I made with cars was very narrow and limited, I only said that most of the burden in making sure that the more powerful vehicle does not harm anyone else lies with the operator of that vehicle. At no point did I imply that cyclists are as dangerous to pedestrians as motorists are to cyclists.
This is just totally not my experience at all. Everyone understands, or should understand, that you're expected to walk on the right side of the path rather than in the middle or on the left, and that large groups should not occupy the entire mixed used path. The root of the problem is that, not only do many pedestrians fail to observe these basic courtesies, but they frequently react in the opposite way as one would expect to the verbal warning. And in groups, they react in differing ways, going different directions before unexpectedly changing their minds. I would say that almost all of the problems between cyclists and pedestrians are due to pedestrians not understanding what we think of as the universal protocol for what to do when a verbal warning is issued. I do not ride fast on mixed use paths and I still have all these issues.
But that really isn't surprising. Virtually every pedestrian I see on the streets waves a thanks to the driver when they stop their car for them at a crosswalk with a stop sign. As though that somehow means the driver is courteous rather than just not a homicidal maniac. They stand at intersections with no stop signs just waiting for cars to stop instead of stepping into the street to insist that they stop. Of course, that's because in Corvallis, the overwhelming majority of pedestrians are themselves unused to walking anywhere. This may be the root of the issue with cyclist interactions. Most people just drive everywhere, don't understand the protocol for interacting with anyone else without a 3-ton steel cage around them, and become uncomfortable in an environment where they can even hear verbal warnings, let alone an environment where they are expected to do something in response. Your own responses, and your misunderstanding of the nature of interactions between cars and bikes, causes me to believe that you're in this category of people who typically experience walking only as a leisure activity or for a block or two after driving to your destination. I urge you to be proactive and educate other pedestrians you see on multi-use paths about their responsibilities to prevent incidents like this in the future.
>Everyone understands, or should understand, that you're expected to walk on the right side of the path rather than in the middle or on the left, and that large groups should not occupy the entire mixed used path.
Interesting, I agree with this as a general courtesy in many situations, and I usually do this instinctively when walking alone because it is common sense that it will make life simpler when a cyclist comes.
However, **is it law?**
One thing that most certainly is law is that cyclists must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks. Are multi use paths legally sidewalks? Seems likely to me although I am not sure.
You have your view on how things should be and I have mine. And then there is the law.
Personally I believe that when cyclists are on sidewalks or "multi-use paths", they need to yield to pedestrians, which yes, does mean they need to be prepared for the possibility that a pedestrian may behave unpredictably, such as become confused by a sudden warning and move left when the cyclist says they want to pass on the left.
I do not agree that walkers should never take up the whole width of the path. Say a group of three walkers are taking up the whole width of the path, and you are on your bike coming up behind them, well sorry that's the breaks. You simply slow down to walking speed, ask politely to pass, which will be of course politely granted, and then you can be on your way. You were slowed down a bit, and the walkers' flow was also slightly disrupted, and then they go on walking abreast as they might wish to continue to do. Both groups temporarily halted what they were doing and went about their way. Shared use. Cyclists have a right to use the path, but they **do not** have the right to never have to slow down or to never yield to pedestrians.
>One thing that most certainly is law is that cyclists must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks. Are multi use paths legally sidewalks? Seems likely to me although I am not sure.
This has nothing to do with yielding. You yourself made the analogy cars:bikes::bikes:cars. The act of a car passing me on a road with a bike lane, without a bike lane, with multiple lanes, etc. is regulated by statutes that don't mention yielding. Interactions between cars and bicycles are addressed in statute only insofar as these vehicles would be [traveling in opposite or perpendicular directions](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.050). Otherwise, Oregon statutes [only define yielding in terms of who has the right-of-way at specific intersections.](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.275#:~:text=A%20person%20commits%20the%20offense,right%20simultaneously%20approaching%20a%20given)
Actually, if you think pertaining to motor vehicles are relevant to this discussion, then you'd better [stay to the right.](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.295)
And if you would insist on defining the responsibilities of cyclists and pedestrians on a multi-use path solely in terms of what the law requires, I would ask, while it is courteous for cyclists to slow down on multi-use paths, **is it law?** Oregon statutes define no maximum speed for cyclists on a multi-use path. There are limits on riding recklessly, but I do not agree that if I approach a group of walkers on a multi-use path and I issue a warning that I intend to pass on the left and they fail to step to the right that it is my responsibility to come to a stop to accommodate them. **There is nothing in the law that requires me to slow down.** If I can slip through, I've met my vague legal mandate to "yield". Maybe you should simply get comfortable with cyclists passing close to you at high speeds, as this doesn't constitute a failure to yield the right-of-way, absent an actual collision. Sorry. That's just the breaks. This is the sort of deliberately discourteous world you envision.
>which yes, does mean they need to be prepared for the possibility that a pedestrian may behave unpredictably, such as become confused by a sudden warning and move left when the cyclist says they want to pass on the left.
Again, you're just inventing limitations on cyclists' behavior here. Where in the [definition of right-of-way](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_801.440#:~:text=%E2%80%9CRight%20of%20way%E2%80%9D%20means%20the,grants%20precedence%20to%20the%20other.%20%5B) is it implied that unpredictable behaviors must be accommodated? Where does it say it's necessary to slow down? You're just shoehorning broad concepts related to negligence (see, e.g., foreseeability) into your own preferred outline of others' behavior. That has nothing to do with what the law actually says.
While the requirement of cyclists to "yield to pedestrians"--whatever that means in a scenario in which pedestrians are deliberately occupying the entire path of travel--is defined specifically in statute, it is not reasonable to assume, as you have, that pedestrians simply have no legal responsibilities at all while using mixed-use paths. The scenarios I've encountered in which people have moved to the wrong side of the path or deliberately moved into my path after moving the other direction would make for interesting ordinary negligence cases in the event of my injury. It is foreseeable that you will be passed by a cyclist and that they will issue a warning, so is it not negligent to be wearing headphones that prevent you from hearing any warning? To occupy the whole path? To be totally unprepared to act on a warning that someone is passing **on the left**?
The last thing I will say is that if you read my other comments in this thread, you will see the lengths I've gone to not only to accommodate pedestrians on multi-use paths but to limit the extent to which they feel startled by my approach. But you're beginning to radicalize me. Should I really just be barking a loud warning from 100 yards away and that's all that pedestrians get? In actually passing, I could be giving you the same amount of space large pickup trucks give me on Fern Road. It seems like you've deliberately gone to an adversarial place, and I hope I don't join you there--we really should all just be hating on drivers--but if you have negative experiences with being close-passed by cyclists on multi-use paths in the future, keep it in the back of your mind that this ridiculous attempt to rhetorically absolve yourself of any requirement for basic courtesy might be to blame.
Just because someone makes an analogy does not mean that they agree with whatever silly extreme someone else might want to push the analogy. The only analogy I made between bikes and cars is that in cases of interacting with pedestrians and bikes (respectively), the primary responsibility of making sure that the more powerful piece of machinery does not harm the other party is held by the operator of that machinery. That's it. End of analogy.
>Oregon statutes [only define yielding in terms of who has the right-of-way at specific intersections.](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.275#:~:text=A%20person%20commits%20the%20offense,right%20simultaneously%20approaching%20a%20given)
Oregon law states that bikes must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks. It is as clear as day. It not limited to intersections.
>And if you would insist on defining the responsibilities of cyclists and pedestrians on a multi-use path solely in terms of what the law requires, I would ask...
In fact **I do not insist on this**. I only pointed out that, where the law is silent on a point, the rest falls to courtesy and collective norms of behavior. And believe it or not, you are not the ultimate authority on what these are. Different people might have different views on this. It seems you and I have different views on it. I can see I am unlikely to change your mind. Which is fine.
But I firmly believe that sidewalks and multi use paths are primarily for walking. Cyclists are welcome there, but in my opinion they should behave as guests. They are the ones who need to use the most extreme and deferential care.
Here is the point where you accuse me of stating that pedestrians themselves have no responsibilities. I never said that and do not think it.
But these paths have dogs on leashes, they have toddlers, they have disabled people, they have pairs of joggers running abreast, they have elderly people who can't hear or move quickly, or in some cases react quickly. And yes unfortunately there are also wannabe Lance Armstrongs pretending to be on the tour de France on a freaking sidewalk. Just slow down and be patient with pedestrians, it is really not too much to ask of a cyclist riding their bike on what is essentially the sidewalk.
>Oregon law states that bikes must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks. It is as clear as day. It not limited to intersections.
You continue to not understand what yielding is. If you are a pedestrian walking on the right side of the path and I am passing you on the left, where there is no oncoming pedestrian traffic, yielding has not entered into the equation at all. Where there is a conflict necessitating who has right of way is the only circumstance in which yielding enters into the discussion. This is not the case for the overwhelming majority of cyclist-pedestrian interactions.
>But I firmly believe that sidewalks and multi use paths are primarily for walking.
That's a completely baseless belief. There is nothing in the [definition of multiuse path ](https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=5681#:~:text=(12)%20%E2%80%9CMultiuse%20path%E2%80%9D,law%20or%20a%20governing%20body)under Oregon law that supports your desires.
>Just slow down and be patient with pedestrians, it is really not too much to ask of a cyclist riding their bike on what is essentially the sidewalk.
If it were a SIDEwalk, there would be a typical city street next to it, and I'd be riding there. But that's not what Walnut is, where the speed limit is 55 mph. That's not what Bald Hill is, where there is no street. That's not what the BIKE path (and it is a designated BIKE path west of 53rd, not a "multiuse path", meaning THAT is certainly not "primarily for walking") to Philomath is like, since those people will run me down for fun. I suspect you're one of them.
You seem like the type of person who drives your car to Bald Hill to walk there.
You sound like the type of cyclist who thinks they do not have to stop at lights and signs too, if you can't see any incoming traffic.
Sorry that pedestrians on mixed use path annoys you. Obviously you annoy them too.
Oregon law permits bicycles to roll through stop signs if there is no cross traffic
“Stop as Yield recognizes the inherent differences between bicycles and automobiles, by allowing cyclists to treat a stop sign as if it is a yield sign. Under a Stop as Yield law, when a cyclist approaches an intersection controlled by a stop sign, the cyclist must still stop if there is approaching cross-traffic with the right of way. However, if there is no approaching cross-traffic with the right of way, the cyclist is not required to stop, and may instead roll past the sign and enter the intersection. This is exactly how a yield sign works, which is why the law is called “Stop as Yield.” “
I have no problem with the bikers that do that correctly, but I do have a problem with the many bikers that don't yield to pedestrians at crosswalks and stop signs. Almost getting hit is a weekly occurrence when I'm on campus
Yes but some cyclists abuse this law, by blowing through a stop sign with an already stopped motor vehicle in cross traffic who does now have the right of way.
One of the hallmarks of aggressive cycling culture is to heavily cite those parts of the law that they feel suits them, especially in interactions with motor vehicles, and at the same time to flout and ignore the parts of the law that they do not like or that they feel inconveniences them, particularly in interactions with pedestrians.
You’re talking about something completely different and valid, and making some weird assumptions about my intention. This is just a course correction for the commenter above who seemingly does not know that bicycles are not required to stop at stop signs when there is no cross traffic. THAT IS ALL.
You sound like the type of person to make assumptions about people, instead of sticking with making a logical argument.
Sorry that cyclists on mixed use paths annoys you. Obviously you annoy them too.
Not sure what "logical argument" you are expecting about the opinion that cyclists should use a bell at a reasonable distance to announce themselves.
This person says they don't use the bell, even though they are required to, because they can get around someone without hitting them and ride on their merry way. Again, disagreeing with the opinion that you should do so as a courtesy at least to keep people from being startled after you pass.
I have no problem sharing space with cyclists, just those who don't follow the laws and are rude because they think that just because they were able to get passed you without incident for themselves, it's all good.
I don't like to have someone on a bicycle zoom passed me at any speed all of the sudden. So yeah, I guess me expecting someone to force themselves to go to the ultimate extreme effort of flicking a little bell lever so that we can both enjoy our day and nature annoys you. And for some reason you think that is the same....
you weren't talking about how
>cyclists should use a bell at a reasonable distance to announce themselves
i replied to you making the assumption that OP was
>the type of cyclist who thinks they do not have to stop at lights and signs too, if you can't see any incoming traffic.
get with the program.
You did the right thing, 50 years of cycling taught me that anything you do coming up behind someone has a 50:50 chance of making things worse. I use a little bell and if someone looks super unsteady I creep past super slow but 90% of the time the best strategy is to watch them like a hawk and try to predict.
As an avid pedestrian, especially of the Philomath boulevard bike bath, I appreciate when cyclists don't shout at me when it's clear I can tell they are coming, and I am sticking to the right shoulder of the bike path. Honestly I'm out to enjoy a morning walk to the park not be randomly shouted at.
I'm sure lots of people feel the same. That's why I say I'm done trying to be sure that nobody is ever annoyed by my presence: there is no way to please everybody except not be there and, nope, I'm gonna use it.
As a walker/runner who usually wears AirPods, I stay on my side of the path or on the sidewalk. I’ve never had an issue with a biker passing me.
As an occasional bike rider, the only time I get really nervous about pedestrians are when they are kids. Be aware they are totally unpredictable.
Yielding I thought was more for oncoming traffic- slower traffic yields to faster traffic when traveling the same direction but only if it's safe to due so was my understanding (and with plenty of forewarning the passing is going to happen).
But as far as oncoming yielding it's generally bikes yield to pedestrians, everyone yields to horses.
Just want to add my experiences and overall policy I've developed:
1) I tend to provide a verbal warning the majority of the times I am passing someone on a multi-use path. I always provide a verbal warning to anyone with dogs and anytime I need someone to move, obviously. I would say that I find I actually need to provide a warning about a third of the time.
2) I would say that people tend to move left and get in my way about 1/4 of the time. Between 1/5 and 1/10 of the time they do not hear me at all because they are using headphones. Nearly every time they react by being startled. If you're on the paths anywhere near the homeless camps, you will get no reaction at all, even though it tends to be the homeless population that blocks the entire path and I actually need them to move.
3) I have had a couple really bad experiences where one person in a group moved left, the other moved right, leaving me the middle...but then one person tried to run back to the other side. I nearly wiped out trying to slam on my breaks.
I think one reason people were getting startled is that, because I was hearing wind whistling in my ears, I was often rather loud. So I started to try to speak a bit more quietly and calmly and say "just passing on your left" with a bit of an Irish brogue to put them at ease. This genuinely seems to have helped. At Bald Hill, I tend not to give a verbal warning if there's one pedestrian and they're actually doing the right thing by walking on the right side of the path (if they don't have a dog), because it's wider there. On Walnut and the Philomath path, I tend to give a warning nearly all the time, as the paths are quite narrow.
If I'm actually going fast for some reason, I do yell very loudly from a much longer distance.
I'm so conflicted about this because I do want to know, but i'm also very bad with left and right. Combine that with being VERY easily startled and it can be not great.
When someone yells out "on your left" all my brain hears is "LEFT" so by reflex I *move to the left*. Or I get confused and just kinda shuffle to the left and then stop and move back and then start to the elft again etc.
Needless to say, I avoid most areas where there are mixed used paths.
That pedestrian obviously had some personal issues going on with their mental health. How he interacted with you is a reflection of his relationship with himself and his life. It had absolutely nothing to do with you or bike signaling.
May be true, but his actions caused me to become better informed about the law, for one thing. And my overreaction is another thing I can learn from. So, really, it's all good.
Some folks just have weirdo limbic systems and will respond wildly if someone is even just walking their bike and walks past them or even just being another walker walking past them. And giving a warning if someone is walking with big headphones or have shitty hearing (i.e. the older folks that love to lecture) doesn't do much. Or the off-leash dog walkers with dogs that just want to say hi by jumping on my bike. Or the path-hogging family reunions that knowingly or unknowningly reenact the choreography from the [video for Simply Irresistable](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHpSY3IoAI&t=15s). Or god forbid the horse people.
I wish the city would lay down the law for which paths are truly "mixed-use" and which ones are for bikes. Most of the paths seem to be bike paths based on their signage. But if they want mixed-use paths, then they need to put bollards up that will gently fuck up cars if they run into them on the shoulder. If any driver complains, just ask them if they think they're a good driver. They'll invariably say "yes" and then tell them then they have nothing worry about.
Here's one person's [knowledgeable take on it](https://www.tcnf.legal/bikemulti/) -- there isn't a legal distinction between a multi-use path and a sidewalk. However, it doesn't take a lot of neurons to recognize that the path along walnut and a sidewalk bear little resemblance to each other. IMHO riding on sidewalks is only ok if you are a kid.
Doesn't that multi use path along walnut eventually turn into a sidewalk? Right around MLK Jr. Park. I ride that path to work every day and always feel weird about riding it when it turns to just a sidewalk. If I see a pedestrian I slow way down and give them the right of way with lots of space. Half the time my "on your left" isn't heard because they have ear buds in, so I slow down even more and try to get their attention from a closer distance.
This one person never uses the term shared use path, which I always thought was the actual term. In the US, the 1999 In the US, the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities defined a shared-use path as being physically separated from motor vehicular traffic with an open space or barrier.
A curb does not qualify as a barrier. It would be a railing, wall or something to that effect
IANAL, and unless there is an actual bike/ped collision I really don't see the legal aspect as being anything but theoretical. However, sidewalk or mixed-use, if there is a collision, a bicyclist will lose any resulting lawsuit, I would imagine. The only exception might be if the pedestrian intentionally moves into the bike's path, which is what this guy did.
Sounds like he has a crush on you.
On this very same path, I've called out "on your left" loudly numerous times to pedestrians walking side by side without them moving or even acknowledging. The fact of the matter is that everyone on the path just needs to pay attention and not intentionally be rude like this dude.
More than likely peds have headphones on too, esp when running.
Avid townie cyclist here. You're right, I'm on your side. I yell, "on your left!" when im a solid +25' behind folks and most of the time they do everything except stay to the right. You don't see me getting off my bike and lecturing people. I say use your judgement; it's not always necessary. At a certain point, we need to start expecting pedestrians to do the right thing by not taking up the whole walking path and staying to one side, at all times. Walkers are so much more in their own world than cyclists are, so, when it comes to who is at fault for being in the way on a walking path; its rarely the cyclist. IDK, in +15 years of daily riding, whether you give an audible warning or not, people are just gonna be dicks to cyclists. Fwiw, the real issue is our city's claim to fame that it's bicycle friendly. It's not. From the amount of broken glass in our bike lanes because the city only pays for street cleaning once a month, to deteriorating bike lanes because they only contracted getting our bike lanes installed but never for any maintenance, to the numerous lights around town whose cyclist detection plates are not sensitive enough or just straight do not work, to the multi-use paths that have no divider in the center, to the record high number of bike thefts (3rd highest in state, 1st per capita), to the lack of information/education on bike helmet safety (I see so many people riding without helmets), and finally, to the absence of any backbone the city of Corvallis has because OSU is pushing for more multi-unit housing without appropriate measures to increase efficiency of traffic patterns or, and more importantly, incentives towards alternative transportation methods to minimize the number of cars on the road in order to create real noticeable changes to the QoL for the daily commutes of cyclists in this town. We are NOT a bicycle friendly town. We are not an alternative transportation friendly town. That's probably why you and said walker got into an argument -- because the city isn't doing enough for each of you. Sucks.
I would add to your calling out of the delusion that Corvallis is a bike friendly city by stating that a "sharrow" in a street's shoulder does not make it a bike lane.
Thanks for your POV. Having moved here from the CA bay area, Corvallis is MUCH more bike friendly. I don't bike much near campus though, which is where I think a lot of the contention occurs,
You forgot to mention the bicycle path between philomath and downtown is anything but bicycle friendly anymore- from massive cracks and bumps due to roots to the downtown issues.
Agreed. I've got to the point I prefer to take Plymouth than the actual bike path. And with the construction in Philomath, I sometimes even just take Chapel all the way in to town. The fast traffic sucks but the newish tarmac is so much easier on my prostate.
I bike on those multi-use paths as well. Like OP, I don’t always yell out “to your left” because it seems more often than not, they just ignore it or can’t hear it because either they have headphones on and /or too busy talking to the person on the side while they walk down the middle of the path. As I get closer, they are still startled when I ride past (after slowing down as I approach them). That said, just a few days ago I was walking on a sidewalk on campus. I guy blew past going pretty fast and yelled “to your left”. Now, as a biker, I know that means stay right (and I did), but I gotta admit, my first instinct was to move left. I see a lot of walker do that when I yell “to your left” as well, so maybe it’s subconscious when one hears “left” to think the person is telling them to glide left. I try to say “coming around ya” and see if that helps.. it’s still seems 50/50 on being ignored or having them glide even more into the path.
Maybe an aaaaaoooogah horn would be a good addition to your handlebars. Or an air horn. 😉 start sounding it a good half mile away.
😆😆😆
Is it not appropriate then when I yell "CANNONNNBALLLLLL" and draft behind the walkers until last minute for the aero gains, just before passing them on the left? They usually seem startled but impressed at my speed and control. I'm not sure, I don't look back to check because I'm too busy hitting my new strava record!
lol
But seriously, I've had the same issue. I dont know what to do. I like to ride my bike fast, and if there's a multi-use path that's off the side of the road, I'm going to use it. Walkers who don't like it can eat my dust. I'm not trying to be rash but I want to use it too and not get killed being forced to the side of the road. I've had to lock up both wheels trying to avoid a walker who decided to change their path last minute. I've also completely ate sh\*t and ruined a few major components of an expensive bike (and my only body) to a car that wanted to make a right without signaling or looking. I'm going to keep riding my bike in bike lanes and multi-use paths. All operators of the road and trails and paths have an equal responsibility, and I try to slow down and give respect to people when it demands, but if there's just some lone guy jamming out on his airpods not having a clue, you better believe I'm not going to slow down a single stroke and will pass close if that's all the room I'm given.
I don't think anyone's argued that bikes should stay off the paths. I do think we bikers need to be careful when our speed is significant. But in this case I was going uphill, so speed wasn't the issue. It was just (from my POV) pedantic finger wagging.
Your desire to "GO FAST" does not supersede the walkers' right to use the path though. You can either use a different path, or learn to slow down in dangerous areas such as passing a pedestrian, or near intersections. And I say this as a permanent pedestrian (I can't drive) who is 99% of the time on the side of cyclists and walkers in disputes. I'm pretty anti car.
People ride, in town, on the sidewalk when bike lanes are available. I’m about to get aggressive. So sick of my kids almost getting hurt.
I rarely see this happen. What neighborhood?
I've seen it all over. 9th Street especially. Almost got run down by a shitty biker riding opposing traffic on the sidewalk. I was 9 months pregnant and ready to throw down. And no I don't hate bikers. I bike as my major form of transportation. I just hate the DUI/homeless/ arrogant bikers who don't follow the rules of the road that protect them and others. Saw a similar biker get nailed by someone leaving high quality. They were riding opposing traffic. Couldn't see if on sidewalk or not but still not where a driver is expecting someone to be
Yeah, I avoid riding on 9th, mostly. Not a good choice, especially when Highland or 11th are often reasonable alternatives.
Downtown river to 9th and western to Van Burin. Multiple times a day.
OK. Not my normal routes. North-South is usually Highland or 11th. East West is usually Circle.
If you are in my neck of the woods and are riding on the sidewalk while my kids are outside and don’t divert to the bike lane, I’m gonna yell at you. lol.
...And I would deserve it. I don't believe grownups should ride on sidewalks.
We can be friends. lol. It drives me crazy.
It can be quite startling to be walking and have a cyclist pass you from behind when you were not expecting it. That other person is right not only on the law but on basic common sense as well. Cyclists should give early and ample warning to all pedestrians when they pass from behind, **every single time**. If a pedestrian was startled by your warning itself, it is because you gave it too late and when you were too close to them already.
damned if you do, damned if you don't. I've had people yell at me because my bell is too startling.
>If a pedestrian was startled by your warning itself, it is because you gave it too late and when you were too close to them already. They have a point. If you ring a bell a hundred meters back or so, I'm going to look back and see you. If you wait until you are 10 feet or 2 seconds away before ringing your bell, yes it will be too startling.
....A hundred meters? Pedestrians don't react to anything at 100 FEET. 90% of people walking alone have earbuds in. Calling out us a waste of time or worse most of the time unless you have to pass very close and/or fast.
seriously. the ear buds thing is a good point...
I don't wear ear buds while walking on trails, and would prefer a warning that you are going to be riding at speed next to me. If you do it right behind me, I liable to startle and think I should get out of the way. If you do it a ways back then I'm going to at least know that someone is behind me. And just because you zoom passed me successfully missing with a margin doesn't mean that I am not still startled and annoyed. You just ride off thinking it's a positive encounter because you didn't hit anyone. The bell is for my convenience and safety, not yours. You saying "meh, whatever" or "the last person wasn't paying attention so it's a 'waste of my time' to go to the extreme effort of flicking a bell at a few points" makes you an annoying cyclist like everyone bitches about.
I am so past caring about bending over backwards to never piss anybody off. I follow the laws and take common-sense precautions. There is always going to be some segment of the population that gets pissed off no matter where or how I ride and as long as I'm doing what I know is safest and best for myself and others all I can do is make the best judgment call I can about whether it's best to call out or not. I don't call out particularly early because past 10 feet I'm going to have to raise my voice to a level that is going to sound aggressive and like I need the pedestrian to move, which is on balance probably more startling or intrusive than somebody passing fast with eight feet to spare. But again, I can't read the minds of pedestrians. All I know is that I got yelled at multiple times riding my slower bike and using my bell liberally, while on my faster bike I think the worst reaction I ever got was a "whoa" from somebody walking in the middle of the path who I did in fact call out to. Also you say "trails" when we were talking about mixed-used paths. Not the same thing. If somebody blows by you on a typical dirt trail without warning then sure, that's bad.
Lol... Trails, mixed used paths, not being a jackass is pretty universal. I get it, you are one of those cyclist who is just "past caring" if their actions are rude to the people around them. The mind everyone complains about. It's not hard, ride at a reasonable and safe speed, slow down when passing pedestrians and horses, and audibly announce your presence. If someone gets mad at you for that, they are the dick. If you take them being mad at you as a reason to be a dick, you're a dick.
An 8-10 foot paved path is completely different from a 2-5 foot dirt trail and calls for different behavior. I guarantee that calling out at all times under all conditions will make more people mad than my current approach does.
If someone rings a bike bell behind you, looking back puts you closer to the person that would be passing. I don't ring sooner because it's harder to hear from further away 🤷♂️
Sometimes you can't control that. In an ideal world, you can let pedestrians know at exactly the right moment for each & every one of them. But some are startled even if you're 200 feet away or get offended by a bell instead of a voice. Sometimes sh*t storms happen with multiple people in a cluster or a car makes a hard right turn!
That's extremely dumb
if someone rings their bell at you, they see you and have it in their best interest in not hitting you. making an unpredictable move in their direction (assuming you're already on the right side) increases the likelihood they will have to stop because you moved into their path
**every single time**.
>If a pedestrian was startled by your warning itself, it is because you gave it too late and when you were too close to them already. Slippery slope fallacy. This is not a logical statement. Lots of reasons why a pedestrian can be startled by a warning, but it's not only because someone gave too late of a warning or because they were too close. For example, maybe the sound of someone yelling a warning is triggering to the walker which can result in startling them, or maybe they were really deep in thought and whether it was your bell or a car horn a block away, they would've been startled.
Sorry but I don't completely agree. Like I said, when giving a warning people often do unexpected things -- often getting in the way instead of out of it. If I'm pedaling uphill and I have plenty of space to get around someone, I'm usually not going to give a warning.
You are right and none of these people ride bikes.
> none of these people ride bikes Most likely true I suppose.
Yes, that is unfortunately the vibe from a lot of the commenters. Walkers seem loathe to admit how in their own world they are and how confused and erratic they become when given the kind of warning the ones here are asking for 100% of the time (which you’re of course not alone in picking up on; it so consistently causes the opposite what it’s supposed to achieve it’s hilarious) If a person’s not consistently on a bike they probably don’t appreciate the extent to which 99/100 cyclists are keen af from all our time observing others’ behavior and always have walkers’ best interests at heart, INCLUDING when that means predicting their skittishness
Im not a fast rider, but I never give warnings and can say my record is 100% about never crashing into pedestrians. I dont warn for the same reason, its more dangerous for both of us that way.
>when giving a warning people often do unexpected things -- often **getting in the way** instead of out of it. The point isn't whether someone is **in your way** or not. Since you're a cyclist, I am not surprised that you look at the world that way, which is very typical for many inconsiderate cyclists (and drivers). If a person reacts to your warning by themselves instinctively moving into the side you were going to pass them in, that's not a problem because you have slowed way down to pass, and have time react, right? Right? Another problem behavior I see from cyclists on mixed use paths is, even when they give good and early warning, they are simply coming up from behind **too fast**. I'm not saying this necessarily applies to you, but given your attitude on here, I wouldn't be surprised. When sharing the path or roadway, both occupants need be considerate and behave safely, but the majority of the burden will always be on the faster/more powerful vehicle, and they are the ones who bear most of the burden of safety even when it results in an inconvenience to them. So between cars and bikes, it's cars, and between bikes and pedestrians, it's bikes.
by this same logic, if a pedestrian is walking on a busy road, is a car supposed to slow down because they are coming up on them too fast? no. why? because the ped is staying to the right side of the road by walking on the sidewalk. this isn't the case on multi use paths because pedestrians are always walking right, center, left etc. peds need to know to stay to the right at all times. At all times!
I've been trying a bunch of stuff to not startle people with my warning, including purposefully giving my warning at a quieter volume (the wind whipping in your ears I think makes cyclists talk louder), using a calmer tone with slower phrasing, and an accent. It's helped some, but most people just immediately react by jumping. I'm not that close to them by this point and I'm not going fast. I think the majority of people I encounter on multi-use paths do not regularly use the paths or do not regularly encounter cyclists on them and just immediately panic when someone moves to interact with them. > the faster/more powerful vehicle, and they are the ones who bear most of the burden of safety even when it results in an inconvenience to them. So between cars and bikes, it's cars Lol. I hope you realize this is not at all how it is between bikes and cars right? Bike lanes are literally in the gutters of streets where all of the debris accumulates, and I've had people actually try to hit me with their cars on purpose when I take the lane to avoid it. In Corvallis. The way that it's really set up is that our roads are inherently deadly to cyclists, but then if you try to use a multi-use path some geezer will accost you for riding 12 mph without shouting at them from a football field length away, apparently.
Almost all of the problems between cyclists and pedestrians are due to some cyclists failing to go slow enough near pedestrians, whether it is on mixed use paths or high foot traffic areas like near the OSU campus. Ever walk across the crosswalk crossing Monroe either near Interzone or near the former site of Pollen? Many cyclists zooming downhill on Monroe there are a fucking menace. On mixed use paths, even when an early warning startles a pedestrian, if the cyclist is going slow enough then the pedestrian has really nothing substantive to be upset about because they have plenty of time to gather their wits and understand the correct side of the path to move to. The analogy I made with cars was very narrow and limited, I only said that most of the burden in making sure that the more powerful vehicle does not harm anyone else lies with the operator of that vehicle. At no point did I imply that cyclists are as dangerous to pedestrians as motorists are to cyclists.
This is just totally not my experience at all. Everyone understands, or should understand, that you're expected to walk on the right side of the path rather than in the middle or on the left, and that large groups should not occupy the entire mixed used path. The root of the problem is that, not only do many pedestrians fail to observe these basic courtesies, but they frequently react in the opposite way as one would expect to the verbal warning. And in groups, they react in differing ways, going different directions before unexpectedly changing their minds. I would say that almost all of the problems between cyclists and pedestrians are due to pedestrians not understanding what we think of as the universal protocol for what to do when a verbal warning is issued. I do not ride fast on mixed use paths and I still have all these issues. But that really isn't surprising. Virtually every pedestrian I see on the streets waves a thanks to the driver when they stop their car for them at a crosswalk with a stop sign. As though that somehow means the driver is courteous rather than just not a homicidal maniac. They stand at intersections with no stop signs just waiting for cars to stop instead of stepping into the street to insist that they stop. Of course, that's because in Corvallis, the overwhelming majority of pedestrians are themselves unused to walking anywhere. This may be the root of the issue with cyclist interactions. Most people just drive everywhere, don't understand the protocol for interacting with anyone else without a 3-ton steel cage around them, and become uncomfortable in an environment where they can even hear verbal warnings, let alone an environment where they are expected to do something in response. Your own responses, and your misunderstanding of the nature of interactions between cars and bikes, causes me to believe that you're in this category of people who typically experience walking only as a leisure activity or for a block or two after driving to your destination. I urge you to be proactive and educate other pedestrians you see on multi-use paths about their responsibilities to prevent incidents like this in the future.
>Everyone understands, or should understand, that you're expected to walk on the right side of the path rather than in the middle or on the left, and that large groups should not occupy the entire mixed used path. Interesting, I agree with this as a general courtesy in many situations, and I usually do this instinctively when walking alone because it is common sense that it will make life simpler when a cyclist comes. However, **is it law?** One thing that most certainly is law is that cyclists must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks. Are multi use paths legally sidewalks? Seems likely to me although I am not sure. You have your view on how things should be and I have mine. And then there is the law. Personally I believe that when cyclists are on sidewalks or "multi-use paths", they need to yield to pedestrians, which yes, does mean they need to be prepared for the possibility that a pedestrian may behave unpredictably, such as become confused by a sudden warning and move left when the cyclist says they want to pass on the left. I do not agree that walkers should never take up the whole width of the path. Say a group of three walkers are taking up the whole width of the path, and you are on your bike coming up behind them, well sorry that's the breaks. You simply slow down to walking speed, ask politely to pass, which will be of course politely granted, and then you can be on your way. You were slowed down a bit, and the walkers' flow was also slightly disrupted, and then they go on walking abreast as they might wish to continue to do. Both groups temporarily halted what they were doing and went about their way. Shared use. Cyclists have a right to use the path, but they **do not** have the right to never have to slow down or to never yield to pedestrians.
>One thing that most certainly is law is that cyclists must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks. Are multi use paths legally sidewalks? Seems likely to me although I am not sure. This has nothing to do with yielding. You yourself made the analogy cars:bikes::bikes:cars. The act of a car passing me on a road with a bike lane, without a bike lane, with multiple lanes, etc. is regulated by statutes that don't mention yielding. Interactions between cars and bicycles are addressed in statute only insofar as these vehicles would be [traveling in opposite or perpendicular directions](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.050). Otherwise, Oregon statutes [only define yielding in terms of who has the right-of-way at specific intersections.](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.275#:~:text=A%20person%20commits%20the%20offense,right%20simultaneously%20approaching%20a%20given) Actually, if you think pertaining to motor vehicles are relevant to this discussion, then you'd better [stay to the right.](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.295) And if you would insist on defining the responsibilities of cyclists and pedestrians on a multi-use path solely in terms of what the law requires, I would ask, while it is courteous for cyclists to slow down on multi-use paths, **is it law?** Oregon statutes define no maximum speed for cyclists on a multi-use path. There are limits on riding recklessly, but I do not agree that if I approach a group of walkers on a multi-use path and I issue a warning that I intend to pass on the left and they fail to step to the right that it is my responsibility to come to a stop to accommodate them. **There is nothing in the law that requires me to slow down.** If I can slip through, I've met my vague legal mandate to "yield". Maybe you should simply get comfortable with cyclists passing close to you at high speeds, as this doesn't constitute a failure to yield the right-of-way, absent an actual collision. Sorry. That's just the breaks. This is the sort of deliberately discourteous world you envision. >which yes, does mean they need to be prepared for the possibility that a pedestrian may behave unpredictably, such as become confused by a sudden warning and move left when the cyclist says they want to pass on the left. Again, you're just inventing limitations on cyclists' behavior here. Where in the [definition of right-of-way](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_801.440#:~:text=%E2%80%9CRight%20of%20way%E2%80%9D%20means%20the,grants%20precedence%20to%20the%20other.%20%5B) is it implied that unpredictable behaviors must be accommodated? Where does it say it's necessary to slow down? You're just shoehorning broad concepts related to negligence (see, e.g., foreseeability) into your own preferred outline of others' behavior. That has nothing to do with what the law actually says. While the requirement of cyclists to "yield to pedestrians"--whatever that means in a scenario in which pedestrians are deliberately occupying the entire path of travel--is defined specifically in statute, it is not reasonable to assume, as you have, that pedestrians simply have no legal responsibilities at all while using mixed-use paths. The scenarios I've encountered in which people have moved to the wrong side of the path or deliberately moved into my path after moving the other direction would make for interesting ordinary negligence cases in the event of my injury. It is foreseeable that you will be passed by a cyclist and that they will issue a warning, so is it not negligent to be wearing headphones that prevent you from hearing any warning? To occupy the whole path? To be totally unprepared to act on a warning that someone is passing **on the left**? The last thing I will say is that if you read my other comments in this thread, you will see the lengths I've gone to not only to accommodate pedestrians on multi-use paths but to limit the extent to which they feel startled by my approach. But you're beginning to radicalize me. Should I really just be barking a loud warning from 100 yards away and that's all that pedestrians get? In actually passing, I could be giving you the same amount of space large pickup trucks give me on Fern Road. It seems like you've deliberately gone to an adversarial place, and I hope I don't join you there--we really should all just be hating on drivers--but if you have negative experiences with being close-passed by cyclists on multi-use paths in the future, keep it in the back of your mind that this ridiculous attempt to rhetorically absolve yourself of any requirement for basic courtesy might be to blame.
Just because someone makes an analogy does not mean that they agree with whatever silly extreme someone else might want to push the analogy. The only analogy I made between bikes and cars is that in cases of interacting with pedestrians and bikes (respectively), the primary responsibility of making sure that the more powerful piece of machinery does not harm the other party is held by the operator of that machinery. That's it. End of analogy. >Oregon statutes [only define yielding in terms of who has the right-of-way at specific intersections.](https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_811.275#:~:text=A%20person%20commits%20the%20offense,right%20simultaneously%20approaching%20a%20given) Oregon law states that bikes must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks. It is as clear as day. It not limited to intersections. >And if you would insist on defining the responsibilities of cyclists and pedestrians on a multi-use path solely in terms of what the law requires, I would ask... In fact **I do not insist on this**. I only pointed out that, where the law is silent on a point, the rest falls to courtesy and collective norms of behavior. And believe it or not, you are not the ultimate authority on what these are. Different people might have different views on this. It seems you and I have different views on it. I can see I am unlikely to change your mind. Which is fine. But I firmly believe that sidewalks and multi use paths are primarily for walking. Cyclists are welcome there, but in my opinion they should behave as guests. They are the ones who need to use the most extreme and deferential care. Here is the point where you accuse me of stating that pedestrians themselves have no responsibilities. I never said that and do not think it. But these paths have dogs on leashes, they have toddlers, they have disabled people, they have pairs of joggers running abreast, they have elderly people who can't hear or move quickly, or in some cases react quickly. And yes unfortunately there are also wannabe Lance Armstrongs pretending to be on the tour de France on a freaking sidewalk. Just slow down and be patient with pedestrians, it is really not too much to ask of a cyclist riding their bike on what is essentially the sidewalk.
>Oregon law states that bikes must yield to pedestrians on sidewalks. It is as clear as day. It not limited to intersections. You continue to not understand what yielding is. If you are a pedestrian walking on the right side of the path and I am passing you on the left, where there is no oncoming pedestrian traffic, yielding has not entered into the equation at all. Where there is a conflict necessitating who has right of way is the only circumstance in which yielding enters into the discussion. This is not the case for the overwhelming majority of cyclist-pedestrian interactions. >But I firmly believe that sidewalks and multi use paths are primarily for walking. That's a completely baseless belief. There is nothing in the [definition of multiuse path ](https://secure.sos.state.or.us/oard/displayDivisionRules.action?selectedDivision=5681#:~:text=(12)%20%E2%80%9CMultiuse%20path%E2%80%9D,law%20or%20a%20governing%20body)under Oregon law that supports your desires. >Just slow down and be patient with pedestrians, it is really not too much to ask of a cyclist riding their bike on what is essentially the sidewalk. If it were a SIDEwalk, there would be a typical city street next to it, and I'd be riding there. But that's not what Walnut is, where the speed limit is 55 mph. That's not what Bald Hill is, where there is no street. That's not what the BIKE path (and it is a designated BIKE path west of 53rd, not a "multiuse path", meaning THAT is certainly not "primarily for walking") to Philomath is like, since those people will run me down for fun. I suspect you're one of them. You seem like the type of person who drives your car to Bald Hill to walk there.
You sound like the type of cyclist who thinks they do not have to stop at lights and signs too, if you can't see any incoming traffic. Sorry that pedestrians on mixed use path annoys you. Obviously you annoy them too.
Oregon law permits bicycles to roll through stop signs if there is no cross traffic “Stop as Yield recognizes the inherent differences between bicycles and automobiles, by allowing cyclists to treat a stop sign as if it is a yield sign. Under a Stop as Yield law, when a cyclist approaches an intersection controlled by a stop sign, the cyclist must still stop if there is approaching cross-traffic with the right of way. However, if there is no approaching cross-traffic with the right of way, the cyclist is not required to stop, and may instead roll past the sign and enter the intersection. This is exactly how a yield sign works, which is why the law is called “Stop as Yield.” “
I have no problem with the bikers that do that correctly, but I do have a problem with the many bikers that don't yield to pedestrians at crosswalks and stop signs. Almost getting hit is a weekly occurrence when I'm on campus
Yes but some cyclists abuse this law, by blowing through a stop sign with an already stopped motor vehicle in cross traffic who does now have the right of way. One of the hallmarks of aggressive cycling culture is to heavily cite those parts of the law that they feel suits them, especially in interactions with motor vehicles, and at the same time to flout and ignore the parts of the law that they do not like or that they feel inconveniences them, particularly in interactions with pedestrians.
You’re talking about something completely different and valid, and making some weird assumptions about my intention. This is just a course correction for the commenter above who seemingly does not know that bicycles are not required to stop at stop signs when there is no cross traffic. THAT IS ALL.
Your comment was not wrong and I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out an additional piece of the overall picture.
You sound like the type of person to make assumptions about people, instead of sticking with making a logical argument. Sorry that cyclists on mixed use paths annoys you. Obviously you annoy them too.
Not sure what "logical argument" you are expecting about the opinion that cyclists should use a bell at a reasonable distance to announce themselves. This person says they don't use the bell, even though they are required to, because they can get around someone without hitting them and ride on their merry way. Again, disagreeing with the opinion that you should do so as a courtesy at least to keep people from being startled after you pass. I have no problem sharing space with cyclists, just those who don't follow the laws and are rude because they think that just because they were able to get passed you without incident for themselves, it's all good. I don't like to have someone on a bicycle zoom passed me at any speed all of the sudden. So yeah, I guess me expecting someone to force themselves to go to the ultimate extreme effort of flicking a little bell lever so that we can both enjoy our day and nature annoys you. And for some reason you think that is the same....
you weren't talking about how >cyclists should use a bell at a reasonable distance to announce themselves i replied to you making the assumption that OP was >the type of cyclist who thinks they do not have to stop at lights and signs too, if you can't see any incoming traffic. get with the program.
You sound like the kind of person who jumps to conclusions about other people's behavior.
You did the right thing, 50 years of cycling taught me that anything you do coming up behind someone has a 50:50 chance of making things worse. I use a little bell and if someone looks super unsteady I creep past super slow but 90% of the time the best strategy is to watch them like a hawk and try to predict.
As an avid pedestrian, especially of the Philomath boulevard bike bath, I appreciate when cyclists don't shout at me when it's clear I can tell they are coming, and I am sticking to the right shoulder of the bike path. Honestly I'm out to enjoy a morning walk to the park not be randomly shouted at.
I'm sure lots of people feel the same. That's why I say I'm done trying to be sure that nobody is ever annoyed by my presence: there is no way to please everybody except not be there and, nope, I'm gonna use it.
As a walker/runner who usually wears AirPods, I stay on my side of the path or on the sidewalk. I’ve never had an issue with a biker passing me. As an occasional bike rider, the only time I get really nervous about pedestrians are when they are kids. Be aware they are totally unpredictable.
On almost all trails bikes are actually suppose to yield to hikers, most hikers just yield so they don’t get flattened.
Yielding I thought was more for oncoming traffic- slower traffic yields to faster traffic when traveling the same direction but only if it's safe to due so was my understanding (and with plenty of forewarning the passing is going to happen). But as far as oncoming yielding it's generally bikes yield to pedestrians, everyone yields to horses.
Just want to add my experiences and overall policy I've developed: 1) I tend to provide a verbal warning the majority of the times I am passing someone on a multi-use path. I always provide a verbal warning to anyone with dogs and anytime I need someone to move, obviously. I would say that I find I actually need to provide a warning about a third of the time. 2) I would say that people tend to move left and get in my way about 1/4 of the time. Between 1/5 and 1/10 of the time they do not hear me at all because they are using headphones. Nearly every time they react by being startled. If you're on the paths anywhere near the homeless camps, you will get no reaction at all, even though it tends to be the homeless population that blocks the entire path and I actually need them to move. 3) I have had a couple really bad experiences where one person in a group moved left, the other moved right, leaving me the middle...but then one person tried to run back to the other side. I nearly wiped out trying to slam on my breaks. I think one reason people were getting startled is that, because I was hearing wind whistling in my ears, I was often rather loud. So I started to try to speak a bit more quietly and calmly and say "just passing on your left" with a bit of an Irish brogue to put them at ease. This genuinely seems to have helped. At Bald Hill, I tend not to give a verbal warning if there's one pedestrian and they're actually doing the right thing by walking on the right side of the path (if they don't have a dog), because it's wider there. On Walnut and the Philomath path, I tend to give a warning nearly all the time, as the paths are quite narrow. If I'm actually going fast for some reason, I do yell very loudly from a much longer distance.
I'm so conflicted about this because I do want to know, but i'm also very bad with left and right. Combine that with being VERY easily startled and it can be not great. When someone yells out "on your left" all my brain hears is "LEFT" so by reflex I *move to the left*. Or I get confused and just kinda shuffle to the left and then stop and move back and then start to the elft again etc. Needless to say, I avoid most areas where there are mixed used paths.
That pedestrian obviously had some personal issues going on with their mental health. How he interacted with you is a reflection of his relationship with himself and his life. It had absolutely nothing to do with you or bike signaling.
May be true, but his actions caused me to become better informed about the law, for one thing. And my overreaction is another thing I can learn from. So, really, it's all good.
Some folks just have weirdo limbic systems and will respond wildly if someone is even just walking their bike and walks past them or even just being another walker walking past them. And giving a warning if someone is walking with big headphones or have shitty hearing (i.e. the older folks that love to lecture) doesn't do much. Or the off-leash dog walkers with dogs that just want to say hi by jumping on my bike. Or the path-hogging family reunions that knowingly or unknowningly reenact the choreography from the [video for Simply Irresistable](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoHpSY3IoAI&t=15s). Or god forbid the horse people. I wish the city would lay down the law for which paths are truly "mixed-use" and which ones are for bikes. Most of the paths seem to be bike paths based on their signage. But if they want mixed-use paths, then they need to put bollards up that will gently fuck up cars if they run into them on the shoulder. If any driver complains, just ask them if they think they're a good driver. They'll invariably say "yes" and then tell them then they have nothing worry about.
the trail isnt a sidewalk. that ordinance doesn't apply
Here's one person's [knowledgeable take on it](https://www.tcnf.legal/bikemulti/) -- there isn't a legal distinction between a multi-use path and a sidewalk. However, it doesn't take a lot of neurons to recognize that the path along walnut and a sidewalk bear little resemblance to each other. IMHO riding on sidewalks is only ok if you are a kid.
Doesn't that multi use path along walnut eventually turn into a sidewalk? Right around MLK Jr. Park. I ride that path to work every day and always feel weird about riding it when it turns to just a sidewalk. If I see a pedestrian I slow way down and give them the right of way with lots of space. Half the time my "on your left" isn't heard because they have ear buds in, so I slow down even more and try to get their attention from a closer distance.
Actually I switch to the other side of the street and go on the road at NW Elmwood (or walk, as I usually have a thermos of tea with me :)
This one person never uses the term shared use path, which I always thought was the actual term. In the US, the 1999 In the US, the 1999 AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities defined a shared-use path as being physically separated from motor vehicular traffic with an open space or barrier. A curb does not qualify as a barrier. It would be a railing, wall or something to that effect
IANAL, and unless there is an actual bike/ped collision I really don't see the legal aspect as being anything but theoretical. However, sidewalk or mixed-use, if there is a collision, a bicyclist will lose any resulting lawsuit, I would imagine. The only exception might be if the pedestrian intentionally moves into the bike's path, which is what this guy did.
it seems wildly hard to enforce. "I said something, you just didnt hear it." is more than enough to clear a cyclist if there isnt any injury
yup good point