Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4874Re: Bells and politeness

Expand Messages
  • turpin
    Jun 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      S Baddeley" <s.j.baddeley@b...> wrote:
      > EXHIBIT A: "While I can imagine a bell
      > being useful to people who regularly use
      > shared use facilities in order to request
      > pedestrians to step out of the way well in
      > advance"
      > I draw attention to the above quote as an
      > example of the assumptions underlying the
      > rudeness of some cyclists toward people on
      > foot. Why should a walker give way to a
      > cyclist? Civil road hierarchy suggests
      > walkers have priority.

      Speaking as someone who is usually a
      pedestrian, I think you're missing the
      point. The social ethic depends primarily on
      the intended use of the space. You're point
      is right on target .. WHEN the bicyclist is
      traversing a park intended for lounging and
      picnicking. Where maybe he ought to get off
      and walk, if the space is crowded. And the
      bicyclist should not even think of
      bicycling through a game on a basketball
      or tennis court.

      BUT. Some spaces are paths, are intended
      for traversal. I don't mind hearing a
      bicyclist's bell behind me, or a shouted
      "on your right." I happily make room for
      bicyclists and runners. And I find it
      annoying when four people stroll side by
      side consuming the entire path, or worst
      congregate in the middle, ignoring the
      jam they are causing on both sides. The
      issue isn't bicyclist vs. runner vs.
      pedestrian, but how to share a path for
      its intended use. This is NOT an issue
      about preferred mode of transport. The
      same problem arises between fast walkers
      and slow, and between runners and walkers.
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic