Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Cyclist kills pedestrian; does calling “on your left” not work? (Now with Paul B)

Bicyclist blames Pedestrian...

A man on a bike hit an 81-year-old woman walking on the Four Mile Run trail, ARLnow reports, and the woman subsequently died of the injuries. Do we need better consensus on how to alert pedestrians to passing cyclists?

The 62-year-old cyclist was heading down a hill and shouted “on your left” to warn the woman. Instead of either moving right or just being alert, she apparently turned around in a way that moved to the left, while exclaiming “what?” The cyclist then struck her, she fell, and her head hit the ground.

Update: ARLnow is now also reporting that the cyclist rang a bell as well as calling out. (and that means the bicyclist has no culpability says our resident vegan bicyclist)

Whether or not this particular cyclist did something wrong, the first rule always must be that people riding bikes need to be careful around pedestrians. Daniel Hoagland, WABA’s Bicycle Ambassador, wrote in an email:
Pedestrians are unpredictable and vulnerable, which is a bad combination (and doesn’t even get into things like pets and children and the mobility-impaired), and bicyclists should be prepared to slow down to whatever speed is necessary to ensure that they can react safely to whatever a pedestrian does.

No, it doesn't work all the time because lots of people walk on bike trails and have zero situational awareness. So if you're passing them and they don't see you, you need to be able to stop or avoid them. Just like skiing, it's the uphill skier's responsibility to avoid a collision with someone who has their back turned.

Move the friggin wheels off the highways and walking paths.

Bicycles are very stealthy- just a small amount of wind and walkers will not know you're there.
I ride like Paul- let them know I'm passing them and say hello.

She's 81 years old. How far and how fast left could she have moved once she heard "on your left" and the bell?

I looked to see if I could identify this path. It was likely a multi-use path designed for pedestrians and cyclists. It's likely the kind of path that motorists believe cyclists should be relegated to. Now we have a goddam moron shouting that cyclists shouldn't be on the path that was designed and provided for them.

Suck it up buttercup. Cyclists can be in both places no matter how big of a tantrum you throw.

This thread is interesting in that the majority believe that the cyclist is at fault. Almost all believe that due to the vulnerability of the pedestrian, the cyclist has a moral duty to exercise due care. Nobody has suggested that the pedestrian got their due comeuppance for daring to defy the law of gross tonnage with a cyclist. Flighty values are never not funny.

This thread is interesting in that the majority believe that the cyclist is at fault - yes, the cyclist is 100% at fault for not controlling their actions and causing loss of life!

E-Bikes have only made the situation worse. People who could never have achieved 25 mph on a bike (think LBP style) now fly up and down the multiuse trails with reckless abandon.

And of course we hold that value set wrt motorists who mow down cyclists, right?