Results 1 to 68 of 68

Thread: Dangerous, speeding bicyclists on river valley trails

  1. #1

    Default Dangerous, speeding bicyclists on river valley trails

    Walked my dog at Queen Elisabeth Park and this bicyclist barreled down slope at a fast rate of speed, crashed into me from behind.

    Was at a hiking/walking group during the evening in the river valley, and my dog had a light on him. Section of Q E Park used to be a roadway so its very wide, lots of room for everybody. A bicyclist approached full speed behind the group, without giving any notice/warning. Rear member yelled out "BIKE!" I turned around to look, but it was too late. Bicyclist instead of passing on the left, decided to squeeze between me and my dog. Clipped me, which pushed me off to the side and snapped the 'hands free' leash in half. Bicyclist was caught on the leash which caused him to fall. I was worried that my dog was injured, but doggie gave me the look that he's alright.

    Mr Bicycle Assh*le got up, took off, fast, didn't want to face the consequences of his extremely dangerous actions. Had he clipped me an inch closer it would of sent me tumbling. I was totally p*ssed off, ruined my evening.

    Emailed 311, asking if maybe more signage could be installed. To remind bicyclists that these are shared trails.

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Some of them are read @ssholes!

  3. #3

    Default

    I emailed police service about taking measures, because it happens too often that cyclists dangerous actions risk injury to pedestrians. Its happened often on river valley trails and the High Level Bridge sidewalk, where cyclists ignore the safety/respect for pedestrians.

    1) Can I apprehend and detain the cyclist - making a citizens arrest for assault or attempted 'hit and run' incident.

    2) Cyclists are required to have a bell and I would like to see a crack down on cycling infractions. This would have the effect of getting cyclists to be more aware of rules/respect when approaching pedestrians.

    3) Are there bylaws concerning the conduct of cyclists on river valley trails. Like ringing bell before passing pedestrians, or slowing to a safe speed.

  4. #4

    Default

    ^I'm a little concerned with this post.

    #1 I drive with a bell, I use it, but pedestrians often completely ignore it or can't hear it as nearly all bike paths are located next to roads. The standard ring a ding bike bell simply isn't that loud. I often ring it multiple times to no real effect. So that I often end up passing pedestrians safely, often having to leave the trail as they often walk in tandem or group occupying the entire trail. (not proper use in anyway and NOT sharing the path)

    But you specifically mentioning "can I apprehend" is dangerous in many ways. For one if somebody grabs a handlebar on a moving bike the cyclist will possibly crash even at low speed. Sheer physics is the body will keep moving forward even if the bike is arrested suddenly. Next, if somebody was trying to grab me or my bike as I'm cycling I would automatically, and certainly view that as an assault. I would treat it immediately as I would an assault, and I would aggress. I would defend and counter in an instant. That would be my, and virtually anybodies instinct that was accosted as they were riding a bike.

    You have no permission to dangerously impede or stop or "citizen arrest" moving cyclists or so much as touch them. That you think you might makes me wonder if you and your reactivity is as much the problem. Just share the trail, allow room to pass, and you should rarely have any difficulty with any cyclist who's goal is simply to get by you safely. No cyclist is looking for an accident or collision. We avoid those at all costs.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  5. #5

    Default

    I had a bike once. Fact.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  6. #6

    Default

    Replacement - your post is confusing. Cyclist going fast downhill, crashes into me from behind(without any warning, almost injures me), and rides away fast(to avoid getting caught), and your saying I shouldn't try to apprehend him. By what you're implying is that if a motorist or cyclist hits a pedestrian from behind and peels out of there(as fast as possible), basically a 'hit and run', that one should not try to catch the offender. Doesn't make sense to me.

  7. #7

    Default

    hands free leash, bike came between dog and owner... just how much leash did you have out? I've often seen dogs on leash that are basically a trip wire extending out across the entire trail. Dog playing in the trees on one side of the path, clueless/oblivious owner on the other side of the path, trip wire in the middle.

    Cyclists and walkers, joggers, hikers, bird watchers, xc skiers, and all other users of the path need to share and get a long. Yes, cyclists should ring a bell when approaching (it's the law).

    If we are going after cyclists, maybe we can go after dog owners as well? Owners that let their dogs off leash in non-off leash areas? Or dogs that chase others, bite people on bikes, etc. Owners that don't clean up after their dogshit.
    Quite often I'll come across a group of walkers who have no regard for other users and walk 5 wide across the entire multi-use trail. Ring a bell to pass, and they all just freeze on the spot, or completely ignore said bell, forcing the cyclist to go on the grass.


    trekaw, I'm sure you and your group aren't none of that right? Your dog wasn't on oneside of the trail, and you on the other side, no trip wire (dog leash) extending the entire path way...

  8. #8

    Default

    Most joggers and many walkers, even cyclists are often blissfully unaware because of those stupid earbuds. They don't hear my bell so I yell but they often react in the wrong way, stepping into the middle path rather than to the side.

    I have had my share of hair raising experiences, the most memorable was coming down the Forrest Heights Park steep bike path towards 98A Ave. I came down at full speed and at the bottom corner, Parks and Rec were planting trees and parked a Bobcat in the MIDDLE of the path. There was just inches of pavement on the inside corner available and a deep muddy rut immediately at the edge of the pavement. No time to brake, I shot through that narrow bit of pavement with only inches to spare. Did not hit the Bobcat or the muddy rut. Still don't know how I did it and avoided almost certain death or injury.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  9. #9
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Where we walked, most bikes had no bell, and I think it should be law. Others didn't use it. I was always aware I had two dogs on leaches, but there were times I felt I should let the leash way out!

  10. #10

    Default

    It is the law, cyclists must ring a bell before approaching/passing a pedestrian on multi-use trails.

    There are often times were I've felt like throwing your mutt into the river, but never have.

  11. #11

    Default

    "Cyclists must sound a warning device, such as a horn or bell, before passing pedestrians on shared-use pathways "

    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...ws-safety.aspx
    Last edited by Medwards; 20-12-2017 at 10:38 AM.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trekaw View Post
    Replacement - your post is confusing. Cyclist going fast downhill, crashes into me from behind(without any warning, almost injures me), and rides away fast(to avoid getting caught), and your saying I shouldn't try to apprehend him. By what you're implying is that if a motorist or cyclist hits a pedestrian from behind and peels out of there(as fast as possible), basically a 'hit and run', that one should not try to catch the offender. Doesn't make sense to me.
    I'm saying your attempt to "Catch" a moving cyclist would be more dangerous than anything and almost certainly perceived as a potential assault in progress. If you came at me as I'm cycling trying to grab me I would assume you were insane, a hungry zombie, or wanting to assault somebody at random.

    I'll repeat as well that no cyclist wants to hit any object, pedestrian, dog, dog leash, tree, etc. if a pedestrian or dog gets hit by a cyclist my automatic first impression is that the dog or person moved into the path unexpectedly. I don't know what it is with pedestrians on multiuse trails but the concept of maintaining one position on the trail seems too much to expect. So often they wave around like they are drunk. I could see kids doing this and not paying attention, adults should know better. Walk to the side, not the middle, walk in single file on busy and narrow trails and PLEASE don't hover all over the trail.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  13. #13

    Default

    Run a stick through his spokes or string a cable between two trees on opposite sides of the path are both sure ways to stop a cyclist...

    Warning: Do not attempt
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trekaw View Post
    Replacement - your post is confusing. Cyclist going fast downhill, crashes into me from behind(without any warning, almost injures me), and rides away fast(to avoid getting caught), and your saying I shouldn't try to apprehend him. By what you're implying is that if a motorist or cyclist hits a pedestrian from behind and peels out of there(as fast as possible), basically a 'hit and run', that one should not try to catch the offender. Doesn't make sense to me.
    I'm saying your attempt to "Catch" a moving cyclist would be more dangerous than anything and almost certainly perceived as a potential assault in progress. If you came at me as I'm cycling trying to grab me I would assume you were insane, a hungry zombie, or wanting to assault somebody at random.

    I'll repeat as well that no cyclist wants to hit any object, pedestrian, dog, dog leash, tree, etc. if a pedestrian or dog gets hit by a cyclist my automatic first impression is that the dog or person moved into the path unexpectedly. I don't know what it is with pedestrians on multiuse trails but the concept of maintaining one position on the trail seems too much to expect. So often they wave around like they are drunk. I could see kids doing this and not paying attention, adults should know better. Walk to the side, not the middle, walk in single file on busy and narrow trails and PLEASE don't hover all over the trail.
    Agree with all of this for paved paths except walking single file, unless the path isn't even wide enough to pass oncoming walkers. If you're passing you might just have to wait if you don't want to pass on the grass.
    There can only be one.

  15. #15
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Run a stick through his spokes or string a cable between two trees on opposite sides of the path are both sure ways to stop a cyclist...

    Warning: Do not attempt
    Great way to go to jail, too, if someone is seriously injured.

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,452

    Default

    As a pedestrian, I always thank a cyclist that uses their bell before they pass me. It reinforces the good behavior.

    The dogs off-leash in on-leash areas has gotten out of hand. I encounter them almost every time I go down to Mill Creek Ravine. I wish the city would actually patrol the areas and hand out tickets.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  17. #17
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    As a pedestrian, I always thank a cyclist that uses their bell before they pass me. It reinforces the good behavior.

    The dogs off-leash in on-leash areas has gotten out of hand. I encounter them almost every time I go down to Mill Creek Ravine. I wish the city would actually patrol the areas and hand out tickets.
    I agree.
    We stopped going, I never take them off leash, unless I find a ballpark or field with no other dogs. And yes, we always have poop bags with us..

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It is the law, cyclists must ring a bell before approaching/passing a pedestrian on multi-use trails.

    There are often times were I've felt like throwing your mutt into the river, but never have.
    Well about 50% don't use it, and I have two dogs, not mutts, that are well behaved.
    They would however, like to toss you in the river!

  19. #19
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,575

    Default

    My conclusion from this thread as well as walking and cycling on the multi-use paths is few of the people using them use them correctly. Between cyclists not respecting pedestrians, pedestrians walking all over the path (or on the wrong side), to those running their dogs loose on them, there's no one group that isn't causing a problem. Not sure what the solution is though. Enforcement across all the paths would be fairly costly. Perhaps an aggressive information campaign of some sort.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  20. #20

    Default

    There's currently a blitz to go after dog walkers who don't leash their dogs, or their dogs are out of control in off-leash parks http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...s-on-bike-path

    This past summer, there were several blitz to catch bikers with out bells, or who aren't using bells. I went through 2 of these blitzes, 1 in Terwillegar park, and one in the middle of the hawrylak footbridge. Bikers without bells were actually given bells, and a warning, and told about the fine they could've received

  21. #21
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    My conclusion from this thread as well as walking and cycling on the multi-use paths is few of the people using them use them correctly. Between cyclists not respecting pedestrians, pedestrians walking all over the path (or on the wrong side), to those running their dogs loose on them, there's no one group that isn't causing a problem. Not sure what the solution is though. Enforcement across all the paths would be fairly costly. Perhaps an aggressive information campaign of some sort.
    Yup, unfortunately it's not any one group that causes all or even most problems. It's just an unfortunate fact that people in general have a high likelihood of having their head up their rear at any given time. I try to avoid well used paths when out mountain biking because many trail users are on another planet most of the time, with headphones preventing them from hearing my approach or bell or yell, dogs running rampant off leash when they shouldn't be, cyclists disobeying all kinds of traffic laws whether for vehicles or pedestrians, and people of all sorts outright blocking the path while they chat with some friends they bumped in to. This happens all the time along River Valley Road and up MacKinnon Ravine, which is incredibly busy. And yet people will give you a dirty look if you tell them they shouldn't be stopped in the middle of the path and to take two steps to the side. If not outright argue with you about it.

  22. #22

    Default

    I've been on out on single track trails that I've help build sections of (with the EMBA, who had city approval), and being told that bikes aren't allowed, and that I shouldn't be biking on bike trails, and that "my dog has every right to be here and I don't need to clean up poop, and get off my path" basically, even though its a bike trail built by bikers ,for bikers, with the approval of the city.

    Once almost got in a fist fight with a guy trying to push me off my bike in millcreek, because "You shouldn't be riding in millcreek, there's endangered species here" which was kinda ironic as his off leash dog was currently off chasing something moving in the bush.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    My conclusion from this thread as well as walking and cycling on the multi-use paths is few of the people using them use them correctly. Between cyclists not respecting pedestrians, pedestrians walking all over the path (or on the wrong side), to those running their dogs loose on them, there's no one group that isn't causing a problem. Not sure what the solution is though. Enforcement across all the paths would be fairly costly. Perhaps an aggressive information campaign of some sort.
    Yup, unfortunately it's not any one group that causes all or even most problems. It's just an unfortunate fact that people in general have a high likelihood of having their head up their rear at any given time. I try to avoid well used paths when out mountain biking because many trail users are on another planet most of the time, with headphones preventing them from hearing my approach or bell or yell, dogs running rampant off leash when they shouldn't be, cyclists disobeying all kinds of traffic laws whether for vehicles or pedestrians, and people of all sorts outright blocking the path while they chat with some friends they bumped in to. This happens all the time along River Valley Road and up MacKinnon Ravine, which is incredibly busy. And yet people will give you a dirty look if you tell them they shouldn't be stopped in the middle of the path and to take two steps to the side. If not outright argue with you about it.
    You're the guy that yells at random people on trails. Figured as much. Eat a snickers or something..
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Well now there are bike lanes,be sure and use them! All 5000, or under!

  25. #25

    Default

    I do use them, thanks, but the discussion isn't about commuter bike lanes, it's about the recreational multi-use paths in the river valley.

    Like many things on C2E, it's another hard concept for you to grasp.

  26. #26
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,575

    Default

    How is asking people standing in the middle of the path to move to the side "yelling at random people". Even calling ahead to people walking in the wrong lane isn't "yelling it random people", it's functionally the same as using your car horn properly, to indicate your presence. When riding I'll call out "on your left" if I'm approaching people who I need to move to the right to get out of the way because they're walking down the centre line.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  27. #27
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I do use them, thanks, but the discussion isn't about commuter bike lanes, it's about the recreational multi-use paths in the river valley.

    Like many things on C2E, it's another hard concept for you to grasp.
    Its not hard to grasp at all, unlike you and your bad manners!

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I do use them, thanks, but the discussion isn't about commuter bike lanes, it's about the recreational multi-use paths in the river valley.

    Like many things on C2E, it's another hard concept for you to grasp.
    Its not hard to grasp at all, unlike you and your bad manners!
    pot kettle black much?

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    How is asking people standing in the middle of the path to move to the side "yelling at random people". Even calling ahead to people walking in the wrong lane isn't "yelling it random people", it's functionally the same as using your car horn properly, to indicate your presence. When riding I'll call out "on your left" if I'm approaching people who I need to move to the right to get out of the way because they're walking down the centre line.
    I was joking about the poster saying that they ring the bell or yell.

    That said the "passing on your left", for some reason, confuses pedestrians ahead as much as anything. I often find when you say something like that they will move to the left. Its uncanny, but whether you state anything or not the murphys law seems to be that as you pass the pedestrians ahead will move towards your lane position. I've rarely seen anybody in the last moment move away. But if I had a dime for how many people veered toward the pass unexpectedly.

    Of course the thing is if pedestrians just occupied right hand rule, and stayed in that position there were rarely be any issue.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  30. #30
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    How is asking people standing in the middle of the path to move to the side "yelling at random people". Even calling ahead to people walking in the wrong lane isn't "yelling it random people", it's functionally the same as using your car horn properly, to indicate your presence. When riding I'll call out "on your left" if I'm approaching people who I need to move to the right to get out of the way because they're walking down the centre line.
    I was joking about the poster saying that they ring the bell or yell.

    That said the "passing on your left", for some reason, confuses pedestrians ahead as much as anything. I often find when you say something like that they will move to the left. Its uncanny, but whether you state anything or not the murphys law seems to be that as you pass the pedestrians ahead will move towards your lane position. I've rarely seen anybody in the last moment move away. But if I had a dime for how many people veered toward the pass unexpectedly.

    Of course the thing is if pedestrians just occupied right hand rule, and stayed in that position there were rarely be any issue.


    My experience was saying "on your left" worked better than anything else. I'm not sure why people's instincts are to move to the left when they hear something behind them. Another thing that helps is slowing down, moving to the left, and calling out when you're fairly close so when you call out the sound is coming from that side. That seems to cause people to move to the right more often.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by H.L. View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I do use them, thanks, but the discussion isn't about commuter bike lanes, it's about the recreational multi-use paths in the river valley.

    Like many things on C2E, it's another hard concept for you to grasp.
    Its not hard to grasp at all, unlike you and your bad manners!
    pot kettle black much?
    A 7 year old gives that as a comeback, grow up!

  32. #32

    Default

    ...says the 5 year old. Respect your elders...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    ...says the 5 year old. Respect your elders...
    Na
    Last edited by H.L.; 22-12-2017 at 04:23 PM.

  34. #34

    Default

    Oh, wow! What a witty repeated comeback.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Oh, wow! What a witty repeated comeback.
    Na
    Last edited by H.L.; 22-12-2017 at 04:22 PM.

  36. #36

    Default

    OK Hello Lady
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    5,256

    Default

    Blocked!

  38. #38

    Default

    Excellent.

    I knew you would come through Hello Lady.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #39

    Default

    CoE cycling bylaws in the river valley:

    Parks and trails are monitored by Park Rangers, who provide bylaw enforcement and education to park users.
    Trail and Shared-Use Path Safety

    Cyclists are responsible for following:

    • Bicycles must have a working bell - $100 ticket for no bell or one that doesn't work
    • Cyclists must sound their bell before passing pedestrians or slower trail users - $250 ticket for failing to alert pedestrians before passing
    • Slow down when you approach slower users and pass on the left side



    Some members mentioned that they are above the law and don't have to ring a bicycle bell or slow down when passing pedestrians - saying the reason is pedestrians aren't paying attention and wander all over the place. What a lame excuse for risking a collision. To rephrase the bylaw, pedestrians and slower vehicles(bicycles, wheelchairs) have the right of way.
    I will definitely be contacting 311, asking for more bicycle enforcement. Every time I'm in the river valley there's always some two wheeled jerk passing by too fast without ringing a bicycle bell.

  40. #40

    Default

    and everytime I'm in the river valley, there's large groups of people spread across the multi-use path, oblivious to the rest of the world around them. Clueless that they need to stick to one side of the path. Confused as to why someone would ever want to pass them as they slowly trot from one point to another, obstructing the way as much as possible.

    Then there's the joggers with ear buds in, blasting their tunes well unable to hear a bell at all, and jump the moment you pass them.

    Then there's the dogs who are off leash in an on-leash area. I don't mind being bitten. I really dont. Or those owners that let their dog **** everywhere and dont bother cleaning it up. Or those owners who let out a 100 ft of dog leash, which often acts more like a tripping rope that anything else...


    but yes, only dudes on bikes are the problem.

  41. #41

    Default

    Totally agree from my personal experience.

    Not to mention COE crews leaving trucks and bobcats parked on the path at bottoms of steep hills...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  42. #42

    Default

    COE sure loves dishing out their tickets. Is there any sense of scale here? 250bucks for one instance of not ringing a bell? That's lol more than my bike costs. Sometimes I don`t ring because people ahead have already acknowledged my presence and or are already walking and occupying the right hand side of the trail correctly. So now we could potentially get dinged with a major ticket anytime we don`t ring? What if a person is underage, a student. They going to shake down those people or their parents for 250bucks?

    100bucks for not having a bell? How about manufactures make these things a little better instead of ******* plastic mounting hardware that just breaks off so that you end up buying a new bell every year? Or make a damn bell that works properly for any length of time. Most of the stuff sold is crap.

    Seems like the city doesn`t like any mode of transportation that goes potentially over 30K. Iveson probably putts around on his faux vintage fixed gear bike and thinks everybody should.


    In anycase lets go full scale here. If ringing a bell is mandated than it logically stands to reason that hearing such a bell is mandated or should be for trail user safety. So is there going to be similar enforcement for inattentive walking or trail use by those wearing headphones or engaged in their cell phones and such. I'm kind of being flippant with this, and kind of not. Around 1/3 of the time I'm ringing my bell repeatedly does another trail user even acknowledge that they heard it. That's a problem too.

    But as per usual the city will go after one mode of user. What about skateboarders careening down a hill? Inline skaters? Bells as well?
    Last edited by Replacement; 15-05-2018 at 09:53 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  43. #43
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    As Medwards indicated, inattention and rudeness isn't limited to a single use. Joggers, walkers, bikers, skateboarders etc., all of those uses have their bad actors. Most people are aware of their surroundings and are courteous. But unfortunately there's a significant minority of people who have their heads up their butts and seem to think that they own the trails. I had a kind gentleman jogger scream at me to "stay the F*** right" while going around a corner on some dirt doubletrack last week, when he himself was also not sticking entirely to his right in the opposite direction. I was going around a tight corner at a moderate speed, and would literally have had my head in the bushes if I kept entirely to the right. What was his excuse? In any case, the trail was 5 feet wide and I doubt we came within 2 feet of each other. But he just had to scream at me in righteous indignation. He had headphones in, of course.

  44. #44
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,575

    Default

    I'd be curious to know what the enforcement is on any of those, I expect it's very low.

    For bell's there are plenty of decent quality ones at a reasonable prices. I recommend the Filzer DingDing, $7.50 at MEC. If you want to go high end they also have a $19 bell that bolts on and is pretty tough.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  45. #45

    Default

    Last summer, I ran into two bell blitzes. One time they were stopping all bikes crossing hawrylak park bridge, other time they had something setup at Terwillegar... Both times the bylaw/park rangers were handing out free bells to offenders and warning them that they could've received a fine

    Yet in all my years, I've never seem to proactively looking for dog walkers not following the rules. Never. I've been bite several times, chased more times that I can count. And most dog walker (NOT ALL) have no care at all that I've been bitten, or chased, and are more upset of my presence than their dogs actions. "If you didn't ride your bike, my dog would not have chased you...so its your fault for using this park"


    There's also the dog walkers that think the Terwillegar Park is or should be exclusive use for dog walkers.

  46. #46
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,575

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Last summer, I ran into two bell blitzes. One time they were stopping all bikes crossing hawrylak park bridge, other time they had something setup at Terwillegar... Both times the bylaw/park rangers were handing out free bells to offenders and warning them that they could've received a fine
    That sounds like a really good way to handle it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    Yet in all my years, I've never seem to proactively looking for dog walkers not following the rules. Never. I've been bite several times, chased more times that I can count. And most dog walker (NOT ALL) have no care at all that I've been bitten, or chased, and are more upset of my presence than their dogs actions. "If you didn't ride your bike, my dog would not have chased you...so its your fault for using this park"
    Definitely a problem. It upsets me in Westmount is there a fence between the off leash area, where I walk my dog, and the multi-use path (busy enough we call it the bike highway) and yet there are consistently off leash dogs on the path. I'm not familiar enough with Terwillegar but is the off leash area fenced off or just open?

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  47. #47

    Default

    just open, like buena vista. Basically the whole flat plain of Terwillegar is marked as off leash, but certainly its not exclusive use for dogs and their owners. The park is a shared park for all users from cross country skiers in the winter, walkers, joggers, mtn bikers. I mostly avoid the flat areas of Terwillegar Park because that's where the dogs are primilary, but that doesn't stop all the bad encounters I've had, even up the single track and into the hills and outside of the offleash areas. The whole river valley would be turned into an offleash park with bikes restricted if the many entitled dog owners had their way. I never fault the dog. It's always an owner issue, and there is a lot of bad careless dog owners. (To those who angrily will respond to me, you are likely the exception and this isn't directed at you - I've seen many examples of good dog owners with respect)

  48. #48

    Default

    I ride my bicycle all the time in the river valley and have never had a problem with pedestrians or dogs, even persons who are meandering across the trails. If pedestrian isn't paying attention, I just slow down(of course ring bell) and give a friendly wave or a "Hi." Pedestrians respond with a greeting or apology. No conflicts. Must be my attitude - safety first, and respect for others - whether at work or play.

    I have a question for members who don't follow the cycling rules. If you crash into a pedestrian whose walking the trails(because you didn't feel the need to slow down for 3 seconds, and couldn't be bothered to ring a bicycle bell), which option would you choose.
    A) stop to assist the victim and pay $100,000 for the medical expenses, therapy sessions and lawyer fees, due to your negligence, or
    B) take off as fast as possible and hope not to get caught(like the @sshole who ran into me from behind).
    I suspect some members would choose option B, as they seem to have very little morals to accept their own responsibility. And "its everybody's fault except mine."

  49. #49

    Default

    Or C, use the Trump technique; deny all responsibility, don't apologize and sue the victim.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  50. #50
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trekaw
    I suspect some members would choose option B, as they seem to have very little morals to accept their own responsibility. And "its everybody's fault except mine."


    That's a mighty wide brush you're painting with, there.

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trekaw View Post
    I ride my bicycle all the time in the river valley and have never had a problem with pedestrians or dogs, even persons who are meandering across the trails. If pedestrian isn't paying attention, I just slow down(of course ring bell) and give a friendly wave or a "Hi." Pedestrians respond with a greeting or apology. No conflicts. Must be my attitude - safety first, and respect for others - whether at work or play.

    I have a question for members who don't follow the cycling rules. If you crash into a pedestrian whose walking the trails(because you didn't feel the need to slow down for 3 seconds, and couldn't be bothered to ring a bicycle bell), which option would you choose.
    A) stop to assist the victim and pay $100,000 for the medical expenses, therapy sessions and lawyer fees, due to your negligence, or
    B) take off as fast as possible and hope not to get caught(like the @sshole who ran into me from behind).
    I suspect some members would choose option B, as they seem to have very little morals to accept their own responsibility. And "its everybody's fault except mine."
    I know you had a close call with some bikers, but really? You're kinda reaching pretty hard here. It's a very rare occasion you are talking about, where a cyclists and pedestrian collision occurs.
    a) this is Canada. Not america.
    b) I'm sorry this rare occasion has happened to you, but none of us was there, and the cyclist involved isn't here to provide their side of the story. Are you really in need of 100,000 dollars worth of medical bills? Or maybe your just a little standoffish because a rare accident happened to you?

    It seems that you have identify the cyclist as 100% at fault... and you are a perfect individual with no faults, and have done nothing wrong, but we can't confirm that because the other side of the story isn't here to represent themselves... and it sounds like you are all too happy to drum up the victim card....

    I trust the hospital food is good?

  52. #52
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Yet in all my years, I've never seem to proactively looking for dog walkers not following the rules. Never. I've been bite several times, chased more times that I can count. And most dog walker (NOT ALL) have no care at all that I've been bitten, or chased, and are more upset of my presence than their dogs actions. "If you didn't ride your bike, my dog would not have chased you...so its your fault for using this park"
    I complained to 311 about the dogs off-leash in the on-leash area of Mill Creek Ravine, and I spoke to someone at animal control. They are the ones that look for off-leash/problematic dogs, and there simply aren't enough of them out there to patrol areas. Also, after 6 pm there are only TWO animal control officers for all of Edmonton, and they're busy with other stuff. The solution, of course, is to write your Councillor and ask them to increase the budget for animal control so they can hire additional officers to find offenders.

    As with everything the city does, creating fines for something is ineffective if there aren't the people there to enforce those fines.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  53. #53

    Default

    Medwards - your attempts to justify breaking the bylaws are pathetic. The fact is the @sshole ran into me from behind(without ringing bicycle bell) and took off, quick. You're saying what the cyclist did was acceptable, shows your contempt for bylaws and disrespect for others. Please do not post on this thread as I find your attitude to be thoroughly disgusting.

  54. #54

    Default

    Excuse me? I'm neither trying to justify what the alleged biker did, or say that it was acceptable. Back the f-up. What I'm saying is that you are only giving one side of the story. The biker has his side of the story, and we certainly haven't heard from the biker. Maybe you are exaggerating, or blowing things out of portion. But it seems you are all judge jury and executioner all wrap up in one little package, ready to convict all bikers under one large generalization.

    As for telling me where to post... PFO. I'll post when/where I want. By the same breath, please stop posting on C2E. I find your attitude thoroughly disgusting, and don't like how your trying to play a victim card and not allow the other side of the story to be heard, or the potential of it be discussed. Everyone should just agree with you right? Truck off.
    Last edited by Medwards; 16-05-2018 at 11:21 AM.

  55. #55

    Default

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  56. #56

    Default

    Been attacked by at large dogs multiple times while cycling. Dogs love chasing bikes. Definitely a problem. Been in collisions with vehicles hitting me 3 times. Never been hit by a cyclist while riding or walking. Anecdotal, just saying.

    But the crackdown on bikes seems weird.

    So just last evening I'm cycling only an hour, 20 clicks. Half a dozen times I come up to groups walking abreast using the entire multiuse trail. All of it. Anytime you see 4 people walking together its the mode. They just occupy the whole width of the trail without thinking twice about it. All 6 times I'm ringing my bell several times and nothing. Have to slow down and audibly say excuse me, passing on left and then they finally get it. The bell has seemingly zero effect. Its like ringing a bell to groups of cows. At best they look up with a confused look.

    The problem just isn't cyclists, far from it. A large part of the problem is groups of walkers that figure they own the trail and that do not use right hand rule or recognize presence of any other multiuse trail user. Why do pedestrians feel they can be on the left side of trail on a marked lined trail? Do they also drive on the wrong side of the road... Why is one habit seemingly acceptable with walking?

    Change in behavior is required all round. Start advising people to be on the correct side of the trail when walking. That would solve almost all the problems.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-05-2018 at 12:33 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  57. #57

    Default

    I agree, but it only needs to apply to the paved multi-use paths with lines. Most unpaved paths are either narrow enough that you can't complain about a group taking the whole thing, or low-traffic enough that there's not much point.
    There can only be one.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    I agree, but it only needs to apply to the paved multi-use paths with lines. Most unpaved paths are either narrow enough that you can't complain about a group taking the whole thing, or low-traffic enough that there's not much point.
    My bike isn't much of a root, stump, or rock hopper so almost all of what I do is paved trails.. Its uncanny. Why do some people figure its OK to walk on the left side of a lined trail. I never get that. If we're out walking with another couple we walk two abreast behind each other. Not all in line. Its not a park, its a paved multiuser trail. Pedestrians I find just do not share the trail well.

    The odd thing is that even on main designate cycling routes where bikes are passing by every minute this is the case. People walking with seeming zero familiarity that anybody else is there.

    What we're left with is a situation whereby Cyclists are being made responsible for any collision even if its the fault of the pedestrian, skateboarder, inline skater etc. Or those people swinging their ski poles around pretending they are skiing. They occupy the whole trail being one person.

    One thing of interest is how do they collect on those 250buck fines to Cyclists? For drivers they ding you at registration if you haven't paid by the time you renew. For Cyclists what collection option is there if one just refuses to pay? I don't even bike ride with my ID on me. If they asked to see it I wouldn't be able to produce it. Am I now required to carry my wallet and identification while cycling? What prevents a cyclist from just making up false name and address? This all seems pretty half baked by the COE, as usual. They haven't thought all this through in terms of the fines.
    Last edited by Replacement; 16-05-2018 at 12:47 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  59. #59
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    If they asked to see it I wouldn't be able to produce it. Am I now required to carry my wallet and identification while cycling?
    Pretty sure that the police can detain you if you are unable to produce identification if they suspect you were involved in a crime or perhaps even a bylaw infraction. Whether you are a cyclist or not.

    https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi...ring_Questions

    Most of what I found on Google is for the US, but I'd imagine it's similar here.

  60. #60

    Default

    Well this was good for a laugh. I think I suggested this common sense solution somewhere else... widen the trails / dedicate uses. Vancouver Seawall is a great example.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  61. #61

    Default

    most of our trails see no where the same volume as the Vancouver seawall...

  62. #62

    Default

    That's true, but there are a few areas where traffic is heavy enough, or where visibility issues make separation worthwhile.There are also a lot of existing paths that are below standard, like the one along Saskatchewan drive that's barely a sidewalk. It seems like even the best newest ones are never ever more than the bare minimum.
    There can only be one.

  63. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement
    If they asked to see it I wouldn't be able to produce it. Am I now required to carry my wallet and identification while cycling?
    Pretty sure that the police can detain you if you are unable to produce identification if they suspect you were involved in a crime or perhaps even a bylaw infraction. Whether you are a cyclist or not.

    https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadi...ring_Questions

    Most of what I found on Google is for the US, but I'd imagine it's similar here.
    That is revealing. However, I am not in the habit of committing any crime. Nor do I leave the house intending to.

    Are we really at the point in society where we will have park security, police, detaining and holding somebody for not ringing a bicycle bell? I would be ringing my lawyer at first opportunity.

    What an increasingly odd world we live in.

    What an increasingly punitive city we live in. It would be an absolute joke to detain somebody for such an infraction. Albeit I know its happened regarding LRT non payment Crime...Also a 250buck fine.


    Meanwhile a driver that is inattentive looking at a cellphone while driving a ton of potentially lethal metal gets the exact same fine. There is no sense of proportion here. A cyclist not ringing a bell gets the same fine as a willfully dangerous driver not even paying attention to the act of driving. Which is more dangerous?

    My mistake is expecting some sense of reason in city ordinance.
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-05-2018 at 01:34 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  64. #64
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    It's not a city ordinance in terms of police detaining someone who cannot produce identification. Nor is it unique to cyclists. It's our system of laws and justice in general. And it's nothing new, either.

    If there was a rash of incidents of police detaining bikers, I'd hope our police and civic leadership would step in and tell them to dial it back and keep it reasonable. But as far as I know, I haven't heard of a single biker being detained for lack of identification when being ticketed for lack of a bike bell, or riding on the sidewalk, or whatever else. Personally, I don't ride with my wallet. I have a couple 20's in my hydration pack in case I stop somewhere for a bite/drink, and generally have my cell phone with me, but that's it.

    As far as how to handle it if you were detained or being questioned, my experience is that if you're cooperative and polite, you'll receive the same back. Start getting indignant and make their jobs/lives difficult, you'll also receive the same back.

  65. #65

    Default

    What is new is the ongoing search for more things that can be considered crimes. I'm like you. I cycle with a 20 in my pocket in case I want a meal somewhere and nothing else. The thing is being detained for not ringing a bell and getting fined 250bucks for the same is not reasonable. I would tend to act less reasonable under that circumstance.

    When you increasingly make normative behaviors crimes it reduces the authority and legitimacy of law and order. Its the opinion of many that increasing fines and increased conception of infractions are simply cash grabs. New revenue streams. If the law becomes unreasonable its arguably a duty to oppose it. In this instance its not even the commission of a crime being an offense. Its omission. Its either not having a bell (could've fallen off, I've had this happen 3 times while cycling with these cheap plastic fasteners) or not ringing it (which is subjective as the park ranger may not have heard you ring the bell)
    Last edited by Replacement; 17-05-2018 at 12:39 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  66. #66

    Default

    From my understanding, the park ranger will only hand out a ticket in the most severe of cases, and even then, probably not. My interactions with the rangers have all been pleasant. They were handing out free bells instead of ticketing people with no bells. They weren't taking names, or inventory of bikes with out bells. More of "hey you should have a bell, its bylaw, here's a free bell, have a nice day, please ring your bell when approaching people"

    I sincerly doubt that a park ranger or bylaw officer would ever detain you, or attempt to arrest you for not having a bell, or not ringing your bell...

  67. #67
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,575

    Default

    Bylaw infractions are not crimes and there's no evidence they're being treated as such. Requiring basic safety features on a vehicle is not unreasonable and a bell on bike is a basic safety feature much like a horn on a car. For the majority of situations the officers are either going to give you a bell or give you a warning, if you get ticketed I'd bet there was a lot more going on than simply not having a bell.
    Last edited by Paul Turnbull; 17-05-2018 at 03:40 PM. Reason: grammar

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  68. #68
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,872

    Default

    Yeah, I'm not seeing or hearing anything to get too up in arms about, either.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •