People can be jerks

[luvsJack]

1) That probably leads to more of the biker's frustration 2) we all know "just because others do it" isn't a valid reason to do something.
You know when you've crossed the same type behavior enough it just grates on you. I absolutely took the PP's comment to mean it's possible the biker has encountered people (maybe even other bikers) who do this and that and the OP's mother could have been the straw that broke the camel's back (right or wrong).
The OP has already come back and advised us the mom looks fine when walking. No one would be able to discern exactly what the issue is. The mom gets really bad pains in her upper leg and into her lower back not that they have an outward mobilty issue.
We all have choices. It's why I suggested the OP find a trail in which case it was always level so they don't have to cross to the other side that would def. lessen a future incident from occurring. If you're in danger of falling just by walking on a specific trail lordy you would probably want to pick a different trail. Why would you want to put yourself in danger like that? And then why would you then say, knowing your're a danger to falling, I trump everything on this trail...isn't that exactly what some people have been talking about with the biker? That some feel he thought he just owned the area. What you're saying makes it sound like the mom would then own the area. Double standard there.
Yes they were being unsafe.
From what the OP at least initially said it sounds like they tried to go around the guy after he started approaching them once he got off the bike. The biker was 10 yards away from them and at that point he got off the bike. Had he stayed on his bike likely he would have had to swerve and swerve=unpredictable outcomes.

I'm fairly certain we all pretty much agree the biker didn't have to do what he did and he wasn't playing nice and all sorts of other adjectives. Situations don't have to always be one-sided though when people discuss it.

I didn't say anything about "just because others do it". There are places in this world where the "rules" are not exactly followed to the letter and its ok with almost everyone. And it STILL doesn't give him the right to be a jerk.

I know what the pp meant. I really didn't think that he/she thought there were 12,000 people on this trail on this particular day. And it still doesn't matter because he still doesn't have that right.

It doesn't matter whether his mother looks fine when walking or not. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are millions of people with invisible disabilities. That is why compassion for others is so important.

My mother had mobility issues in her later years and there were places that we had to be careful that she didn't fall. Unless you have actually been in that situation with someone, you don't realize that it is almost impossible to only choose places where there is no danger. So you do the best you can. Our walking trail that is near our house, is shaded and has lovely trees, lots of birds and squirrels and Mom just enjoyed it very much. But, you have to park and then walk over some rough grassy areas to actually get to it or park and walk down an incline to get to it. We would let Mom decide which she felt she could do that day. Going to another trail wasn't really an option. Heck even walking at the mall, you have to actually get IN the mall. So its just not realistic to think choosing another place is the easy peasy solution. Sometimes its the lesser of two (or more) evils. Sometimes you just learn to work around the issues.

I didn't say SHE trumped him, I said her SAFETY (IF she was in danger of falling). He didn't want to have to go around someone, (which he didn't have to do anyway) she didn't want to fall. Weigh it out yourself. Not a double standard at all, one is a lot more important than the other (safety vs convenience not mom vs biker).

As for when they were going around him, I don't read it that way. He said "He got off his bike and walked straight to us AS we were walking around him". Now unless the OP comes back and says they didn't try to walk around him until he came toward him, I take that as it all was happening at the same time.

And who said anything had to be one sided?

Some people are just sticklers for rules and I learned a long time ago that the DIS is a place that seems to attract rule followers. And that is ok. But sometimes you have to look at the gray areas of a situation and not just look at the letter of the rule. Very few situations in this world are all black and white.

If this trail had been very busy and had lots of bikers and walkers on it that day, perhaps I would see it differently and I would agree that there was some level of danger with her walking on the wrong side. But from the OP description, her walking on that side just wasn't a big deal.

 

[BaymaxFan78]

Whenever we have to walk on the wrong side we hug the edge of the path. So the cyclist had 90% of the trail to use. Even if there were people he would've still been on "his side". As I said before there are arrows on the ground but there is no written rule about staying on your side. Most people take it as an unwritten rule as thats how most trails around here are. We understand that we were on the wrong side and never said that rules didn't apply to us.

Now when the cyclist stopped is when we started moving over. If he wouldn't have stopped we could have easily went left onto the grass so I don't see a major safety issue with the guy unless he was flying out of control, which he wasn't. There isn't really an issue of my mom walking on the wrong side for 2 seconds while a guy passes. As long as shes not there for a longer period of time.

And like I said we have a normal trail closer to home that is level and easy for her to walk on, we were just in the area and she wanted to use this one. We have encountered people on this trail before that didn't move so we did and they didn't say a word. We have also been on our right side and have people (walkers and cyclists) come at us on their wrong side. It's a normal thing on that trail. I dont know where the guy came from, the area he was in was the end of the trail but there is a sidewalk that connects to a main road.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I didn't say anything about "just because others do it". There are places in this world where the "rules" are not exactly followed to the letter and its ok with almost everyone.

Because others do it doesn't make it suddenly ok for the mom to do it (or anyone for that matter). It only takes one person who is following the rules of the trail for things to become a disaster. If this is a normal thing on the trail it's likely people are also utilizing situational awareness all the time and can get out of the way quickly enough should they be approached by opposite, but correct direction, traffic (well one hopes that's the case lol). If no one or people rarely get out of the way when they are on the incorrect side as a habitual thing well that's not a trail I want to be on personally.

And it STILL doesn't give him the right to be a jerk.

And it still doesn't matter because he still doesn't have that right.

I feel like we're reading two different threads. Many others have already said we don't agree with how the biker handled it or that he called them out to begin with. You stating he's a jerk doesn't distract me from what other things you are saying especially because so many on this thread aren't defending the actions of the biker but rather pointing out the other side of the situation.

It doesn't matter whether his mother looks fine when walking or not. That has absolutely nothing to do with it. There are millions of people with invisible disabilities.

You brought it up:

If his mother has trouble walking on the incline then perhaps most people have the ability to understand that and walk around or let them go around accordingly.

I responded with what the OP notified us regarding their mom. If you don't think it has anything to do with it don't bring it up.

I didn't say SHE trumped him, I said her SAFETY (IF she was in danger of falling). He didn't want to have to go around someone, (which he didn't have to do anyway) she didn't want to fall. Weigh it out yourself. Not a double standard at all, one is a lot more important than the other (safety vs convenience not mom vs biker).

That's the same thing.

She gets to go against the trail rules because she's in danger of falling (I'm using your scenario here) but the other person who is following the rules well him doing that don't mean squat I guess. You seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the mother's safety whilst not even noticing that your scenario has the mother willingly putting herself in danger. If you are in danger of falling putting yourself in a position where you are at a heightened risk doesn't sound good to me (again using your scenario). The safest way for the mom is to not actually put herself in a situation where she's at that risk of falling (again using your scenario not the exact specifics of the OP's mom). Once you knowingly and willingly put yourself at risk you are lowering your importance on safety.

And who said anything had to be one sided?

Sure sounds that way because you're overly focused on what the biker did and how the mom could have an invisible disability and how her safety this and that means she can go on that side and you just gotta deal with that. Majority of posters see it that both were wrong in some way (isn't that a rarity for the DIS lol)

As for when they were going around him, I don't read it that way. He said "He got off his bike and walked straight to us AS we were walking around him". Now unless the OP comes back and says they didn't try to walk around him until he came toward him, I take that as it all was happening at the same time.

Differences in reading I guess then as it didn't sound like what you're describing.

But from the OP description, her walking on that side just wasn't a big deal.

What people are saying is it is an issue for all the occurances out there. Taking the isolated incident doesn't mean that outcome will be repeated time and time again. The guy truly didn't have to make something of it and he could have let it go going about his business as actually saying something makes something a big deal when it didn't have to be. What I do see a big deal is being on the incorrect side without the means to be able to quickly get out of the way. We clearly differ on what constitutes a big deal.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Whenever we have to walk on the wrong side we hug the edge of the path. So the cyclist had 90% of the trail to use. Even if there were people he would've still been on "his side". As I said before there are arrows on the ground but there is no written rule about staying on your side. Most people take it as an unwritten rule as thats how most trails around here are. We understand that we were on the wrong side and never said that rules didn't apply to us.

Now when the cyclist stopped is when we started moving over. If he wouldn't have stopped we could have easily went left onto the grass so I don't see a major safety issue with the guy unless he was flying out of control, which he wasn't. There isn't really an issue of my mom walking on the wrong side for 2 seconds while a guy passes. As long as shes not there for a longer period of time.

And like I said we have a normal trail closer to home that is level and easy for her to walk on, we were just in the area and she wanted to use this one. We have encountered people on this trail before that didn't move so we did and they didn't say a word. We have also been on our right side and have people (walkers and cyclists) come at us on their wrong side. It's a normal thing on that trail. I dont know where the guy came from, the area he was in was the end of the trail but there is a sidewalk that connects to a main road.

I wouldn't have said anything to people that don't move more than likely-just wouldn't be my style for this particular situation. That doesn't mean I wouldn't get annoyed though having to weave in and out at some point or another--probably depended on my mood lol.

Respectfully when you saw the cyclist why you didn't proceed to go to the grass at that point? Sounds like from your comment you could have easily gone to the grass part at least. Maybe it was just not even thought of at that moment. If someone is coming toward me I'm going to try and get out of their way (especially being on the incorrect side) because I don't know how they will behave as in will they just play chicken with me and I also kinda use the polite thing.

If the cyclist was trying to adhere to the trail rules he may have really wanted to avoided going to the other side on his bike. It's kinda like our diverging diamond intersections we have in my area--it always feels foreign and slightly unsafe (even though I know that type of intersection has been shown to be one of the safest designs) to be on the opposite of the road that I'm normally on. Sometimes construction zones do this too. He may have been new to the path too--it might be that he goes looking for a different path after that day lol.

 

[design_mom]

As I said before there are arrows on the ground but there is no written rule about staying on your side.

I'm pretty sure the arrows on the ground is "a written rule." It's written on the ground in a language that's understood all over the world. Just because no one is going to throw you in jail because you break the rule, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It definitely sounds like the cyclist could have been nicer in his interaction, but it sounds like the OP and his mom were using the wrong side of a marked trail, then "doubled down" by mouthing back to the guy. Sounds like there's plenty of blame to go around.

And for what it's worth. I do empathize with the OP's mom's plight. My own mom has broken both femurs within the last year and can't do a lot of the things she used to do. We try to make it so she can enjoy as much as possible. But I'm not sure that walking in the "oncoming lane" of the trail was safe, especially if it's a trail that's shared by pedestrians and cyclists. Even if you knew what you were going to do, and felt that there was plenty of room for both of you, the cyclist didn't know what you planned to do (stay where you were? cross back to 'your side' of the trail? Based on your drawing, my guess is that the biker probably would have planned to pass you toward the center of the trail -- exactly where your green arrow shows you were planning to go -- which could have resulted in a collision.) There's an inherent risk to both parties in a situation like that. So in this case, it might be that NEITHER side of the trail was safe for your mom to walk on.

 

[mrodgers]

Totally going off topic here - but there is a guy in my neighborhood that bikes with his two large dogs every night. I always thought it was a bad idea to bike holding onto dogs on leashes. Doesn't seem safe to me.

Staying off-topic, my only experience with a Pit-Bull was someone riding a bicycle holding onto a leash.

I ride out to the lake often after work with dinner and sit in a little covered area over the lake. I heard a commotion out on the road and looked to see some guy on the ground tangled up in his bike with a dog. I went out to help and he let go of the leash and the dog ran over to me. It was a beautiful looking young Pit. It was rubbing and loving all over my legs so I squatted down to hold his collar. Friendly as all.

That's when I heard a car door behind me and see the dog's attention spark up at the noise. An older lady was standing by her minivan and the dog starts to move toward her. I'm squatted down holding the dog tighter now and it didn't matter what I wanted to do, the dog wanted to go over to the lady and there wasn't a thing I was doing about it. I was drug down to the ground and drug across the pavement about 50 feet to the lady. The dog loved her as well and she loved the dog. She said she hurried to get her smaller dog in the car because it was aggressive and knew it would go to the Pit and wouldn't be very nice with it but would be torn to pieces if it tried to fight the Pit.

Such amazing power, short of a horse, it's the strongest animal I have ever had experience with. The thing was just one solid mass of muscle.

The guy finally got untangled from his bike, retrieved the dog saying sorry to everyone. Then he got back on the bike with the leash and started to ride away and was pulled down to the ground again. Sorry bout your luck, if you're stupid enough to try it again, I can't help. I have stuff of my own to do at home so I left him laying in a heap tangled up in his bicycle again.

 

[mrodgers]

**off topic for the thread of course**

Like this?

View attachment 432890

That was a pic someone posted on our Nextdoor website.

In my state the rules are "Whenever a usable path for bicycles is adjacent to a roadway, cyclists must use the path and not the roadway". Said in a slightly different way: "Bicyclists are prohibited from traveling on the roadway when a useable path, designed for the exclusive use of bicycles, has been provided next to the roadway."

Roadway is defined as the two lanes you see. The bike lane is where half the cyclists are in the picture.

I love that our area is becoming a lot more cyclist friendly however everyone, motorist and pedestrian and cyclist alike though have to work together to make it safe for all. Any bad apples of any of those groups tends to sour people's opinions.

Who is to say the next interaction with a cyclist won't be around a blind turn? Or with a runner/cyclist approaching on the correct side of the path?

People shouldn't wait until they almost take someone out to say something as that's how completely preventable "accidents" occur. No question it sounds like he could have been nicer but the original statement just seems snarky. It probably escalated when he didn't get an apologetic response.

Is that actually a bike lane or just a shoulder? Bike lanes typically have a symbol and most I've seen on a 4 lane highway have a buffer area as well. For example, this is a bike lane near me:
View attachment 432937

As most of the next images in posts show except for a few, that in the post you quoted is merely a shoulder that was renamed "bike lane". That is the last place you want to be on a bicycle as that is where all the glass and debris is, at least here in PA because they don't clean our roads. Also in cities that put bike lanes in next to parked cars, that is the last place you want to be on your bicycle because of people opening their doors. Many serious accidents happen because of people in parked cars opening their doors as bicycles are approaching next to the parked cars.

99% of the time the laws are ride as far right as practical. That means if in the center of the lane is as far right as practical, then that is where you ride. With most bike lanes, still the safest place to ride is around the right tire track of the lane or just slightly to the right of the tire track with room to maneuver because with debris in the bike lane, it is not safe to be swerving in and out of the lane to go around said debris.

Love Casey's video response for getting a ticket in NYC for not riding in the bike lane....

 

[kaytieeldr]

Bikers are not meant to stop at each crosswalk regardless of if the light is red or green.

But cyclists are expected to follow all the rules of the road (while, as described above, bikers would not be allowed in the bicycle lane ), including watching out for even jaywalking pedestrians.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

As most of the next images in posts show except for a few, that in the post you quoted is merely a shoulder that was renamed "bike lane". That is the last place you want to be on a bicycle as that is where all the glass and debris is, at least here in PA because they don't clean our roads. Also in cities that put bike lanes in next to parked cars, that is the last place you want to be on your bicycle because of people opening their doors. Many serious accidents happen because of people in parked cars opening their doors as bicycles are approaching next to the parked cars.

99% of the time the laws are ride as far right as practical. That means if in the center of the lane is as far right as practical, then that is where you ride. With most bike lanes, still the safest place to ride is around the right tire track of the lane or just slightly to the right of the tire track with room to maneuver because with debris in the bike lane, it is not safe to be swerving in and out of the lane to go around said debris.

Love Casey's video response for getting a ticket in NYC for not riding in the bike lane....

Apologies I can't tell who your comments are aimed at--was it me or the poster starport . Were you explaining that starport's photo was reflecting a shoulder turned into a bike lane or were you referring to one of my photos?

 

[luvsJack]

Because others do it doesn't make it suddenly ok for the mom to do it (or anyone for that matter). It only takes one person who is following the rules of the trail for things to become a disaster. If this is a normal thing on the trail it's likely people are also utilizing situational awareness all the time and can get out of the way quickly enough should they be approached by opposite, but correct direction, traffic (well one hopes that's the case lol). If no one or people rarely get out of the way when they are on the incorrect side as a habitual thing well that's not a trail I want to be on personally.




I feel like we're reading two different threads. Many others have already said we don't agree with how the biker handled it or that he called them out to begin with. You stating he's a jerk doesn't distract me from what other things you are saying especially because so many on this thread aren't defending the actions of the biker but rather pointing out the other side of the situation.





You brought it up:


I responded with what the OP notified us regarding their mom. If you don't think it has anything to do with it don't bring it up.

That's the same thing.

She gets to go against the trail rules because she's in danger of falling (I'm using your scenario here) but the other person who is following the rules well him doing that don't mean squat I guess. You seem to be putting a lot of emphasis on the mother's safety whilst not even noticing that your scenario has the mother willingly putting herself in danger. If you are in danger of falling putting yourself in a position where you are at a heightened risk doesn't sound good to me (again using your scenario). The safest way for the mom is to not actually put herself in a situation where she's at that risk of falling (again using your scenario not the exact specifics of the OP's mom). Once you knowingly and willingly put yourself at risk you are lowering your importance on safety.

Sure sounds that way because you're overly focused on what the biker did and how the mom could have an invisible disability and how her safety this and that means she can go on that side and you just gotta deal with that. Majority of posters see it that both were wrong in some way (isn't that a rarity for the DIS lol)
Differences in reading I guess then as it didn't sound like what you're describing.
What people are saying is it is an issue for all the occurances out there. Taking the isolated incident doesn't mean that outcome will be repeated time and time again. The guy truly didn't have to make something of it and he could have let it go going about his business as actually saying something makes something a big deal when it didn't have to be. What I do see a big deal is being on the incorrect side without the means to be able to quickly get out of the way. We clearly differ on what constitutes a big deal.

LOL you don't have to define what "just because others do it" means. I am well aware. And you are using a bit of exaggeration here. There was a hurricane coming to the area, there weren't many people on the trail. There wasn't any risk of disaster. The biker saw her well before danger of hitting them. And it sounds like they saw him. You are making it sound like they were walking down the middle of a busy interstate.

Are you insinuating that someone should just follow what the majority of other posters think and tell the OP that he was wrong? So no one should think anything different or have their own opinion?

The OP isn't talking about all the occurrences out there. He is talking about THIS occurrence at THIS trail. Not the bike/pedestrian traffic in NYC or NOLA or wherever.

Yes, I said if she has trouble walking on the inclined side. Whether someone can SEE why she has trouble with it, has nothing to do with the guy acting like he did. The OP clearly said that this wasn't the first time they had walked on this trail, wasn't the first time his Mom walked on the "wrong" side but only this one guy thought he needed to make a big deal out of it.

The OP clearly said they were moving out of the guy's way and with him having 90% of the trail, they weren't in his way anyway. If they moved as soon as they saw him or moved as he got closer really doesn't matter. They were in the act of moving. But rather than accepting that, you seem determined to take that little tidbit and "prove" the OP and his mom wrong.

If you are unable to understand the difference in someone's SAFETY or lack of pain or pick one being more important than someone's convenience and one person being more important than another, I honestly do not know what to tell you.

 

[Eeyore2142]

LOL you don't have to define what "just because others do it" means. I am well aware. And you are using a bit of exaggeration here. There was a hurricane coming to the area, there weren't many people on the trail. There wasn't any risk of disaster. The biker saw her well before danger of hitting them. And it sounds like they saw him. You are making it sound like they were walking down the middle of a busy interstate.

Are you insinuating that someone should just follow what the majority of other posters think and tell the OP that he was wrong? So no one should think anything different or have their own opinion?

The OP isn't talking about all the occurrences out there. He is talking about THIS occurrence at THIS trail. Not the bike/pedestrian traffic in NYC or NOLA or wherever.

Yes, I said if she has trouble walking on the inclined side. Whether someone can SEE why she has trouble with it, has nothing to do with the guy acting like he did. The OP clearly said that this wasn't the first time they had walked on this trail, wasn't the first time his Mom walked on the "wrong" side but only this one guy thought he needed to make a big deal out of it.

The OP clearly said they were moving out of the guy's way and with him having 90% of the trail, they weren't in his way anyway. If they moved as soon as they saw him or moved as he got closer really doesn't matter. They were in the act of moving. But rather than accepting that, you seem determined to take that little tidbit and "prove" the OP and his mom wrong.

If you are unable to understand the difference in someone's SAFETY or lack of pain or pick one being more important than someone's convenience and one person being more important than another, I honestly do not know what to tell you.

How do you know that it wasn't a safety issue for the biker? What if he had an issue and that is why he had to get off the bike? One person's safety doesn't trump another's when it comes to the rules. I don't get to decide to do whatever I want because it's easier for me and causes less pain if it is against the stated rule. Trust me, there is a lot I would prefer to do, but I don't get to because that's not how it works.

 

[mrodgers]

Apologies I can't tell who your comments are aimed at--was it me or the poster starport . Were you explaining that starport's photo was reflecting a shoulder turned into a bike lane or were you referring to one of my photos?

Ha, even I don't know either. You can't click and read entire posts from the front page as it goes to the newest unread which I didn't realize I think was yesterday's. Activity seems to be massive as after I quoted and posted I realized it was 2 pages ago. Also the format change a bit ago now leaves everything in a narrow window covering less than half the browser window. A lot of forums are doing this and it starts to get real confusing trying to read forums these days.

I should have snipped your post as I was responding to your question of whether it was a bike lane or shoulder. Many bike lanes are just shoulders renamed and marked as bike lanes. Then with a paragraph break, I expanded on the various dangers of bike lanes.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The OP clearly said they were moving out of the guy's way and with him having 90% of the trail, they weren't in his way anyway.

The OP clearly said they were getting out of the way after the biker got off his bike.

"Now when the cyclist stopped is when we started moving over."

Additionally the OP states: "If he wouldn't have stopped we could have easily went left onto the grass" so they were able to get out of the way; just opted at that time to not probably thinking "the cyclist can just go around me there's space" or whatever. I'm saying I wouldn't have left it up to that. I'm not into playing chicken with folks especially when I'm on the wrong side which presents a heightened risk.

They were in the act of moving.

Yes, by moving they were moving forward on the incorrect side.

But rather than accepting that, you seem determined to take that little tidbit and "prove" the OP and his mom wrong.

Yeah ok don't know what you mean by that first comment as I can see what the OP said. I think you're either misinterpreting what the OP is saying or you're talking about something else than what I'm talking about.

The OP said they were in the wrong what do I need to prove. What got the OP upset was the the biker appeared to go out of his way to make something of it rather than letting it go (which most of us agree he didn't have to do that).

If you are unable to understand the difference in someone's SAFETY or lack of pain or pick one being more important than someone's convenience and one person being more important than another, I honestly do not know what to tell you.

I'm clearly able to understand safety and pain and whatnot. But it's apparent you aren't able to do that as you pick and choose when safety is important.

The OP clearly said that this wasn't the first time they had walked on this trail, wasn't the first time his Mom walked on the "wrong" side but only this one guy thought he needed to make a big deal out of it.

Again still stuck on the biker stating what we've already said a badzillion times on the thread.

The OP isn't talking about all the occurrences out there. He is talking about THIS occurrence at THIS trail.

Um you misunderstood. I'm not talking about NYC or NOLA. I'm talking about THIS trail (to use your emphasis) and any OTHER occurances that COULD have happened on THIS trail (emphasis used for clarity reasons). If the OP had this same situation today the outcome may not have been the same as Monday or Tuesday (can't remember when exactly it occurred)

Are you insinuating that someone should just follow what the majority of other posters think and tell the OP that he was wrong? So no one should think anything different or have their own opinion?

What are you even talking about here; you've lost me

And you are using a bit of exaggeration here. There was a hurricane coming to the area, there weren't many people on the trail. There wasn't any risk of disaster. The biker saw her well before danger of hitting them. And it sounds like they saw him. You are making it sound like they were walking down the middle of a busy interstate.

What exaggeration is being used--your busy interstate is for sure an exaggeration though. You're tunnel-visioned here. I'm considering bigger picture,don't know what another incident could occur, outlook which is why I suggested a path where the OP's mom doesn't have to place themselves at risk in the first place. Sounds like this was a blip of a trail trip because they walk along a more level path consistently but most of us are talking about "hey for the future-don't" kind of thing.

 

[nkereina]

Was he a jerk? Maybe a mild one.

How do you figure he was a "mild" jerk? He threw a fit and was immediately snarky and sarcastic, from what was described. I can't even think of a scenario that would warrant behavior like that, but especially not in a scenario as insignificant as this one.

 

[kaytieeldr]

The OP clearly said they were moving out of the guy's way and with him having 90% of the trail

I realize it's hard to draw on an electronic screen, but two people walking side by side on a 15 foot wide trail take up WAY more than the 10% of width allotted to them by this erroneous claim.

If they moved as soon as they saw him or moved as he got closer really doesn't matter.

It sure as heck does matter. Especially given that they were walking on the wrong side of the trail, it is incumbent on them to move rather than assume the person occupying the correct side of the trail will. OP said there were no blind curves. The parties should have been able to see each other from a good distance. She and her mom should have started moving to their right when they first saw him - not waited until he was a few feet away and they realized he did not intend to swerve.

 

[kaytieeldr]

from what was described.

This is a very important qualification. There are three sides to every (two-party) story: Person A's, Person B's, and the impartial truth.

 

[disneychrista]

I can't even think of a scenario that would warrant behavior like that, but especially not in a scenario as insignificant as this one.

Yes but...

There are three sides to every (two-party) story: Person A's, Person B's, and the impartial truth.

Just thought it beared repeating.

 

[luvsJack]

The OP clearly said they were getting out of the way after the biker got off his bike.

"Now when the cyclist stopped is when we started moving over."

Additionally the OP states: "If he wouldn't have stopped we could have easily went left onto the grass" so they were able to get out of the way; just opted at that time to not probably thinking "the cyclist can just go around me there's space" or whatever. I'm saying I wouldn't have left it up to that. I'm not into playing chicken with folks especially when I'm on the wrong side which presents a heightened risk.
Yes, by moving they were moving forward on the incorrect side.
Yeah ok don't know what you mean by that first comment as I can see what the OP said. I think you're either misinterpreting what the OP is saying or you're talking about something else than what I'm talking about.

The OP said they were in the wrong what do I need to prove. What got the OP upset was the the biker appeared to go out of his way to make something of it rather than letting it go (which most of us agree he didn't have to do that).
I'm clearly able to understand safety and pain and whatnot. But it's apparent you aren't able to do that as you pick and choose when safety is important.
Again still stuck on the biker stating what we've already said a badzillion times on the thread.
Um you misunderstood. I'm not talking about NYC or NOLA. I'm talking about THIS trail (to use your emphasis) and any OTHER occurances that COULD have happened on THIS trail (emphasis used for clarity reasons). If the OP had this same situation today the outcome may not have been the same as Monday or Tuesday (can't remember when exactly it occurred)
What are you even talking about here; you've lost me
What exaggeration is being used--your busy interstate is for sure an exaggeration though. You're tunnel-visioned here. I'm considering bigger picture,don't know what another incident could occur, outlook which is why I suggested a path where the OP's mom doesn't have to place themselves at risk in the first place. Sounds like this was a blip of a trail trip because they walk along a more level path consistently but most of us are talking about "hey for the future-don't" kind of thing.

There is no reason for a "bigger picture". This is ONE incident at this trail. Just one. I don't care what 'most of us are talking about". The OP came here to vent about some one acting like a jerk to him and his mother and as is the habit of the DIS, everyone has to leap on and tell him how its all his fault and he was putting his mother in danger and the biker in danger and on and on and on.

As for losing you on that statement, you keep telling me what "everybody is talking about". I am quite able to comprehend. I don't agree necessarily but I comprehend. Just because I don't agree doesn't mean you have to explain what they mean to me.

This whole thread is literally about what the biker said and did. Not about what might happen at some undisclosed point in the future. Its not about what you want to make it into. Its about what happened on the day in question and what the guy said and did. So its not tunnel vision, its staying on topic. Every thread does not need some bigger picture with a plan for the future nor does every thread warrant advise or suggestions.

I didn't say they were on an interstate, I said you are acting like they are on an interstate. Not an exaggeration. If I said something about them walking down an interstate THEN I would be exaggerating. I am just pointing out to you how all these "danger" warnings are sounding.

I don't know what you need to prove, I am not the one trying to prove it. You seem hell bent on making him admit that they were totally in the wrong and deserved getting told off by the guy. But if he does not feel that they were, then he doesn't need to admit that. He knows his area and what is the norm at this trail. I don't think he posted this to find out what the norm is at your walking trails or at mine or at anyone else's. He came here to vent about someone speaking rudely to him and his mom.

I am not picking and choosing anything. the cyclist wasn't going fast, he stopped and walked his bike, they were all the way over to the edge of the path and out of the way, exactly how was the cyclist in danger?

Where exactly did the OP say this: "the cyclist can just go around me there's space" ?? Oh, that's right. . . he didn't. He DID say that there was enough room for the cyclist to stay on his side of the trail and go around them. I don't make it a habit of doubting anything a poster says so I am going to say that he wasn't daring the cyclist or playing chicken, he was just walking with his mom and there was plenty of room.

 

[luvsJack]

I realize it's hard to draw on an electronic screen, but two people walking side by side on a 15 foot wide trail take up WAY more than the 10% of width allotted to them by this erroneous claim.

It sure as heck does matter. Especially given that they were walking on the wrong side of the trail, it is incumbent on them to move rather than assume the person occupying the correct side of the trail will. OP said there were no blind curves. The parties should have been able to see each other from a good distance. She and her mom should have started moving to their right when they first saw him - not waited until he was a few feet away and they realized he did not intend to swerve.

He is a he.

The cyclist did not have to swerve.

And now you know the trail the Op was on? You know the width of it and how much room the OP and his mom take up (the OP could have been in the grass or partly in the grass)

Our trail has cyclists, skateboarders, etc. Everyone manages to walk on the trail without incident. Some are on the "wrong" side and when they get within a few feet of each other, one or the other move. Sort of like when one is walking in a store and head face to face with someone, one or the other eventually moves. No one gets in a tizzy because someone else didn't move fast enough, that would be silly and a whole lot of aggravation while doing an activity that is supposed to be stress relieving.

 

[DisneyOma]

This is some random trail pic but look.View attachment 432777

We were the black line, he was the white. We tried to go around him (the green arrow) but he literally walked in front to stop us. He didn't have to stop us but he did and that's what makes me mad. And he approached us with the attitude that he wanted to sit there and argue so even if we did say sorry and ignore him he would've probably said more stuff.

Also we do have a more level path we just happened to be near this one at the time

I'd have been annoyed to have a walker coming at me on the wrong side of the trail as well and would have explained the rules. I'm not touching tone because that is subjective.

Perhaps this guy, who was being safe by getting off his bike and walking it around you, instead of risking a collision in case you moved into his path as he went around you, is also disabled?