People can be jerks

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

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.

You're really wound up about this aren't you? To the point where you deliberately type things out or choosing to misunderstand me or you're innocently doing so, IDK

Some of your comments are just you trying to stir up something that isn't there--take "Where exactly did the OP say this: "the cyclist can just go around me there's space" ?? Oh, that's right. . . he didn't." How about I quote my comment so you can see for yourself what was actually said and what was simply musings/hypothetical/reasonable thoughts that one can have as a rational person and you tell me who's the person exaggerating (rhetorical comment):

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.

FWIW I was actually giving the OP the benefit of the doubt there-you're just so into whatever you're into that you're reacting to things that just aren't there.

I think we've run this course on this thread now; let's not quote each other, K?

 

[Lilsia]

Pedestrians and wheeled vehicles do not mix well and should not be on the same paths. There is a reason why people are not supposed to walk in the street and why cyclists/cars/motorcycles, etc don't drive on a sidewalk. It is a recipe for disaster to have cyclist and pedestrians on the same path. If your city states that it is a mixed use path, then I would petition for them to mark off an area that is just used for cyclists. All types of people should be able to walk on a walking path without being hit by a someone going 5-10 mph. Wrong side or no, I just can't drum up and anger or animosity for an older person walking on the flat side of a walking path.

 

[Hrhpd]

This is really just a rant but I needed to get it off my chest.

My mother has problems in her legs and back, and when she walks on uneven ground she starts to get bad pains.

We tried out this walking (and biking) trail on the other side of town. We had been there before and it was very nice but this time was... odd.
The trail has the width of maybe 15 feet. It has arrows on it that tell you right side goes one way, left goes another (like basic road rules). Every trail has them and nobody pays attention. The right side (leaving the parking lot) is mostly level and flat but the left side has some parts where it tilts down (the trail is sort of on a hill). So my mother has to walk both ways on the same side. If she has somebody walking towards her, most people just walk around her but some don't so she just walks around them. Plain and simple. So today we go. The trail was almost dead with most people preparing for Dorian (the rain hadn't hit yet) so we thought it would be a good time to go. We got to the point where we are walking back towards parking and about 5 minutes in, a guy comes riding on a bike. He is probably 10 yards away and he gets off and starts walking with the bike. He comes straight at us so we try to go around and he stops and says "are you from Europe?". My mom looks very confused and says no. Then the guy just gives her a dirty look and says "here in America we walk on the right side of the path". weird statement but ok. My mom does NOT put up with peoples crap, so she told him off and walked away. We didn't see him after that but it was just so weird that you can literally take your bike and go around us but instead he chose to be a complete jerk about it and stop us.

That's all. My mom is still a bit confused over it but its kind of a forget about it situation. Its stuck with me because this has never happened before and was weird.

Edit: I forgot to add that one of his statements was "you don't run society". Then why are you telling us how a sidewalk works?

Not understanding how a person out for a bike ride, a person who is forced to dismount during his ride because someone is walking on the wrong side of an admitted well marked path, is the jerk.

Sounds more like the OP's mother has a well honed sense of "rules don't apply to me" entitlement.

Do you live in an area with a lot of tourists? If yes, then what he asked was not rude but informational.

I agree with some of the other posters that if your Mom cannot walk on the path following the rules, it might be best to find a more level path that she can negotiate better for her comfort if not for her own safety. That biker was nice to dismount instead of continuing to ride around her. If your mom was coming around a blind curve while walking on the wrong side, she runs the risk of a head on collision with a bike.

 

[disneychrista]

Not understanding how a person out for a bike ride, a person who is forced to dismount during his ride because someone is walking on the wrong side of an admitted well marked path, is the jerk.

I'm not understanding how the bike was forced to dismount. It sounds like he had plenty of room to go around them safely.

 

[tzolkin]

Not understanding how a person out for a bike ride, a person who is forced to dismount during his ride because someone is walking on the wrong side of an admitted well marked path, is the jerk.

Sounds more like the OP's mother has a well honed sense of "rules don't apply to me" entitlement.

Seriously? You can't see how a man who gets off his bike and then steps in front of people to block them from walking away while he's insulting them is acting like a jerk?

Even if the OP's mom is an entitled "rules don't apply to me" person, that doesn't make the guy's behavior any less rude/confrontational. It's entirely possible that they're both jerks.

 

[mrodgers]

Seriously? You can't see how a man who gets off his bike and then steps in front of people to block them from walking away while he's insulting them is acting like a jerk?

Even if the OP's mom is an entitled "rules don't apply to me" person, that doesn't make the guy's behavior any less rude/confrontational. It's entirely possible that they're both jerks.

Or from experience he wasn't being a jerk but just frustrated for the umpteenth time that yet again he is encountering (his assumed thoughts based on experience, not calling anyone names here) a bunch of idiots who can't figure out the correct side of a path to walk on so he has to wonder if yet again he should go around them and take the chance they will do like more often than not everyone else does and jump directly into his path as he goes around them. It happens constantly in these situations.

 

[Hrhpd]

Seriously? You can't see how a man who gets off his bike and then steps in front of people to block them from walking away while he's insulting them is acting like a jerk?

Even if the OP's mom is an entitled "rules don't apply to me" person, that doesn't make the guy's behavior any less rude/confrontational. It's entirely possible that they're both jerks.

Yeah, lots of "added" information her to shore up a story. I tend to just go by the original post. Standing in front of her and blocking her is a pretty important part of the story to back up what a jerk the guy was, so why was it not included in the original post and was added later on after everyone was saying Mom was in the wrong. Call me skeptical.

 

[tzolkin]

Or from experience he wasn't being a jerk but just frustrated for the umpteenth time that yet again he is encountering (his assumed thoughts based on experience, not calling anyone names here) a bunch of idiots who can't figure out the correct side of a path to walk on so he has to wonder if yet again he should go around them and take the chance they will do like more often than not everyone else does and jump directly into his path as he goes around them. It happens constantly in these situations.

I totally get being frustrated and that his prior experiences may have justified him calling them out, but he still did it in a rude way and came across as a jerk to me. Which is fine. Everyone gets frustrated and acts like a jerk sometimes. But, in my opinion (based on the story given) he was still rude.

The polite way to address it would have been to nicely talk to them about it. "Hey, there are a lot of people who ride bikes on this path and some are moving fast, or people have head phones in and I've seen a lot of close calls. It can be dangerous to walk on the left side."

The OP's mom could have also politely just apologized for being on the wrong side of the path and inconveniencing him rather than "telling him off".

Yeah, lots of "added" information her to shore up a story. I tend to just go by the original post. Standing in front of her and blocking her is a pretty important part of the story to back up what a jerk the guy was, so why was it not included in the original post and was added later on after everyone was saying Mom was in the wrong. Call me skeptical.

I read that part into the original post so I didn't see that as added information. The OP stated the cyclist was walking straight at them, they tried to go around him, and he stopped them. He didn't use the exact phrase "blocking them from walking", but that's how I envisioned what was originally written.

I do agree with you that there may have been more info added in the subsequent posts that was intended to rationalize or make them look better than they did in the OP. (From my reading of just the OP, the mom seemed like a jerk too) But, that seems to happen in most threads on the Dis where most people don't seem to be agreeing with the OP's point of view.

 

[BaymaxFan78]

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)

I mentioned earlier that it was around 15 feet, I think that's what she was going by.

Sounds more like the OP's mother has a well honed sense of "rules don't apply to me" entitlement.

Do you live in an area with a lot of tourists? If yes, then what he asked was not rude but informational.

Nobody ever said that the rules didn't apply to her/us. Because they do.

And no we don't have many tourists around but we do have some

 

[kaytieeldr]

There is no reason for a "bigger picture". This is ONE incident at this trail. Just one.

This statement makes it sound like you think the mom will never, ever again walk on the wrong side of this trail and encounter others using the trail correctly and not yielding?

This whole thread is literally about what the biker said and did.

This whole thread is literally about the OP's version of what the cyclist (not biker, biker = motorcycle rider) said and did.

Its about what happened on the day in question and what the guy said and did

It's about the OP's version of what happened on the day in question and what the guy said and did.

Not about what might happen at some undisclosed point in the future.

Because...? You believe the OP's mother will never, ever walk on the incorrect side of this trail ever again?

He DID say that there was enough room for the cyclist to stay on his side of the trail and go around them.

Stay on the correct side of the trail? Or go around them? Because the cyclist can't do both.

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)

• Trail is 15 feet wide, per OP.
• Cyclist had, or could have used, or was using, (according to a PP I don't care to search for at the moment, but will) 90% of the trail.*
• Ninety percent of 15 is 13.5 feet.
• The remaining width is therefore 1.5 feet.
• The average person is wider from shoulder to shoulder than 1.5 feet.
• Two people walking side by side would take up more than three feet, even with one's left arm pressed tightly against the other's right arm.
• Therefore, two people walking side by side on the wrong side of a trail, as marked (and I don't give a rat's patoot that "everybody" ignores the directional arrows/rules of the road) occupy greater than 20% of the trail.
• Even according to the OP, they could have but didn't move off the road onto the grass, and it appears they did not start moving to their right until the cyclist was close enough to speak to them.

*Page 8, post # 142

 

[BaymaxFan78]

Trail is 15 feet wide, per OP.
Cyclist had, or could have used, or was using, (according to a PP I don't care to search for at the moment, but will) 90% of the trail.
Ninety percent of 15 is 13.5 feet.
The remaining width is therefore 1.5 feet.
The average person is wider from shoulder to shoulder than 1.5 feet.
Two people walking side by side would take up more than three feet, even with one's left arm pressed tightly against the other's right arm.
Therefore, two people walking side by side on the wrong side of a trail, as marked (and I don't give a rat's patoot that "everybody" ignores the directional arrows/rules of the road) occupy greater than 20% of the trail.
Even according to the OP, they could have but didn't move off the road onto the grass, and it appears they did not start moving to their right until the cyclist was close enough to speak to them.

I was walking behind my mother if that makes any difference. And we started moving once we saw he was slowing down. we were already on the "right" side by the time he got to us.

Edit: The reason we moved when he slowed down is because he had his feet in that position where he was about to come to a complete halt. And he was moving steady and straight, not in a position to swerve (unless he did it really last minute, which could have caused him to fly past us and off the trail)

 

[luvsJack]

This statement makes it sound like you think the mom will never, ever again walk on the wrong side of this trail and encounter others using the trail correctly and not yielding?

This whole thread is literally about the OP's version of what the cyclist (not biker, biker = motorcycle rider) said and did.

It's about the OP's version of what happened on the day in question and what the guy said and did.

Because...? You believe the OP's mother will never, ever walk on the incorrect side of this trail ever again?

Stay on the correct side of the trail? Or go around them? Because the cyclist can't do both.

• Trail is 15 feet wide, per OP.
• Cyclist had, or could have used, or was using, (according to a PP I don't care to search for at the moment, but will) 90% of the trail.*
• Ninety percent of 15 is 13.5 feet.
• The remaining width is therefore 1.5 feet.
• The average person is wider from shoulder to shoulder than 1.5 feet.
• Two people walking side by side would take up more than three feet, even with one's left arm pressed tightly against the other's right arm.
• Therefore, two people walking side by side on the wrong side of a trail, as marked (and I don't give a rat's patoot that "everybody" ignores the directional arrows/rules of the road) occupy greater than 20% of the trail.
• Even according to the OP, they could have but didn't move off the road onto the grass, and it appears they did not start moving to their right until the cyclist was close enough to speak to them.

*Page 8, post # 142

Stay on the right side of the trail and go past them.

Where did the OP ask if it was ok for them to walk on the wrong side of the trail? He honestly seemed to be venting about the guy not asking what they did wrong or should do in the future.

I don’t read posts and assume the poster is lying. I don’t know why anyone would take the time to do that and have no way of proving it if they did.

 

[luvsJack]

You're really wound up about this aren't you? To the point where you deliberately type things out or choosing to misunderstand me or you're innocently doing so, IDK

Some of your comments are just you trying to stir up something that isn't there--take "Where exactly did the OP say this: "the cyclist can just go around me there's space" ?? Oh, that's right. . . he didn't." How about I quote my comment so you can see for yourself what was actually said and what was simply musings/hypothetical/reasonable thoughts that one can have as a rational person and you tell me who's the person exaggerating (rhetorical comment):


FWIW I was actually giving the OP the benefit of the doubt there-you're just so into whatever you're into that you're reacting to things that just aren't there.

I think we've run this course on this thread now; let's not quote each other, K?

No I am not wound up about anything. Nor am I “into” anything. Perhaps you need to back off and stop accusing anyone who disagrees with you as not understanding you or being focused on the wrong things or whatever else you have said.

I did misunderstand you and for that I apologize. I thought you were saying he was staying put to make the biker move since you did say you choose not to play chicken with someone.

I do not agree with you and I am fine with leaving it at that. Was in the beginning and am now.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Stay on the right side of the trail and go past them.

The OP and his mother were on the left (aka sinister, aka wrong) side of the trail according to (a) standard/ingrained/expected walking rules and driving laws, and (b) the directional arrows the OP stated are on the path.

The cyclist could not stay on the right side of the path and go around walkers heading toward him on his correct side of the trail. Physics says so.

Where did the OP ask if it was ok for them to walk on the wrong side of the trail?

I give up. Where? Because rereading my post, I don't see where I indicated that.

I don’t read posts and assume the poster is lying.

Interesting. I read (vent, complaint, etc.) posts knowing we are getting just a single side. That's entirely different from assuming, well, anything - but particularly that someone is lying.

 

[LSUmiss]

I'm not understanding how the bike was forced to dismount. It sounds like he had plenty of room to go around them safely.

Exactly. To me it sounded like he only needed to dismount to make his rude a** comments.

 

[L&Lfan]

9 pages.... where’s Judge Judy when ya need her?

 

[Eeyore2142]

I was walking behind my mother if that makes any difference. And we started moving once we saw he was slowing down. we were already on the "right" side by the time he got to us.

Edit: The reason we moved when he slowed down is because he had his feet in that position where he was about to come to a complete halt. And he was moving steady and straight, not in a position to swerve (unless he did it really last minute, which could have caused him to fly past us and off the trail)

I’m sorry. And I really really hate to say it. But I doubt you were behind her. No one walks like that. Except that one person that’s gonna come in here and tell her her and her best bud does. But I still won’t belive you. You walk next to each other and talk.

 

[disneychrista]

I’m sorry. And I really really hate to say it. But I doubt you were behind her. No one walks like that.

I'd agree no one walks that way down a path. But MOST people will walk like that when someone is coming in the opposite direction, especially if the path is narrow.

 

[Eeyore2142]

I'd agree no one walks that way down a path. But MOST people will walk like that when someone is coming in the opposite direction, especially if the path is narrow.

Yep. But it has been shown it was not narrow. And he did not state he moved that way when he saw the biker was coming.

 

[nkereina]

Yes but...



Just thought it beared repeating.

Right, but the OP provided some direct quotes from the man. Assuming the OP isn't lying or making that up, those lines are clearly sarcastic which was unwarranted in that situation. Its possible the OP and his mom perceived it harsher than intended, but there's still no need to be sarcastic to complete strangers over something as insignificant as that regardless of what the "true" story is.