People can be jerks

[piccolopat]

Sorry but I also think your mom was wrong. If she has to walk on the wrong side, she should always be the one to yield to others who are on the right side. She shouldn't expect people to move over for her and only move if they don't yield. Perhaps the slope she wanted to avoid made it more difficult for the cyclist. Also, you said that the path is 15 feet wide. Instead of walking on the wrong side, can she simply walk on the right side but close to the center line? He may have been rude confronting you like this but OPs mom should have apologized for being on the wrong side to begin with. That might have been enough to deescalate the situation. Perhaps OP also doesn't realize how much ground a cyclist covers, even at a relatively slow pace. When walkers are on the wrong side, the cyclist is forced to almost stop because they have no way of knowing if the walker will move to the right side or not. If they try to go around them and the walker moves over at the last minute, a collision may not be avoidable. Walkers should always walk on the right side but if they don't they should always move over to the right side as soon as they see a cyclist coming and not wait until the last minute.

 

[mrodgers]

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.

Cyclists encounter people walking all the time on the trails. 90% of people walking on trails are clueless and do so in their own little protected world in their minds. They walk on the wrong side, they walk side by side not paying attention to anyone else around them, they walk side by side in large groups taking up the entire trail not paying attention to anyone else around them. They walk clueless to their surroundings with their earbuds blasting in their ears. They walk clueless to their surroundings staring down on their phones or with their phones glued to their ears. Cyclists encounter far more people in general than walkers do because of the ability to move at higher speeds. It gets real old real quick constantly having to avoid idiots out on the trails who think they are the only ones who exist. The sarcastic comment is entirely warranted when you are sick to death having to avoid clueless people all the time.

Bicycles are typically not a problem for walkers. There are idiot cyclists out there, no doubt, but my observation is that about 25% of cyclists are idiots doing things wrong on trails but walkers are about 90%.

Walk and ride a bicycle on the correct side, pay attention, walk and ride predictably, and give space for everyone to pass by safely and there would be no problem at all.

 

[Hrhpd]

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.

How is it insignificant to the cyclist? He is on a trail he is allowed to be on, on the correct side following the rules, wanting a nice ride. Instead, he is forced to stop his bike ride, dismount and go around people ignoring the rules. While he may have been rude, however, we don't know that because everyone is ASSuming the tone was sarcastic, he was in the right and Mom was in the wrong. Her sense of entitlement comes from not apologizing for breaking the rules, causing the cyclist to have to interrupt his ride, and instead "not taking it" from the cyclist.

The OP admits the other side of the path is so sloped, his mother could not walk safely on it. What we don't know is how sloped it was. It could have been equally dangerous for a moving bike to have to swerve onto a sloped portion of the trail which is what forced him to stop and dismount.

 

[LSUmiss]

Sorry but I also think your mom was wrong. If she has to walk on the wrong side, she should always be the one to yield to others who are on the right side. She shouldn't expect people to move over for her and only move if they don't yield. Perhaps the slope she wanted to avoid made it more difficult for the cyclist. Also, you said that the path is 15 feet wide. Instead of walking on the wrong side, can she simply walk on the right side but close to the center line? He may have been rude confronting you like this but OPs mom should have apologized for being on the wrong side to begin with. That might have been enough to deescalate the situation. Perhaps OP also doesn't realize how much ground a cyclist covers, even at a relatively slow pace. When walkers are on the wrong side, the cyclist is forced to almost stop because they have no way of knowing if the walker will move to the right side or not. If they try to go around them and the walker moves over at the last minute, a collision may not be avoidable. Walkers should always walk on the right side but if they don't they should always move over to the right side as soon as they see a cyclist coming and not wait until the last minute.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting ppl move for her or that she has the right to walk on the wrong side. As usual, think many ppl are getting lost in the weeds on this. The only point I see OP & others making is that the guy on the bike was a jerk & he WAS being a jerk regardless of why. He was being a jerk by the way he talked to OP’s mom. Imo, none of the other details matter.

 

[LSUmiss]

How is it insignificant to the cyclist? He is on a trail he is allowed to be on, on the correct side following the rules, wanting a nice ride. Instead, he is forced to stop his bike ride, dismount and go around people ignoring the rules. While he may have been rude, however, we don't know that because everyone is ASSuming the tone was sarcastic, he was in the right and Mom was in the wrong. Her sense of entitlement comes from not apologizing for breaking the rules, causing the cyclist to have to interrupt his ride, and instead "not taking it" from the cyclist.

The OP admits the other side of the path is so sloped, his mother could not walk safely on it. What we don't know is how sloped it was. It could have been equally dangerous for a moving bike to have to swerve onto a sloped portion of the trail which is what forced him to stop and dismount.

You don’t really need to “assume” asking someone if they’re from Europe is sarcastic.

 

[BaymaxFan78]

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.

She had earbuds and I had headphones, we were both listening to music. We only stopped to talk once we reached our turnaround point, before the cyclist came along. I always walk single file no matter what trail I'm on because cycles can come up behind you and you dont always hear them with headphones on.

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.

He said a lot more than I quoted, I just cant say the rest because this is the Dis...

Also, you said that the path is 15 feet wide. Instead of walking on the wrong side, can she simply walk on the right side but close to the center line?

She tried that once but that was more dangerous than walking on the wrong side. She almost got hit twice and had nowhere to go because there were people on both sides.

 

[nkereina]

How is it insignificant to the cyclist? He is on a trail he is allowed to be on, on the correct side following the rules, wanting a nice ride. Instead, he is forced to stop his bike ride, dismount and go around people ignoring the rules. While he may have been rude, however, we don't know that because everyone is ASSuming the tone was sarcastic, he was in the right and Mom was in the wrong. Her sense of entitlement comes from not apologizing for breaking the rules, causing the cyclist to have to interrupt his ride, and instead "not taking it" from the cyclist.

Its insignificant meaning its insignificant in the grand scheme of life. The OP said the cyclist stopped and dismounted in an overreaction and had ample room to go around them. If that's true, the cyclist really needs to not sweat the small stuff. Go around them and don't think twice about it.

And I agree with PP that asking someone if their from Europe, as the opening comment to them, is sarcastic and there's not really another way to take that.

 

[Hrhpd]

Its insignificant meaning its insignificant in the grand scheme of life. The OP said the cyclist stopped and dismounted in an overreaction and had ample room to go around them. If that's true, the cyclist really needs to not sweat the small stuff. Go around them and don't think twice about it.

And I agree with PP that asking someone if their from Europe, as the opening comment to them, is sarcastic and there's not really another way to take that.

If they cyclist's heart was pounding because he almost hit an old lady walking on the wrong side of the path, that is not insignificant to the cyclist. Walking on the wrong side of a path that has wheeled vehicles can be as dangerous as driving on the wrong side of the road. Bicycles do not stop on a dime, cyclists can also be distracted by nature, causing danger to a person walking on the wrong side of a path.

If the cyclist's enjoyment of the trail and ride was interrupted for the umpteenth time by people who think rules don't apply to them while he/she is trying to follow the rules, that is not insignificant to the cyclist.

I find it amusing that everyone is agreeing saying the cyclist was a horrible, rude person. Yet nobody has any idea of what really happened.

The ONLY facts here are the OP and Mom were walking on the wrong side of a well marked path, the Mom rudely defended her right to walk on the wrong side of the path, the path is approximately 15 feet wide and is sloped enough that the Mom cannot walk safely on the one side.

The facts we do not know:
What was the risk factor for the cyclist to maneuver around the OP on the sloped part of the path? It is far different cycling straight on a slope vs having to make a sharp turn onto a slope.

What is the composition of the path? Could the cyclist safely maneuver around the Mom or was it rocky and loose rocks that could be dangerous to take a sharp turn around the Mom?

What was the drop off from the sloped path? Was it safe for the cyclist to angle onto the other part of the path.

Was the path sloped down or up on the sloped side.

Sorry, I am not going to vilify a cyclist for perhaps overreacting until ALL the unknowns are in place. As mentioned by a few, we only have 1 side of the story from the point of view of someone who rather than apologizing for walking on the wrong side, defended her right that rules don't apply to her.

# Team Cyclist

 

[BaymaxFan78]

If they cyclist's heart was pounding because he almost hit an old lady walking on the wrong side of the path, that is not insignificant to the cyclist. Walking on the wrong side of a path that has wheeled vehicles can be as dangerous as driving on the wrong side of the road. Bicycles do not stop on a dime, cyclists can also be distracted by nature, causing danger to a person walking on the wrong side of a path.

There was no "almost hit". He saw us from a distance and stopped.

If the cyclist's enjoyment of the trail and ride was interrupted for the umpteenth time by people who think rules don't apply to them while he/she is trying to follow the rules, that is not insignificant to the cyclist.

Nobody ever said the rules didn't apply here.

I find it amusing that everyone is agreeing saying the cyclist was a horrible, rude person. Yet nobody has any idea of what really happened.

??

The ONLY facts here are the OP and Mom were walking on the wrong side of a well marked path, the Mom rudely defended her right to walk on the wrong side of the path, the path is approximately 15 feet wide and is sloped enough that the Mom cannot walk safely on the one side.

No, she kindly explained that she can't walk on a sloped path and he got rude with us, prompting my mom to act the same way.

The facts we do not know:
What was the risk factor for the cyclist to maneuver around the OP on the sloped part of the path? It is far different cycling straight on a slope vs having to make a sharp turn onto a slope.

Not much of a risk, the height difference from the middle of the path to the edge is only around 3, maybe 4 inches.

What is the composition of the path? Could the cyclist safely maneuver around the Mom or was it rocky and loose rocks that could be dangerous to take a sharp turn around the Mom?

Its smooth asphalt.

What was the drop off from the sloped path? Was it safe for the cyclist to angle onto the other part of the path.

I'm assuming you mean what is next to the sloped path?(correct me if I'm wrong)
Its flat grass. The only slope is on the path.

Was the path sloped down or up on the sloped side.

Down.

Sorry, I am not going to vilify a cyclist for perhaps overreacting until ALL the unknowns are in place. As mentioned by a few, we only have 1 side of the story from the point of view of someone who rather than apologizing for walking on the wrong side, defended her right that rules don't apply to her.

Again, nobody said rules didn't apply to her.

 

[kaytieeldr]

If they cyclist's heart was pounding because he almost hit an old lady walking on the wrong side of the path

She's not old. Not our business what her actual age is, but I'm guessing middle-aged - somewhere between 40 and 70.

I find it amusing that everyone is agreeing saying the cyclist was a horrible, rude person.

Hey! Not everyone!

 

[luvsJack]

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.

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

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.

I meant “right” as in correct side.

You asked if I thought the op and his mom would never go down the “wrong” side again. Sounds like your intention is to give advise.

 

[LSUmiss]

If they cyclist's heart was pounding because he almost hit an old lady walking on the wrong side of the path, that is not insignificant to the cyclist. Walking on the wrong side of a path that has wheeled vehicles can be as dangerous as driving on the wrong side of the road. Bicycles do not stop on a dime, cyclists can also be distracted by nature, causing danger to a person walking on the wrong side of a path.

If the cyclist's enjoyment of the trail and ride was interrupted for the umpteenth time by people who think rules don't apply to them while he/she is trying to follow the rules, that is not insignificant to the cyclist.

I find it amusing that everyone is agreeing saying the cyclist was a horrible, rude person. Yet nobody has any idea of what really happened.

The ONLY facts here are the OP and Mom were walking on the wrong side of a well marked path, the Mom rudely defended her right to walk on the wrong side of the path, the path is approximately 15 feet wide and is sloped enough that the Mom cannot walk safely on the one side.

The facts we do not know:
What was the risk factor for the cyclist to maneuver around the OP on the sloped part of the path? It is far different cycling straight on a slope vs having to make a sharp turn onto a slope.

What is the composition of the path? Could the cyclist safely maneuver around the Mom or was it rocky and loose rocks that could be dangerous to take a sharp turn around the Mom?

What was the drop off from the sloped path? Was it safe for the cyclist to angle onto the other part of the path.

Was the path sloped down or up on the sloped side.

Sorry, I am not going to vilify a cyclist for perhaps overreacting until ALL the unknowns are in place. As mentioned by a few, we only have 1 side of the story from the point of view of someone who rather than apologizing for walking on the wrong side, defended her right that rules don't apply to her.

# Team Cyclist

So it’s your position when ppl upset us, it’s acceptable to verbally berate them?

 

[kaytieeldr]

I meant “right” as in correct side.

You asked if I thought the op and his mom would never go down the “wrong” side again. Sounds like your intention is to give advise.

Maybe stop inferring the nonexistent? Sometimes a question is just a question.

 

[luvsJack]

Maybe stop inferring the nonexistent?

Then what did you mean by asking more than once what I thought he may do in the future? If the intention was not to tell him what he should or should not do, what has the future got to do with anything? Asking what I thought they would do in the future, more than once, makes it seem like more than just a question. But exactly when did asking a question stop meaning an answer is expected anyway?

He came to vent about the incident with the biker. He didn’t ask if he was right or wrong. He said, right off the bat they were on the wrong side and why.

 

[kaytieeldr]

So it’s your position when ppl upset us, it’s acceptable to verbally berate them?

No. Where did she say that? Did you read the final paragraph? The one desirous of 100% of the facts before making any decision?

 

[kaytieeldr]

..

 

[kaytieeldr]

If the intention was not to tell him what he should or should not do, what has the future got to do with anything?

I was responding to a specific poster's claims. Not the cyclist, not Baymax, not Baymax's mom. Reasonably, asking someone, "Do you think...?", "What do you think...", etc., indicates a question being asked to/of that specific person. Hence the use of the word 'you'.

 

[luvsJack]

I was responding to a specific poster's claims. Not the cyclist, not Baymax, not Baymax's mom. Reasonably, asking someone, "Do you think...?", "What do you think...", etc., indicates a question being asked to/of that specific person. Hence the use of the word 'you'.

You were talking to me. Well, you quoted me and then asked why I said that this thread was literally about this incident and did I not think they were going to do it again.

Not sure what you are talking about here.

 

[LSUmiss]

No. Where did she say that? Did you read the final paragraph? The one desirous of 100% of the facts before making any decision?

There are no “facts” other than what the OP told us. The biker was a jerk b/c of how he acted unless we agreeing that it’s acceptable to verbally assault ppl who piss us off. Period. Nothing else is relevant.

 

[L&Lfan]

Sorry, but the old lady on the wrong side of the path was just as much of a JERK as the biker .