I find that a minority, when hearing that, instinctively take a step left before realizing that they need to move to the right.

all 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 25 points 1 week ago (1 child)

Only when you're passing them on the left imo.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago*

    I generally find it unhelpful. People's reaction time sucks and and so many people hear 'left' and jump in that direction before their brain can process. It's not an intelligence thing that some people try to make it seem, it's just that the average person has this interaction like once per year thus don't have muscle memory baked in.

    I yell out 'excuse me' from several feet back or ring a bell if I'm on a bike. Or more often just slow down as I normally don't really care.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

    A few thoughts; lack of infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists is what crowds us together and forces close passes, try to remember this and be patient and kind.

    The individual being passed has the right of way, they have no obligation to make way. The individual passing is responsible for doing so in a safe manner, no passing on turns or where view is obscured, sometimes need to slow down and wait before passing. Always wait for opposing traffic to clear before passing, don't dart out in front of opposing traffic making them slow or take evasive action.

    A bell is the most effective and least startling method of alerting others to your presence. People seem to instinctively move right when hearing a bell. As mentioned by OP, calling out on your left sometimes makes people move left. (Not true on group rides with experienced riders, on your left is the correct method there)

    Source, decades of cycle commuting and pleasure riding.

    Edit: directionally challenged

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (13 children)

    I've seen this only once or twice, so I think it's exceptionally rare. My hypothesis is that it relates to which leg they happen to standing on, at the time that they hear your call: if they're on their left, making their next step farther to the right is perfectly natural and fluid. But if they're already on their right leg, the startle response might lead them to undo their step, meaning they now step to the left.

    But in any case, the distance that you call out to another trail user should be enough so that even if they make a mistake, there is sufficient time to avoid a close shave. If this means riding slower as you approach, then that's what is necessary.

    Around me, the trails are marked according to the state guidelines for pedestrians, which is to walk on the left, against traffic, so they can see oncoming cyclists. But even when they choose not to, that doesn't excuse a lack of caution when riding nearby pedestrians. In the end, everyone just wants to get where they're going, without externalized risks, safely.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 1 week ago (12 children)

    Your trails have you walk on the left? That is crazy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

    Yep! Though other jurisdictions in California might have everyone on the right. It's not consistent at all, but basically every trail will have pavement markings or signs at the entrances to announce what the policy is.

    The idea with walking on left is to give pedestrians a fighting chance, when all other traffic is right-hand traffic. If a pedestrian is walking on right and is struck from behind, they stand no chance whatsoever to avoid serious injury. This advice only applies to pedestrians because humans only walk at 5 km/h.

    And to be abundant clear, it's never a pedestrian's job to dodge negligent traffic. But if the worse comes to be, it's a final opportunity to save their own skin, when every other procedural safety layer has failed them. It's a safety net, not a support beam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago (8 children)

    Pavement markings

    WTH kind of "trails" do you have over there? I thought we were talking about like trails in the woods/mountains, maybe a gravel road at best..?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    I did say "pavement markings or signs", and this was meant to cover both types: here in California, a "trail" can refer to anything from a minimally-improved dirt route through the forest no wider than a person, to an asphalt-paved multi-use facility with smaller versions of the familiar traffic control signs.

    In the context of OP's question, I didn't specifically discuss narrow, single-track trails because there's no possibility of a bicyclist squeezing past a pedestrian without it being a very obvious negotiation of space.

    But there are plenty of regional trails which reuse the alignment of an old fire road or railroad. So the prospect of riding a bicycle on dirt in a 3-meter wide dirt corridor is not unheard of. So to come across a pedestrian is also not abnormal. If the weather is good, all walks [no pun intended] of life will make their way to enjoy the outdoors here.

    Regional recreation areas will post their trail rules at the trailhead, and periodically along the trails. Some rules are obvious, like not littering. Others are not: horses sometimes get priority over both cyclists and pedestrians, because in areas with lots of horse riding, the horses could get spooked and bolt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    This appears to be a cultural/language thing (I’m not from the Anglosphere), I just didn’t have any concept of a “paved trail”, it immediately seemed like an oxymoron to me.

    I've come across trails with priority markings, but in my country most trails don't really have any kind of marked "trail head" at all (apart from the ones very near major cities) like you commonly have in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    Ah, I see. American English seems to use trail for almost any path that isn't meant for vehicular traffic. Note that some historic routes through the West were inconsistently named in the 1800s, so the Oregon Trail was indeed through unpaved wilderness, but the Mormon Road was also unimproved.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (4 children)

    To defend the comment, I'm including paved trails designed for non-car traffic. So there is a 3+ m wide paved trail for large parts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    This appears to be a cultural/language thing (I'm not from the Anglosphere), I just didn't have any concept of a "paved trail", it immediately seemed like an oxymoron to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    What would you call a paved surface that is dedicated to non-car traffic?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 6 days ago*

    Pavement? Path? Footpath? Biking path?

    In my language we use the literal translation of "road" also for paved surfaces not meant for cars. We use "walking-road" to emphasise the fact when it's in a place where it might be confused for a car-road. We also have "bike-roads" that are paved/marked like a road but dedicated for bikes only.

    I think I just immediately associated "trail" with "hiking trail" or "bike trail" which I associate with more rugged terrain and not paved paths.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    it's never a pedestrian's job to dodge negligent traffic. But if the worse comes to be, it's a final opportunity.

    On ped only trails or bike-ped trails, I feel like blocking the path is rude. You have others using the trail and the speed differential is a lot lower.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    My comment was about bodily safety. In terms of trail utilization, I agree that unduly preventing the use of the trail is rude. But there's huge daylight between things that are rude and things that are liable to injure people.

    Pedestrians should not deny the trail to bicyclists that can safely pass. Even if there are lots of cyclists, at least a column must be kept available for pedestrians.

    Ultimately, if such a trail is so heavily congested -- and there is one such trail near me -- then the municipality bears the responsibility to accommodate users. If this means closing nearby streets to open up more recreational walking facilities elsewhere to shift the demand away from the trail, that's fine. If that means removing auto lanes on parallel roads to shift bicycle commuters off the trail, that works too. I'm all-in on reconfiguring taxpayer-owned spaces to serve people, rather than as car sewers or car storage.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    Pedestrians get the bell. Cyclists get “Passing on your left.” Immenent collision gets a super-loud, urgent “Heads up!!!”

    Of course, in the last case I am trying to stop also.

    In all cases, any form of acknowledgment like a hand wave ir head nod gets a “Thank you” and polite wave as I go by.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    They hear something, and turn in the direction of the noise to see what it was, in this case to their left.

    As someone who walks the trails a lot, having someone say "on your left" every two minutes is annoying. Just don't hit me and let me enjoy the trail in silence. The people who are walking need to treat it like the sidewalk that it is and not suddenly jump out where people are biking and running. With half of the people wearing earbuds, they can't hear you anyway.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    I'll only ever say "on your " if I'm moving significantly faster than a person (e.g. I'm biking or running), there's little space, and I have some reason to think they may not be aware that I'm coming up behind them and could move unexpectedly to the side.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago

    Hello, fellow cyclist. “Passing on your left” works better than “on your left”. “On your left” makes people whip around for some reason, but adding “passing” helps

    Bells are hit or miss due to ANC headphones, though there’s one with a Z in it that almost sounds like an air horn, and the video seems compelling. The Skoda seems cool but they also made it almost like a “hey, somebody else wanna make this”.

    For moneybags, make an ultrasonic-speaker setup and just beam it into everyone’s skull at range. :)

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 6 days ago

    You have to do it far enough back for them to process it. Or just ring your bell and let them choose. Headphones always get a repeated bell.

    If your going too fast for that to work, then you are going too fast, slow down around other people if there isn't space.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    do the Time warp with them as you pass ? and say vale Tim Curry?


    It' just a jump to the left and a step to the riighhttt 🗿

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1O2-oFmWXM

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 week ago

    BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 6 days ago

    If it looks like someone that may panic, I tend to go with "bike back" and let them figure out what they want to do, rather that try to give them an instruction.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    From the skiing world, this is a norm.

    Problem is we instinctively turn to the left unless we intentionally counteract it.

    I've been on both sides of this, so I'm as guilty as anyone.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    Only if you're passing on the left. It would be dumb to say it if you're actually passing on their right.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 days ago

    One time I was riding to work, a group came from behind me and one of them started shouting “left left left”. We were just coming up to an intersection and I still don’t know what he meant: did he want to pass me on the left, did he mean to tell his group to turn left, or did he want me to go left?

    Get a decent bell - not one of those little ting-ting ones that you can’t hear - and use it. A bell is always clear: someone wants to pass on the left (right in the UK).

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago

    I kinda wonder how useful it is but I think the main thing is any warning and its kinda nice to know where it might be. I get you though. You don't see them coming and so its kinda out of the blue and they are moving fast so by the time it even registers for me they have basically passed. Maybe everyone should just put a playing card in their spokes :)

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    And here I sit, "Y'all see other people where you go!?" There are places I get into right by my hood and I'd be shocked to see another human there. I assume all noises are animals.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    If you're cycling and passing a pedestrian? I ding the bell with enough time to let them step to one side, and then I go through the gap they create. The gap can be on whatever side they want.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 week ago (2 children)

    Not everyone respects the ding.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    Well, if they don't, you'll just have to wait until you both get somewhere where you can pass? The other option is running them over, which, whilst them blocking you is a dick move, running someone over is more unethical.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago

    I just say the direction I am coming from, typically on the right. So I just yell out "RIGHT"

  • source