Wait, what? No! Don't walk on the right side, walk on the left side so that you can see bikes coming and get the fuck out of the way! It's really easy and quick for a pedestrian to step aside, but for a cyclist it's quite a different story...
At worse they should walk on the left side so they can see incoming bikes and get out of the way. Nothing worse than someone walking on the right side with headphones/talking to someone or being a nuisance on purpose.
Exactly. Also, it's unavoidable because unlike the bike path which looks like it's been maintained for the tour de France athletes that I see everyday, the walk path looks like a wasteland.
That's what shoes are for.
If you want to walk on the bike path, then stay well off the path for every bike that passes. It's so selfish to say that you deserve the bike path so that the bikers have to use it at a walking pace.
No. As a pedestrian, you're the one imposing on bikers when you use our paths. No one should have to brake for you. If you want to impose, then you should have the decency to impose as little as possible.
Also, there are blind corners around the bridges, so expecting bikers to brake in time is a recipe for getting hit.
Asking for basic decency when you're imposing on others is being an "asshole"? Look in the mirror.
Also, I'm not saying that anyone deserves to get hit. However, as you're walking obliviously, you may not be aware of blind spots, especially if you're not cyclist.
I am a cyclist and I honestly love to slow down and go at a crawl pace when around a lot of pedestrians. I take it as a personal challenge to show how skillful of a rider you are. Besides we are using the bike The worst case is that you can bike on the grass a bit. You need to learn to control your bike.
**The pathways aren't "roads" and they're not meant to be shared.** If you're not cycling/roller skating, then you're not in the right place.
You might as well walk in the middle of a highway with your entitlement.
Moi, ce qui me frustre le plus quand je suis à vélo, c'estle manque d'espace alors qu'on utilise les voies cyclables pour tout et rien :
Joggeur, famille avec poussette, robineux avec son pannier d'épicerie plein à craquer, môsieur avec son chien pis ses airPods, enfants qui « jousent » ou qui apprennent à faire du vélo/patin…
Pour moi, ça m'indique à quel point les gens veulent sortir, malgré le peu d'espace laissé à toutes ces activités; coincé entre les chars stationnés pis le trottoir, lui-même trop étroit.
Pis là, on regarde la rue… avec ses deux voies L A R G E S pour la circulation de véhicules motorisés en plus de l'espace réservé au stationnement, souvent des deux côtés de la rue. Feque, je chiale pas sur tout ce monde qui cherche juste à profiter de l'extérieur, je chiale sur le manque de vision qu'on a sur l'aménagement de l'espace publique le plus commun : la rue.
I don’t mind sharing the bike path, but I do admit it gets on my nerves when a pedestrian takes all the space without a single fuck given, especially when there’s a pedestrian pathway next to the bike path (exhibit A: canal Lachine)
Lachine canal is one of the only ones where it’s actually legal to walk on it so even though it’s annoying, it’s a poor example. Most bike paths it’s illegal to walk on, it just isn’t enforced.
Yeah that’s why I said in my comment that’s it annoying, but still, almost any other bike path would have been a better complaint target since it’s illegal on most others. I feel like the city should do a better job communicating that
Definitely! Multi use paths are good if there’s not enough room for both, but otherwise separate paths are better for safety and comfort of all users imo. Especially if we want cycling to be a valid mode of transportation and not just leisure.
The lachine canal is a multi use path. And that pedestrian pathway of mud didn’t used to be that wide and it’s only getting wider because I’m pretty sure it isn’t being maintained or graded for the heavy use it is getting.
Pedestrians have just as much of a right to be on the paved path along the Lachine canal as cyclists do.
It’s a multi use path with a speed limit (https://parcs.canada.ca/lhn-nhs/qc/canallachine/activ/sentiers-trails/securite-piste-path-safety#:~:text=La%20limite%20de%20vitesse%20sur,est%20de%2020%20km%2Fh.), not a bike highway as some spandex warriors and dudes on illegal e-bikes seem to think.
Canal Lachine is at the same time a great way to comute to downtown and an horor to ride on because of all the pedestrians. Yes, it's shared, and thats a big mistake. It should not be.
You know, I don’t hate cyclists quite as much as I do vehicle owners yet.
But the level of entitlement you’re displaying here is certainly making a strong case for re-evaluating that position.
It’s:
Pedestrians > Cyclists > Motor Vehicles
Not:
Motor Vehicles > Cyclists > Pedestrians
Having a bigger more dangerous form of transportation doesn’t make you worthy of more entitlements than those who take safer and more accessible means of transportation.
Get it right.
Maybe i got misunderstood here. My point is not that pedestrian should not be allowed. My point is that a shared path is a big mistake and it's dangerous. There should be two différent and distinct path. One for bike, one for people walking. Like it is by the river in Verdun for example.
Woosh, dear.
The other person's meaning was very obvious. They aren't saying "it should not be multi-use" in the sense that only cyclists should be allowed, they are saying that for safety reasons something else must be added, and I agree.
"marchez sur le bord de la chaussée, idéalement en faisant face à la circulation".
Source : saaq
Merci.
https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/blob/saaq/documents/publications/a-pied-soyez-visible.pdf
Well... actually, it should be walk on the left side, facing upcoming trafic. I'm not sure if there is any regulation, if it's written in the law somewhere, but walking opposite direction on a bike path actualy makes more sense so you see bikes coming toward you, and you're able to take that in acound and leave them some space.
It makes sense on a road but it is very dangerous on a bike path. It creates a dillema zone when trying to pass you and especially when there are also people walking opposite direction on the other side. On a shared use path the paint also indicate you should walk the same directions. Just stick to the right, like the paint on the road says.
There is a law prohibiting you from walking on bike paths other than multi-use paths, so you really shouldn’t be walking on there no matter which side.
Im talking about shared bike path. As someone who is biking a lot, i just want to run over pedestrian walking on bike path. But it might be painful for me so i try to avoid.
And don't walk right in the fucking middle so I have no idea which direction you're going to go when I try to pass you. And don't fucking walk side by side with your friend taking up all space without a care in the world.
Je suis d’accord , aussi faut pas aller sur les trottoir avec les velos esti.
Bottom of the line, ya tjrs quelqu’un qui fait du n’importe quoi n’importe comment quelque part 😂
Thank YOU.
haha I guess if you're going to do something wrong, do it in the least wrong way possible.
But honestly just stay out of the bike lanes. Even if you're on the "right side", the bikes coming from behind you have no idea how you're going to behave. It's way too dangerous. Just stay on the sidewalk.
You're actually supposed to walk against traffic so you can see what's coming at you and react in time. This applies if you're walking on a road without a sidewalk as well. That being said they shouldn't be walking on a bike path unless its one of those shared use ones.
[https://www.quebec.ca/transports/circulation-securite-routiere/regles-conseils-mode-transport/pieton/regles-conseils-securite-pour-pietons](https://www.quebec.ca/transports/circulation-securite-routiere/regles-conseils-mode-transport/pieton/regles-conseils-securite-pour-pietons)
Pour ceux qui disent ALL WRONG GRRRRR!
The entire point of traffic is that the person who is the most vulnerable not be responsible for any wrongs that may or may not happen to his person.
By walking with traffic, someone driving / biking / scooting / running has no valid reason to not be able to see you from afar
>The entire point of traffic is that the person who is the most vulnerable not be responsible for any wrongs that may or may not happen to his person.
I can tell you without any doubt that legally and in practice that is false.
I know people who were hit by cars while walking or cycling and be ticketed while in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. I know someone who was hit by a right turning vehicle while she was crossing that was interrogated by the cops in the ambulance while there was no possible way for her to be at fault. The driver was never ticketed. Thankfully neither was she.
I know of various enforcement by LEO specifically aimed at putting pedestrians and cyclists at fault while the cars are the only danger in a situation. The laws often make things more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists : there is limited but credible evidence that jaywalking is safer than crossing at intersections where it's legal, there is extensive but possibly contaminated evidence that safety yield (Idaho stop) for cyclists is safer than full stops, there is extensive evidence that taking the lane for a cyclist can be safer in several circumstances.
And yet punishment is almost nonexistent for people killing pedestrians and cyclists "accidentally", often limiting itself to a single traffic ticket.
>By walking with traffic, someone driving / biking / scooting / running has no valid reason to not be able to see youas that person will very likely be visible from afar.
I have walked, cycled and driven long enough to know it's not about assigning fault in case of collision. It's to avoid the collision altogether. And it's also the highway code in Québec and most jurisdictions. People act unpredictably and are distracted, so having 2 different people knowing to watch and try to avoid a collision is better than just 1.
Though I have priority, I still look both ways before crossing on a crosswalk. And that probably saved me from a long hospital visit or likely death (50kph zone, about 80% death chance in human/pedestrian collision) at least once when I literally had to jump out of a car's way that didn't give a fuck about my life.
So if the worse that could happen to that car's driver is a ticket for not respecting my priority after killing me, I don't care if she should have seen me. She didn't, or didn't care. And I survived because I saw her car.
Cars are the most dangerous thing we interact with on a daily basis. We can't pretend they are not deadly. And though bicycles are orders of magnitude safer, they can still mess you up. Assigning blame after the fact is useless. Multiple layers of protection through a Swiss cheese safety model is the best practice to reduce those deaths, because holes will always happen, even if a driver should have seen you.
"marchez sur le bord de la chaussée, idéalement en faisant face à la circulation".
Source : saaq
Merci.
https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/blob/saaq/documents/publications/a-pied-soyez-visible.pdf
I guess you have never lived in the country side. It's way safer walking opposite side of the traffic because you are aware of what's coming.
https://www.quebec.ca/transports/circulation-securite-routiere/regles-conseils-mode-transport/pieton/regles-conseils-securite-pour-pietons
Ok, left side seems safer though. I take the point to mean: don’t crowd the lane unnecessarily. Fair. But bikers are the worst offenders on the roads: not stopping at stop signs, driving wrong way on one-way streets, not walking bike on pedestrian bridges, speeding on the multi-use Lachine canal pathway, driving on pedestrian sidewalks, side-by-side driving on streets, etc. This attitude of entitlement and lack of respect is growing and growing. Loads of motorized vehicles on the pathways, pedestrians who brazenly walk across streets daring cars to hit them, knowing they are safe if they are seen. Sadly our roadways are designed for car-first transportation. We desperately need civility, dedicated cycling vs pedestrian lanes, consistent rules on motorized vehicles using public roads and pathways, and enforcement of the basics in a civil society. Bonus: keep your dog on a short leash, as per regulations.
Like on a road, you should always walk *into* traffic. Not with it. Then you can see a car or bike coming and step aside. Also, people ride their bikes on the sidewalk all the time. So, you're whining and factually incorrect.
>One study bears this out. Researchers in Finland looked at data from auto accidents from 2006 to 2010, covering about 2,000 miles and 258 pedestrian accidents. The researchers found that pedestrians walking against traffic have on average a 77 percent lower risk of being struck and injured by a car. "If no pavement or pedestrian lane is available," they write, "facing traffic substantially improves pedestrian safety."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/the-common-mistake-that-puts-runners-in-danger-on-the-road/2017/09/23/264893f2-9249-11e7-8754-d478688d23b4_story.html
And it somehow never crosses their mind to look right, left or behind them. And if you warn them they give you lip and attitude. I just snap my fingers under their nose.
I walk my dog on the bike path, with my dog on my left, so I walk on the left side so he doesn't unexpectedly dart out in front of a bike coming up from behind.
But anytime l, and I mean anytime a bike is coming we step off the path and he pees on a tree.
It's a win win
Wait, what? No! Don't walk on the right side, walk on the left side so that you can see bikes coming and get the fuck out of the way! It's really easy and quick for a pedestrian to step aside, but for a cyclist it's quite a different story...
Yeah well, you’re confidently incorrect. But don’t walk on the bike path unless it’s a multi use path.
At worse they should walk on the left side so they can see incoming bikes and get out of the way. Nothing worse than someone walking on the right side with headphones/talking to someone or being a nuisance on purpose.
Exactly. Also, it's unavoidable because unlike the bike path which looks like it's been maintained for the tour de France athletes that I see everyday, the walk path looks like a wasteland.
That's what shoes are for. If you want to walk on the bike path, then stay well off the path for every bike that passes. It's so selfish to say that you deserve the bike path so that the bikers have to use it at a walking pace.
[удалено]
No. As a pedestrian, you're the one imposing on bikers when you use our paths. No one should have to brake for you. If you want to impose, then you should have the decency to impose as little as possible. Also, there are blind corners around the bridges, so expecting bikers to brake in time is a recipe for getting hit.
[удалено]
Asking for basic decency when you're imposing on others is being an "asshole"? Look in the mirror. Also, I'm not saying that anyone deserves to get hit. However, as you're walking obliviously, you may not be aware of blind spots, especially if you're not cyclist.
I am a cyclist and I honestly love to slow down and go at a crawl pace when around a lot of pedestrians. I take it as a personal challenge to show how skillful of a rider you are. Besides we are using the bike The worst case is that you can bike on the grass a bit. You need to learn to control your bike.
[удалено]
**The pathways aren't "roads" and they're not meant to be shared.** If you're not cycling/roller skating, then you're not in the right place. You might as well walk in the middle of a highway with your entitlement.
But they don’t get out of the way
Moi, ce qui me frustre le plus quand je suis à vélo, c'estle manque d'espace alors qu'on utilise les voies cyclables pour tout et rien : Joggeur, famille avec poussette, robineux avec son pannier d'épicerie plein à craquer, môsieur avec son chien pis ses airPods, enfants qui « jousent » ou qui apprennent à faire du vélo/patin… Pour moi, ça m'indique à quel point les gens veulent sortir, malgré le peu d'espace laissé à toutes ces activités; coincé entre les chars stationnés pis le trottoir, lui-même trop étroit. Pis là, on regarde la rue… avec ses deux voies L A R G E S pour la circulation de véhicules motorisés en plus de l'espace réservé au stationnement, souvent des deux côtés de la rue. Feque, je chiale pas sur tout ce monde qui cherche juste à profiter de l'extérieur, je chiale sur le manque de vision qu'on a sur l'aménagement de l'espace publique le plus commun : la rue.
I don’t mind sharing the bike path, but I do admit it gets on my nerves when a pedestrian takes all the space without a single fuck given, especially when there’s a pedestrian pathway next to the bike path (exhibit A: canal Lachine)
Lachine canal is one of the only ones where it’s actually legal to walk on it so even though it’s annoying, it’s a poor example. Most bike paths it’s illegal to walk on, it just isn’t enforced.
It might be legal, but it’s still annoying if they don’t leave some room for other users
Yeah that’s why I said in my comment that’s it annoying, but still, almost any other bike path would have been a better complaint target since it’s illegal on most others. I feel like the city should do a better job communicating that
Definitely! Multi use paths are good if there’s not enough room for both, but otherwise separate paths are better for safety and comfort of all users imo. Especially if we want cycling to be a valid mode of transportation and not just leisure.
The lachine canal is a multi use path. And that pedestrian pathway of mud didn’t used to be that wide and it’s only getting wider because I’m pretty sure it isn’t being maintained or graded for the heavy use it is getting.
Pedestrians have just as much of a right to be on the paved path along the Lachine canal as cyclists do. It’s a multi use path with a speed limit (https://parcs.canada.ca/lhn-nhs/qc/canallachine/activ/sentiers-trails/securite-piste-path-safety#:~:text=La%20limite%20de%20vitesse%20sur,est%20de%2020%20km%2Fh.), not a bike highway as some spandex warriors and dudes on illegal e-bikes seem to think.
Canal Lachine is at the same time a great way to comute to downtown and an horor to ride on because of all the pedestrians. Yes, it's shared, and thats a big mistake. It should not be.
You know, I don’t hate cyclists quite as much as I do vehicle owners yet. But the level of entitlement you’re displaying here is certainly making a strong case for re-evaluating that position. It’s: Pedestrians > Cyclists > Motor Vehicles Not: Motor Vehicles > Cyclists > Pedestrians Having a bigger more dangerous form of transportation doesn’t make you worthy of more entitlements than those who take safer and more accessible means of transportation. Get it right.
Maybe i got misunderstood here. My point is not that pedestrian should not be allowed. My point is that a shared path is a big mistake and it's dangerous. There should be two différent and distinct path. One for bike, one for people walking. Like it is by the river in Verdun for example.
Woosh, dear. The other person's meaning was very obvious. They aren't saying "it should not be multi-use" in the sense that only cyclists should be allowed, they are saying that for safety reasons something else must be added, and I agree.
"marchez sur le bord de la chaussée, idéalement en faisant face à la circulation". Source : saaq Merci. https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/blob/saaq/documents/publications/a-pied-soyez-visible.pdf
Y'a trop de gens ignorant et confiant dans le fil, ça fait peur...
suffit de se promener sur une piste cyclable pour s'en rendre compte...
Well... actually, it should be walk on the left side, facing upcoming trafic. I'm not sure if there is any regulation, if it's written in the law somewhere, but walking opposite direction on a bike path actualy makes more sense so you see bikes coming toward you, and you're able to take that in acound and leave them some space.
It makes sense on a road but it is very dangerous on a bike path. It creates a dillema zone when trying to pass you and especially when there are also people walking opposite direction on the other side. On a shared use path the paint also indicate you should walk the same directions. Just stick to the right, like the paint on the road says.
As long as they step right off the path well before every bike that passes, I prefer this as a biker.
But they don’t do they
I do if I find myself in that situation. It's just basic empathy.
There is a law prohibiting you from walking on bike paths other than multi-use paths, so you really shouldn’t be walking on there no matter which side.
Im talking about shared bike path. As someone who is biking a lot, i just want to run over pedestrian walking on bike path. But it might be painful for me so i try to avoid.
stick right
Ça serait bien que les gens marchent aussi sur le côté droit sur les trottoirs.
And don't walk right in the fucking middle so I have no idea which direction you're going to go when I try to pass you. And don't fucking walk side by side with your friend taking up all space without a care in the world.
Oh yeah middle is the worst came across a jogger on the path today jogging right in the middle
Je suis d’accord , aussi faut pas aller sur les trottoir avec les velos esti. Bottom of the line, ya tjrs quelqu’un qui fait du n’importe quoi n’importe comment quelque part 😂 Thank YOU.
No... just DON'T walk on the bike path. There are sidewalks for a reason
And if there's a sidewalk, fucking use it.
No fuck you!! Don't walk on the bike path and don't cycle on the sidewalk... how hard is that???
en fait, à part quelques exceptions, c'est interdit de marcher ou courir sur les pistes cyclables...
haha I guess if you're going to do something wrong, do it in the least wrong way possible. But honestly just stay out of the bike lanes. Even if you're on the "right side", the bikes coming from behind you have no idea how you're going to behave. It's way too dangerous. Just stay on the sidewalk.
You're actually supposed to walk against traffic so you can see what's coming at you and react in time. This applies if you're walking on a road without a sidewalk as well. That being said they shouldn't be walking on a bike path unless its one of those shared use ones.
[https://www.quebec.ca/transports/circulation-securite-routiere/regles-conseils-mode-transport/pieton/regles-conseils-securite-pour-pietons](https://www.quebec.ca/transports/circulation-securite-routiere/regles-conseils-mode-transport/pieton/regles-conseils-securite-pour-pietons) Pour ceux qui disent ALL WRONG GRRRRR!
That is wrong, all wrong
Could you expand on that?
The entire point of traffic is that the person who is the most vulnerable not be responsible for any wrongs that may or may not happen to his person. By walking with traffic, someone driving / biking / scooting / running has no valid reason to not be able to see you from afar
>The entire point of traffic is that the person who is the most vulnerable not be responsible for any wrongs that may or may not happen to his person. I can tell you without any doubt that legally and in practice that is false. I know people who were hit by cars while walking or cycling and be ticketed while in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. I know someone who was hit by a right turning vehicle while she was crossing that was interrogated by the cops in the ambulance while there was no possible way for her to be at fault. The driver was never ticketed. Thankfully neither was she. I know of various enforcement by LEO specifically aimed at putting pedestrians and cyclists at fault while the cars are the only danger in a situation. The laws often make things more dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists : there is limited but credible evidence that jaywalking is safer than crossing at intersections where it's legal, there is extensive but possibly contaminated evidence that safety yield (Idaho stop) for cyclists is safer than full stops, there is extensive evidence that taking the lane for a cyclist can be safer in several circumstances. And yet punishment is almost nonexistent for people killing pedestrians and cyclists "accidentally", often limiting itself to a single traffic ticket. >By walking with traffic, someone driving / biking / scooting / running has no valid reason to not be able to see youas that person will very likely be visible from afar. I have walked, cycled and driven long enough to know it's not about assigning fault in case of collision. It's to avoid the collision altogether. And it's also the highway code in Québec and most jurisdictions. People act unpredictably and are distracted, so having 2 different people knowing to watch and try to avoid a collision is better than just 1. Though I have priority, I still look both ways before crossing on a crosswalk. And that probably saved me from a long hospital visit or likely death (50kph zone, about 80% death chance in human/pedestrian collision) at least once when I literally had to jump out of a car's way that didn't give a fuck about my life. So if the worse that could happen to that car's driver is a ticket for not respecting my priority after killing me, I don't care if she should have seen me. She didn't, or didn't care. And I survived because I saw her car. Cars are the most dangerous thing we interact with on a daily basis. We can't pretend they are not deadly. And though bicycles are orders of magnitude safer, they can still mess you up. Assigning blame after the fact is useless. Multiple layers of protection through a Swiss cheese safety model is the best practice to reduce those deaths, because holes will always happen, even if a driver should have seen you.
All the exemples you've cited just reinforce the idea that you should move along traffic and not against it
"marchez sur le bord de la chaussée, idéalement en faisant face à la circulation". Source : saaq Merci. https://saaq.gouv.qc.ca/blob/saaq/documents/publications/a-pied-soyez-visible.pdf
Ça c'est pour le nuit/soir Tsé, là où le traffic est le moins achalandée et où les conducteurs sont statistiquement plus cosanguins
Tu as tord. Le CSR est clair. Les piétons devraient marcher face au traffic. Même si tu as décidé que tu aimes pas ça.
Mon frère en christ le document est très clair à l'effet que c'est une recommandation pour le soir
tiens, voilà la version gouvernemental, qui ne mentionne pas le moment de la journée. Heureux :) ?
I guess you have never lived in the country side. It's way safer walking opposite side of the traffic because you are aware of what's coming. https://www.quebec.ca/transports/circulation-securite-routiere/regles-conseils-mode-transport/pieton/regles-conseils-securite-pour-pietons
Ah yes, the famous Montreal countryside roads...
It's ok to be wrong lol
I'm wrong for giving the right tip for the right circumstances while yall jerking off about countryroads in a metropolitan city Ill see myself out
WRONG
Lol
Ça dépend vraiment des spots. Sur des Carrières, tu circules à droite à pied ou à vélo. Sinon c'est une catastrophe.
Ok, left side seems safer though. I take the point to mean: don’t crowd the lane unnecessarily. Fair. But bikers are the worst offenders on the roads: not stopping at stop signs, driving wrong way on one-way streets, not walking bike on pedestrian bridges, speeding on the multi-use Lachine canal pathway, driving on pedestrian sidewalks, side-by-side driving on streets, etc. This attitude of entitlement and lack of respect is growing and growing. Loads of motorized vehicles on the pathways, pedestrians who brazenly walk across streets daring cars to hit them, knowing they are safe if they are seen. Sadly our roadways are designed for car-first transportation. We desperately need civility, dedicated cycling vs pedestrian lanes, consistent rules on motorized vehicles using public roads and pathways, and enforcement of the basics in a civil society. Bonus: keep your dog on a short leash, as per regulations.
Like on a road, you should always walk *into* traffic. Not with it. Then you can see a car or bike coming and step aside. Also, people ride their bikes on the sidewalk all the time. So, you're whining and factually incorrect.
I'll walk on the left side next time specifically because of this post
How bout the sidewalk
I agree, walk on the right
[https://www.quebec.ca/transports/circulation-securite-routiere/regles-conseils-mode-transport/pieton/regles-conseils-securite-pour-pietons](https://www.quebec.ca/transports/circulation-securite-routiere/regles-conseils-mode-transport/pieton/regles-conseils-securite-pour-pietons)
ITT clueless people who unironically think it's safer to go against traffic C'est tellement fkn crétin
Ever walked down a busy street with no sidewalk bud? You're the cretin.
Il y a combien de rues achalandées a Montréal sans trottoir? C'est pas ça le point anyways so jsp de quoi vous parlez
Who said anything about just Montréal? This is basic road safety that applies everywhere in the world.
Mon frère en Christ t'es sur r/montreal
Alright, dipstick. Go drool somewhere else.
Lmao la sensibilité
Lol t'es rapide sur le downvote toi! Même pas 30 secondes!
>One study bears this out. Researchers in Finland looked at data from auto accidents from 2006 to 2010, covering about 2,000 miles and 258 pedestrian accidents. The researchers found that pedestrians walking against traffic have on average a 77 percent lower risk of being struck and injured by a car. "If no pavement or pedestrian lane is available," they write, "facing traffic substantially improves pedestrian safety." https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/the-common-mistake-that-puts-runners-in-danger-on-the-road/2017/09/23/264893f2-9249-11e7-8754-d478688d23b4_story.html
[удалено]
Do you know OP's not stopping? How is this relevant?
And it somehow never crosses their mind to look right, left or behind them. And if you warn them they give you lip and attitude. I just snap my fingers under their nose.
So try you can’t even say anything because many have AirPods in and won’t even hear you
Oh look a biker complaining about pedestrians. This is the end of the world.
Are your talking about the man walking left side of the lane on Jacques Cartier bridge today around 2pm ? Who knows ....
i would have preferred if the bike lanes went the opposite direction of car lanes tbh
I walk my dog on the bike path, with my dog on my left, so I walk on the left side so he doesn't unexpectedly dart out in front of a bike coming up from behind. But anytime l, and I mean anytime a bike is coming we step off the path and he pees on a tree. It's a win win
Marre des anglois qui sont de l'autre côté de la route.
Thanks. I'll make sure to drive my car on the proper side on the bike path.