A donation to the forum removes ads for you, and supports Ivar in his work running it

Advertisement

Luggage Transfer Correos

Cycling Roncesvalles to Santiago in under 24 hours

Status
Not open for further replies.

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
You have some interesting and valid points, Flatlander, and I appreciate your taking time to post them.
And back at ya, Dave! I was expecting to get flamed for that post! I appreciate the respectful response, and hope to now reply in as respectful a manner...

I humbly but vehemently disagree that those pedestrians who are on pilgrimage should avoid being 'lost in thought' while walking Camino, or that it can be defined as "risky behavior". :) Let me explain.

One of the primary purposes of a pilgrimage is to be lost in meditative thought as one walks. In fact, it is commonly said that each step while walking Camino is a prayer. The entire act of walking, for most, is to have the prolonged opportunity to delve introspectively into those issues and struggles and decisions which was the nexus of motivation for walking Camino. Many engage in prayer and inner communion and dialogue with their spiritual needs while walking. It is unreasonable to define that which is the norm, and which is reasonable and expected behavior as "risky" in order to attenuate the responsibility for yielding -- and for pedestrian safety --- off of the shoulders of those cyclists who wish to "share" the routes which are clearly meant for pedestrians to safely walk.
This is where I have an issue. While the routes may have become packed with pedestrians, that doesn't necessarily mean they are meant for pedestrians.

It is the discrepancy of weight, speed, and size of riders on bicycles and pedestrians which create the risks of serious injuries, or more. It is that discrepancy of momentum and weight of the bicycle which creates the risk, not the pedestrian.
No issue, except to add that falling from a bike, even at low speed can be risky - for the cyclist.

In many nations there are codified and defined rules governing the requirements for yielding the Rights of Way as it concerns autos, bicyclists, and pedestrians. These are logically based on the sound notion that those conveyance categories which have a far greater weight and speed advantage, must yield to those conveyances which are much lighter and slower. Autos must yield to bicycles and pedestrians -- bicycles must yield to pedestrians and horses.

The argument that public paths somehow subvert the oneous of the bicyclist to do what is necessary to protect pedestrians is not convincing. To then extend that argument to the Camino, which is primarily a pedestrian and introspective activity, makes no sense.
Sorry, Dave, I'm not aware of transferring the onus to pedestrians. If my comments gave that impression, I apologise and want to set that record straight.
I'm fully aware of the risk to myself and others when I hop on my bike. I expect to be courteous and would like the same in return. I don't expect others to jump out of my way, but when there is an opportunity to move over, then that is the courteous thing to do.

Let me be clear. In a bicycle vs pedestrian situation, both parties have a responsibility for their actions, and depending on the situation, that responsibility can vary from one party to the other. However at no point is one party 100% responsible...or not.

Also, be careful what you wish for.
In a rush to codify the Camino, it may not stop at regulating bicycles. I can easiy see the Health & Welfare people taking full control and everybody walking on concrete the whole way!

I understand that hypervigilance against inconsiderate, uncaring, and dangerous behavior is a defensive action to help protect oneself. Defensive driving is an example of this practice. And if I decide to walk on a motorway that has no segregated area for a pedestrian I will be hypervigilant and not lost in my own thoughts. That is one reason why bicycle lanes from motorized traffic were developed for bicyclists, to provide a way to remove the unsafe discrepancies between bicycle and car so that a bicyclist can focus on riding the bike.

The same for the Camino. While shared, the primary default lies with the pedestrian and not the bicyclist. That means that it has to be the total responsibility of the biker to yield and be hypervigilant around the pedestrian, not the other way around.

If my being hypervigilant for bicyclists and having to forego introspective thinking while walking on Camino, then there is little purpose for doing a Camino. I -- and most others -- do not do it because of the physical aspects, it is because of its spiritual and religious and mental activity accompanied by its physical nature.
With all respect Dave, I'm not sure where the hyper vigilance is coming from?
What's wrong with regular, normal vigilance?
I'm not asking you, or any other pilgrim to be hyper vigilant, just simply to be aware of your sorroundings.

Finally, I understand the desire, the urge and the need to be contemplative. The last thing I would want to do would be to interrupt someone's contemplations unnecessarily. But pilgrims who want to walk in this fashion are engaging in risky behaviour for the simple reason that most (if not all?) of the Camino paths are public. The romantic notion of an 800 km walk where people can find themselves and correct all the ills in their lives is all well and good. Unfortunately, it is not the reality. There are times and places where walking in a bubble is not advised.

What is needed is a little communication, a little education (on both sides of the debate) and a large dollop of the Camino spirit.

I joined this thread because someone took the case of an endurance cyclist racing to Santiago in less than 24 hours as a reason to remove cyclists from the same paths as themselves.

No nuance, no subtlety, no meeting in the middle. Just get rid of them cyclists.
Building a "third way" for cyclists - not walking, not on roads is impractical - who's going to pay for it? and ignores the fact that the paths currently used are pubic and will result in locals being banned from their own paths.

Stop for a moment.

Local people cannot go from A to B on a bike.
It strikes me that advocating the Juan cannot ride his bike anymore from here to there so that I can indulge my need for contemplation without facing any risks is pretty much as far from the Camino spirit as can be.

Finally, Human nature being what it is, you can be sure that walkers will pick and choose which paths they will follow on a specific day, given the conditions, so these separate bike paths will end of conveying walkers anyway. And we're back to square one!
 

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
This is from a post I made earlier this year.
------------------------

1. Assume the pedestrian pilgrims cannot hear you approaching. Bad hearing, conversation, self absorption, focusing on the scenery, traffic noise nearby.... there are a lot of reasons that don't include headphones and music. Given the nature of a Pilgrimage, it should be of no surprise that there is a lot of internal focus for the pedestrian pilgrim.

2. Give a loud enough warning, when you are far enough away, so as not to not startle pedestrian pilgrims. A startled pilgrim is an unpredictable pilgrim and could bolt right into the bicyclists path, causing injury to both. Additionally, it is quite unpleasant to be suddenly frightened.

3. As you approach a pedestrian pilgrim(s), slow down. This helps minimize the large difference in weight and momentum and makes everyone safer.

4. In general, except for those who somehow feel entitled differently, most rules of a shared pathway are based on what is written above and are simply normal commonsense to keep all pedestrians and bicyclists safe: Bicycles and Pedestrians yield to horses. Bicyclists yield to Pedestrians.

5. While it may seem advisable for a pedestrian walking along a pathway to be aware of bicyclists, and it is something one should try to do, pedestrian pilgrims are not responsible for your behavior on a bicycle. They cannot make a warning for the bicyclist, nor use the brakes, nor steer the wheel.

6. Pedestrian and Bicycle Pilgrims are on Camino for a shared goal. Each is there to gain some sort of fulfillment and experience the Camino spiritually or physically, or culturally, or religiously or all of the above. Loving, caring, and respecting one another requires accommodation of differences and nurturing an attitude of giving. Pedestrians can assist the bicyclist by standing aside when you know they are approaching, offering to help with mechanical breakdowns (if knowledgeable), and grabbing a piece of the bike -- with permission -- to help the bicycle peregrino make it up a steep slope or extra muddy path.

Bicycle Peregrinos can be of similar attitude by simply observing the points above.

God Bless Us All; And Let Us Love One Another.
Now this is a reasonable post because it is attempting to forge a middle ground.
In my humble opinion, this is what is needed.... in bucketloads.

There are any number of threads on this site and others about selfish and inconsiderate behaviour by Pilgrims on the Camino. There's a bit of a rant, people will point out that different Pilgrims have different needs and come from different cultures. Normally, the conversation ends after the usual advice to learn from the experience of the inconsiderate, that it teaches us peace to accept other's shortcomings.

Sometimes, there will be suggestions about how to positively confront the situation that we can all put into practise.

But not bicycles!

Get 'em off my Camino is the cry of the mob.

The fact of the matter is that in large parts of the English speaking world - Australia & NZ, UK & Ireland & the USA, there is an active "conflict" taking place between cyclists & motorists, most especially on Social Media.
They all do this. They all do that. They are all bad.

That really doesn't help find a solution. All it does is further enbed the friction.

And in fact, often leads to violence against cyclists.

In a previous post I made suggestions that would help to ease the friction.

It seems that the mob don't really want a soultion other than Bikes BeGone!
 

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
I think, Dave, your previous post should be translated into Spanish, French, German, Korean and Italian and posted on various websites. I also think it should be given out to cyclists in there native language when they start the Camino! It would be an attempt at broader education than this forum!

I came across this website which seems to summarize Spanish cycling laws.
https://www.donkey.bike/spain-cycling-rules/

One specific point reads as follows regarding pedestrians and cyclists.

  • You are not allowed to ride on pavements, sidewalks, public parks and other pedestrian areas, except at a speed of less than 10 km/h and when the following circumstances apply:
    • There are no separate lanes for cyclists
    • The sidewalk is 3m+ wide
    • The sidewalk is not crowded (that means you can keep at least 1m distance from pedestrians and can ride in a straight line for at least 5m)
    • There are no signs or markings prohibiting bicycling.
Sure, what's the point of posting something like this if you get your wish and we're banned from cycling the same path as you?
 

Bradypus

Antediluvian
Camino(s) past & future
Too many and too often!
This is where I have an issue. While the routes may have become packed with pedestrians, that doesn't necessarily mean they are meant for pedestrians.
Many of the very narrow and rough off-road paths on the Camino Frances were originally marked out in the 1980s in the early stages of the Camino revival. At that time there was no expectation that they would ever be used by cyclists. When I walked the Camino Frances for the first time in 1990 the percentage of cyclists was actually greater than today but I did not encounter a single cyclist on the off-road paths. I also have no recollection of anyone - pedestrian or cyclist - complaining about shared use of paths. At that time mountain bikes were virtually unknown on the Caminos and almost all cyclists used dedicated road touring bikes which could not practically be used on the rougher trails. So it was normal and understood that cyclists and pedestrians would take different routes for most of the way. The advent of all-terrain bikes has radically changed the understanding of what it means to cycle the Camino and I believe that this change is as significant as the vast increase in numbers in bringing the two groups into conflict.
 

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
Well, if that is indeed the law, then it seems to provide the definitive answer. If the path is less than 3 metres wide (which is the case with many Camino paths) or crowded so that a bicyclist cannot pass without at least a metre to spare, then the cyclist should not be there.

My beef is that cyclists expect pedestrians on the Camino to step off the path to make way for the cyclist. It is also not my experience that they dismount and walk their bikes around pedestrians.
Kanga, with all respect, how can you possibly know what another person is thinking?

I think this is a perfect example of the the conflict I mentioned in an earlier post. There is so much "Them and Us" in certain parts of the world, that we jump to our prejudices immediately.

If I'm approaching you from behind on my bicycle and I ring my bell, or call out, am I...
1. Letting you know of my impending approach so as not to startle you
2. Telling you to get out of my way?

As for walking their bikes around pedestrians?
I carried about 25 kg of gear on my bike.
If I got off my bike to walk around you, first of all, i would need twice as much space to get around you because now we have my width (wider than I'd like! :)), the width of my bike and bags, and the width of your good self. Secondly, with 25 kg of gear, I wouldn't be able to walk much faster than you, so you'd end up travelling with "one of us"!;)

Something to bear in mind as well, is that a bike carrying a load will handle much more poorly at low speeds. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, a cyclist passing a pedestrian will generally be safer if they are moving at a speed above walking pace. Add in a dodgy surface and that increases the risk at low speeds.
(Please, please don't read this as me advocating high-speed passes. I'm not. I'm simply stating that a walking pace on the bike is not as safe as a slightly higher speed)

My favourite method of dealing with this scenario was simply to pull up and wait. :) Sit down, enjoy the moment. Have a snack. Have a drink. Chat to passing pilgrims.

That's the great advantage of a bike. It's so easy to catch up if you fall behind a preimposed schedule.
Everybody should try it;)
 

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
I couldn’t believe my eyes recently, on a very busy path between Sarria and Santiago. I had got myself into a thick crowd of walking pilgrims (it happens after Sarria :(), and all of a sudden I realised that a herd of cows were coming the other way (difficult to see them coming amongst the crowd). As the cows were actually passing me (so close I could touch them), two cyclists, also coming the other way, tried to CYCLE between us. It obviously didn’t occur to them that they were adding to the already very stressful situation :mad:.
Jill
Ban the cows!!
;)
 

Marbe2

Active member
Camino(s) past & future
2015 SJPD to Burgos
2017 Leon to Santiago
Pamplona to Santiago Mar. 2018
Burgos - SCDC (Oct 18)
Sure, what's the point of posting something like this if you get your wish and we're banned from cycling the same path as you?
Flatlander, let them widen the path,just like in urban areas, and designate a separate part for bikes, or in small parts a slight change in path? I would be happy to volunteer for that part as a walker. Why are your objecting to making it safer for everyone? No one is talking about banning you from the CF?
 

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
I know that religion is not to be discussed on the forum but perhaps I may be forgiven this paraphrase :

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I did make the point that I had both cycling and walking experience on the CF, at busy times of the year.

Some vignettes :

1. Mountain bikers (with heavy panniers) having to manhandle their steeds up the Alto de Perdon when the path was in a very poor state. Why not use the road for such a stretch?

2. Walkers (about 8 people) occupying the entire width of a small public road which was the "official" CF. Ringing our bells had little effect.

3. Walking groups which split taking to both sides of the track...and then one person changes his mind and crosses to the other side...dangerous for all concerned.

4. Cycling parties racing across a narrow bridge at high speed with no consideration for the walkers (us) already on the bridge...even more dangerous. This type of behaviour seems to be the prerogative of large, organised tour groups and local mountain bikers (sometimes in even larger groups).

5. Meeting a young mountain biker who was intent on averaging 60 km per day on the walking path. He had already gone over the handlebars twice between St Jean and Logrono (fortunately without serious injury).

6. Abandoning the walkers' path when it was too narrow, too steep, too busy ; all features making us lose time ; remember that a cyclist is covering anything up to 90 km per day (which in my view requires significant use of the roads rather than the path).

So...a foot (literally and metaphorically) in both camps. As I said above, do unto others...
Agreed.
Although, I manhandled my bike up Alto de Pedron. About half way up, I met a local photographer who pointed me in the direction of a more gentle ascent. I still had to push, though! At the top we had a lovely chat and he described how much the Camino had lost its character in recent years. Looking around at the vans selling cold drinks, the graffiti on the monument himself, and the 3 bus tours that pulled up disgorging their contents at the site, I could see his point.
 

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
The advent of all-terrain bikes has radically changed the understanding of what it means to cycle the Camino and I believe that this change is as significant as the vast increase in numbers in bringing the two groups into conflict.
I'd be in agreement with your sentiments.

So, how about a proposal to limit the number of Pilgrims that can do the CF? It doesn't matter if they're on foot or on a bike.
We can apply for our year of choice. If we're lucky we get a pass to participate. If we're really lucky our companions will get a pass too!
Then there will be the black market for CF passes.;)

A bit extreme, no?
Just as the idea of banning bikes is to bikers.

I make no apologies for people who race through the CF on their bikes.
Personally, I think there's a special place in Hell reserved for those, or at least I like to think so. :)

I have a problem with being judged and metaphorically executed based, not on my behaviour, but on the behaviour of others.

I have not seen one sign anywhere on the CF (or indeed the parts of the Norte that I cycled home) that gave any kind of advice or instruction for bicycles. I recall 2 specific bicycle signs advising of steep ascents and suggestions to follow the road.On one, I followed the road, on the other I pushed, pulled, dragged and cursed my way up. Call me strange, but that one was the most fun. (And I caused no discomfort to any walkers. There were only 2, and we all had a good laugh!)

Surely, the way to at least begin, is to open up a dialogue between the 2 groups, and establish a standard of behaviour that should be respected.

It's a little sad that, at this stage in human development, that we should have to consider such as basic thing, on the Camino, of all places! But it is what it is!
 

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
Flatlander, let them widen the path,just like in urban areas, and designate a separate part for bikes, or in small parts a slight change in path? I would be happy to volunteer for that part as a walker. Why are your objecting to making it safer for everyone? No one is talking about banning you from the CF?

I quote your original post in this thread

"All the more reason why separate designated paths need to be implemented for walkers and cyclists. "

Separate. Designated. Paths.

Had you said something like
All the more reason why we should try to make the paths safer for all.
We wouldn't even be having this debate.

And, as I said above, widening or improving the paths may fundamentally alter the character of the walk (or cycle!) I can see lots of concrete in that future. Perhaps other pilgrims may not be as happy with such a solution.

Anyway, it's a lovely, sunny Saturday, so I'm going to the market, then I'm going to get on my bike and go for a ride to terrorise as many pedestrians as possible! Families are back from their vacations, so there'll be lots of kids I can buzz too!
I can't help it - I'm a cyclist!:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Happy Days!
:)
 

Marbe2

Active member
Camino(s) past & future
2015 SJPD to Burgos
2017 Leon to Santiago
Pamplona to Santiago Mar. 2018
Burgos - SCDC (Oct 18)
Respectfully, you are misinterpreting my statements. Seperate, designated paths does not mean, necessarily changing the general nature of the path. And btw, there have been changes to the Frances. Life continually changes. So does the Camino.
So, If the path were widened then it could be separated and divided by a low wall,or, a small fence. If there is not that possibility in some areas, then a short alternate route for one group could be carved out. I have said, Flatlander, and expressed numerous times that designating lanes would maker it safer for both groups. ..go back and read my posts!;);) Can you offer another concrete plan to prevent pilgrims from getting injured? If you have one, I am open to your suggestions?
 
Last edited:

MichelleElynHogan

Veteran Member
Michelle, in Britain, long distance cycling time trials are a regular form of competition cycling, common events are over a pre-measured 50 mile and 100 mile course and for time durations of 12 hours and 24 hours. Riders must cycle alone but are allowed to have helpers who can hand up food and water 'on the move'. The record distance for the 12 hour duration is over 317 miles and for the 24 hour duration 541 miles.
I fully agree, records like that, with support staff, along fully paved routes, quite possible. The question at task is, did the record holder have support staff and did this person go fully by road or was there a path / road combination to the route taken? A road / path combo would certainly reduce speed, as would the lack of support staff.
 

Kathar1na

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Santiago and beyond (own way + voie de Tours + CF + Gulf of Biscay + English Channel)
I fully agree, records like that, with support staff, along fully paved routes, quite possible. The question at task is, did the record holder have support staff and did this person go fully by road or was there a path / road combination to the route taken? A road / path combo would certainly reduce speed, as would the lack of support staff.
It's fairly easy nowadays, thanks to Google News and Google Translate, to find more details and reach an informed opinion. Besides, the linked article in the first post in this thread mentions the World Ultra Cycling Association by name. So in no time at all one can find their news about Julián Sanz – Camino de Santiago record – July 26, 2018 in English, posted by the World Ultra Cycling Association's Record Team.

The website includes a gps record of Sanz' ride of 26 July 2018 with details (first column on the left) and a cue sheet (second column on the left) for his track: https://ridewithgps.com/routes/28006199 . The gps track on the website is interactive, here's a static screen shot:

Julian Sanz track.jpeg
 
Last edited:

davebugg

"When I Have Your Wounded" - Dustoff Motto
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances...
Sept. 2017: SJPdP to Burgos
Sept./Oct. 2018: SJPdP to Santiago de Compostela
This is where I have an issue. While the routes may have become packed with pedestrians, that doesn't necessarily mean they are meant for pedestrians.
o_O This response is a puzzle because it appears a non sequitur to my text. I was talking about your attempt to redefine normal pilgrim behavior as an accommodation of the bicyclist. I said nothing about pedestrian exclusivity as it pertains to who or what shares the Camino.

However, in addressing your point directly, centuries of history would disagree, as would the history surrounding the modern Camino revival decades ago. Yours might be a valid point if the discussion were about horses and horse powered conveyances, but we are talking about bicycles. While it is true that horses could share the same narrow pathways with pedestrian pilgrims in many instances, and horse powered conveyances would also be present on wider lanes, the majority of pilgrims were and still are pedestrians. The primary support infrastructure during the period of the historical Camino, and during the early years of the Camino's revival, amply demonstrates this point.

So that statement is confounding. If what you meant is that other conveyances sometimes shared pathways and lanes with pedestrian pilgrims, I would agree. But with respect to either phrasing, the caveat being that this does not imply an equal historical precedent for mechanical apparatus such as mopeds, motorcycle, automobiles or bicycles.

Sorry, Dave, I'm not aware of transferring the onus to pedestrians. If my comments gave that impression, I apologise and want to set that record straight.
No worries. My statement was based on what I thought you were saying about pedestrians having to share responsibility for their safety with bike vs pedestrian concerns. I quite agree about the need for mutual courtesy, but it is the cyclist who must do what is necessary to prevent safety issues since their vehicle is the agent of potential injury. The pedestrian is powerless to control a cyclists brakes, to slow down the bike, or to make the decision for the biker to stop and dismount if need be. That control is the cyclists.

Let me be clear. In a bicycle vs pedestrian situation, both parties have a responsibility for their actions, and depending on the situation, that responsibility can vary from one party to the other. However at no point is one party 100% responsible...or not.
I hope I can be equally clear. The pedestrian has no responsibility for preventing an injury situation, it is the cyclists obligation to take action to prevent such. While the pedestrian should be courteous, and if possible and reasonable move to the side to allow a cyclist to pass, if the pedestrian -- for whatever reason -- does not do so, the cyclist is ultimately responsible for controlling their vehicle to prevent injuries or more. The cyclist has the controls and the cyclist has adequate time to react to use those controls. If the cyclist does not have adequate time, then the principle of operating too fast for conditions applies.

Also, be careful what you wish for.
In a rush to codify the Camino, it may not stop at regulating bicycles. I can easiy see the Health & Welfare people taking full control and everybody walking on concrete the whole way!
This is a red herring. Again you are adding to my post something that I never stated. I merely pointed out what was happening with the authorities, not advocating for the authorities to take action. That is why I made mention that cyclists can control that type of judicial control by correcting the basis of the complaints.

With all respect Dave, I'm not sure where the hyper vigilance is coming from?
What's wrong with regular, normal vigilance? I'm not asking you, or any other pilgrim to be hyper vigilant, just simply to be aware of your sorroundings.
Hypervigilance is a condition of being required to be more vigilant than is normal for a given activity. It is not normal to keep my head on a swivel while walking Camino. It is not normal to be in a constant state of scanning and listening just in case a cyclist is approaching. It is not normal to take oneself out of active meditation and introspection in order to accommodate the cyclists needs over the needs of the pedestrian pilgrim.

If the cyclist wishes courtesy, then they can do what is necessary to gently get my attention. It is the pedestrian pilgrims right to access Camino and engage in normal pilgrim behavior. The cyclists progress does not supercede that of the pedestrian's needs.

Finally, I understand the desire, the urge and the need to be contemplative. The last thing I would want to do would be to interrupt someone's contemplations unnecessarily. But pilgrims who want to walk in this fashion are engaging in risky behaviour for the simple reason that most (if not all?) of the Camino paths are public. The romantic notion of an 800 km walk where people can find themselves and correct all the ills in their lives is all well and good. Unfortunately, it is not the reality. There are times and places where walking in a bubble is not advised.
Pilgrims who walk in that fashion is the norm. Your insistence that they shouldn't do so is an attempt to redefine the norm because it might inconvenience the cyclist who is loath to properly yield the right of way, and to control his vehicle to prevent accidents.

If that is your position, than there is an impasse on that point.

No nuance, no subtlety, no meeting in the middle. Just get rid of them cyclists.
Building a "third way" for cyclists - not walking, not on roads is impractical -who's going to pay for it? and ignores the fact that the paths currently used are pubic and will result in locals being banned from their own paths.

Stop for a moment.

Local people cannot go from A to B on a bike.
It strikes me that advocating the Juan cannot ride his bike anymore from here to there so that I can indulge my need for contemplation without facing any risks is pretty much as far from the Camino spirit as can be.
This is really a red herring. My post did not say anything about banning bikes, yet you take pains to drag that issue in a direct reply to my post. I am not advocating that bikes be banned or that poor old Juan be deprived of riding his bike. Further, the local authorities will decide if, when, and how any regulations are implemented. Thusly, if any action is ultimately taken, it will be by those who are elected by the citizens, like Juan.

You have used the term "Camino spirit" in a most manipulative manner, basing it on rhetorical hyperbole which has no foundation. Further, where you see indulgence, most pilgrims -- whether of a spiritual nature or otherwise -- see a purpose.

I go out of my way to be respectful and polite and to try to understand a point of view that is contrary to my own. Your post has really tested my limits :) To that end, if you had hoped to convince me to be more receptive to what cyclists want on Camino, you have instead created more polarization than a meeting of minds.
 

davebugg

"When I Have Your Wounded" - Dustoff Motto
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances...
Sept. 2017: SJPdP to Burgos
Sept./Oct. 2018: SJPdP to Santiago de Compostela
:( I wonder if it is time to close this thread?
 

Kathar1na

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Santiago and beyond (own way + voie de Tours + CF + Gulf of Biscay + English Channel)
From the website of the World UltraCycling Association who are the official keepers of the records of their members:

Q: Why did you want to do a record?
A: In 2006, 2007 and 2008 I made the attempt to do it in 24 hours with the aim of publicizing the specialty of ultracycling in Spain. Now eleven years later the objective has been to know [how] I have improved as an athlete in this specialty.

In true forum fashion, this thread has taken some weird turns, such as an extensive discussion of bikers and walkers on the same narrow path - couldn't be further from the thread topic, if you look at the actual track that the record holder, who is a professional cyclist, took - and expressing continued doubts about the veracity of reports and results of the event ...
 
Last edited:

Bradypus

Antediluvian
Camino(s) past & future
Too many and too often!

Kathar1na

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Santiago and beyond (own way + voie de Tours + CF + Gulf of Biscay + English Channel)
Mikel Azparren - the cyclist forced to abandon an attempt at this record last week - is making another attempt and going much more strongly this time.
And there I was directing my attention to the upcoming dodentocht, an annual non-competitive 24 hours walking event over a distance of 100 km ... so back to the ultra cyclists ...

Interesting to see the differences between the tracks of the two cyclists. Today's rider passed through Leon and the Cruz de Ferro, the other one bypassed Leon and chose the very traditional way to Santiago via Bembibre, ie Astorga - Puerto del Manzanal - Bembibre - Ponferrada. :cool:
 
Last edited:

Bradypus

Antediluvian
Camino(s) past & future
Too many and too often!
Mikel made it to Santiago in 23 hours and 50 minutes. Then promptly keeled over. Perhaps not a great surprise. Hopefully nothing seriously wrong. An impressive physical feat in any event.
 

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
Respectfully, you are misinterpreting my statements. Seperate, designated paths does not mean, necessarily changing the general nature of the path. And btw, there have been changes to the Frances. Life continually changes. So does the Camino.
So, If the path were widened then it could be separated and divided by a low wall,or, a small fence. If there is not that possibility in some areas, then a short alternate route for one group could be carved out. I have said, Flatlander, and expressed numerous times that designating lanes would maker it safer for both groups. ..go back and read my posts!;);) Can you offer another concrete plan to prevent pilgrims from getting injured? If you have one, I am open to your suggestions?
Well, I wouldn't be suggesting a fence or a wall, as that really is the definition of separation!

I think I mentioned in earlier posts possible steps that could be undertaken to improve the situation. (My issue with your post was that you took an event that took place on the road and used that as a reason to call for seperation of bikes and pedestrians).

But let's try to find some solutions;
Number 1 would be an educational program. That might seem blah blah, but there are a lot of people who undertake a Camino who could do with some basis education - and not just in relation to bikes, as seen on threads here about early risers and plastic rustlers, late night phone users and so on.

For instance, a recommended minimum passing distance -for example 1 meter (about 3 feet for the Imperialists out there). Advised to both parties. (Some pedestrians will give a tiny amount of space and throw down the metaphorical gauntlet to a cyclist!)

Or, in relation to the use of a bell. Some pedestrians hear a bell as an instruction to get out of the way. Others hear it as an advance warning and are grateful.
I think that's mainly a cultural thing. Here in NL, I use my bell all the time with nary an issue. In other places it can cause a problem. For example, when I cycled in Italy I was shocked at the unfriendliness of the drivers! They were always beeping at me! After my first day, I realised that what they were doing was giving me a warning "toot" to let me know they were coming up behind. I was used to associating a car horn with aggression, so that is what I felt. Now, I wish more drivers would do the same!

It would perhaps be helpful to let pedestrians know that when they do hear a bell or a warning that recognition of same would be much appreciated.

And similarly, to let pedestrians know that handling a loaded bike, at slow speeds, on poor surfaces is not an easy task. All assistance is gratefully received!

Number 2 could be speed limit signs. Don't know how they could be enforced, but the idea would be to show cyclists that in this section the max advisable speed is..X due to heavy congestion. I would suggest that this be used sparingly, as overuse will nullify the effect. Or even a sign saying to dismount when passing pedestrians.

I'd have no problem with limiting the size of a group of riders. Whether that be groups of 2,4, 6 etc. In other words, if you're in a group of 12 cyclists, you should ride in 4 groups of 3, or 6 groups of 2 etc and with a minimum amount of time between you all. In practise, for large groups that will encourage them to use different paths.

I'd have no problem with a time limit on certain sections. For example, no bikes between x time and y time on this section. Cyclists then have a choice of waiting to complete that section, or taking an alternative route.

If we wanted to go further, there could be "rest areas" before specific bottlenecks where pilgrims (mainly cyclists) could wait for the path to clear. Personally, I see no need for that, but I can see several advantages, mainly increasing the dialogue between both sides of the debate.

These could be done relatively easily by including cycling specific information on all the main websites, by the handing out of multi-lingual flyers in the albergues & hotels and in the erection of signs at the appropriate points.

It would also have the advantage of giving pedestrians the opportunity to address issues with cyclists in less confrontational way than being vocally assertive. A simple reference to the sign or the guidelines (I am hesitant to include the word "rule"). "Excuse me, did you miss the sign back there that says no bikes on this section until 14:00?"

It would also give cyclists a defence when confronted by someone because they had the temerity to ride a bike on the Camino.

I rode the CF on 2015.

I cycled from Holland to St. Jean, so by the time I got there, I had been on the road for about 3 weeks, living in a tent.

It was my plan to cycle to Roncevalles on the road.

However, that morning, after I had loaded up my bike and started to head off along the road, all the other pilgrims were walking the other way. It was just starting to get light, a heavy, cold fog was in the air and the road looked just so ...... lonely and empty.

So, on a whim, I turned around and joined the other Pilgrims.
I ascended slowly. There's absolutely no way I caused any distress to any walkers. I have lots of photographs of that morning due to the simple fact that I stopped often and taking a photo was a good cover for my screaming muscles! :)

The excitement, the anticipation was palpable in the cool, morning air. Just about every Pilgrim was starting their Camino that morning. The hyper-prepared striding confidently, the unprepared, their anxieties weighing heavier than their ill-fitting backpacks. The fit, the unfit, the believers and the unbelievers. All of Pilgrim humanity was present that morning and I got to talk to loads of people to inspire some and in turn be inspired by them.

I passed close to a hut where a Pilgrim had died the previous week.

At the top, I waited and I watched the reactions of Pilgrims when they first arrived at the pinnacle and felt joy and then looked at the descent and felt fear.

I took a look at the descent and went wandering off looking for a road! :)

There were many. many times on that trip to Santiago where I felt a part of something huge, where I felt the history of the Camino flowing all around me. It wasn't in the big places. It wasn't even in the Spiritual places such as the Cruz de Ferro. It was in the places, often remote, where a shared experience made a connection with another human being. Sometimes we didn't even speak the same language and we hurt in different places, but we connected.

A lot (not all) of these incidents occurred in places that it seems bikers should be separated from walkers.
I'd hate to picture that Camino landscape.

I'm no fool. I can see how the world is changing. And if bikers are going to ruin the Camino, then something should be done.

I respectfully suggest that we try less extreme measures before we resort to walls and fences.
 

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
I go out of my way to be respectful and polite and to try to understand a point of view that is contrary to my own. Your post has really tested my limits :) To that end, if you had hoped to convince me to be more receptive to what cyclists want on Camino, you have instead created more polarization than a meeting of minds.
Well, Dave, I'm sorry you feel that way. Obviously, it wasn't my intention to create more ploarization, and I genuinely aplogise to you and to other cyclists who I have obviously failed.


o_O This response is a puzzle because it appears a non sequitur to my text. I was talking about your attempt to redefine normal pilgrim behavior as an accommodation of the bicyclist. I said nothing about pedestrian exclusivity as it pertains to who or what shares the Camino.

However, in addressing your point directly, centuries of history would disagree, as would the history surrounding the modern Camino revival decades ago. Yours might be a valid point if the discussion were about horses and horse powered conveyances, but we are talking about bicycles. While it is true that horses could share the same narrow pathways with pedestrian pilgrims in many instances, and horse powered conveyances would also be present on wider lanes, the majority of pilgrims were and still are pedestrians. The primary support infrastructure during the period of the historical Camino, and during the early years of the Camino's revival, amply demonstrates this point.

So that statement is confounding. If what you meant is that other conveyances sometimes shared pathways and lanes with pedestrian pilgrims, I would agree. But with respect to either phrasing, the caveat being that this does not imply an equal historical precedent for mechanical apparatus such as mopeds, motorcycle, automobiles or bicycles.
The only point I was trying to make, Dave, was that the vast majority of the paths are public. They were not created solely for pedestrians. While pedestrians may make up the vast majority of the traffic on these paths, I think it is an error for pedestrians to believe that the path is for themselves alone.

I hope I can be equally clear. The pedestrian has no responsibility for preventing an injury situation, it is the cyclists obligation to take action to prevent such. While the pedestrian should be courteous, and if possible and reasonable move to the side to allow a cyclist to pass, if the pedestrian -- for whatever reason -- does not do so, the cyclist is ultimately responsible for controlling their vehicle to prevent injuries or more. The cyclist has the controls and the cyclist has adequate time to react to use those controls. If the cyclist does not have adequate time, then the principle of operating too fast for conditions applies.
I'm sorry, Dave, while I agree with much of what you write, I cannot accept the above.
Of course the onus is on the cyclist, especially if arriving from behind. But to say that the pedestrian can never be at fault is not something that is borne out by my experience.

It seems strange that we can agree on so much that is practical, yet a point of principal causes entrenchment.

This is a red herring. Again you are adding to my post something that I never stated. I merely pointed out what was happening with the authorities, not advocating for the authorities to take action. That is why I made mention that cyclists can control that type of judicial control by correcting the basis of the complaints.
I don't agree that it's a red herring, I agree with your sentiment 100%. I, too, was the victim of dangerous passes by cyclists on the Camino. I can see a future without bikes on the Camino - that is what I am trying to avoid.
I was merely attempting to point out a possible development of that idea. It seems reasonable to me. I apologise if it seems unreasonable to you.

Hypervigilance is a condition of being required to be more vigilant than is normal for a given activity. It is not normal to keep my head on a swivel while walking Camino. It is not normal to be in a constant state of scanning and listening just in case a cyclist is approaching. It is not normal to take oneself out of active meditation and introspection in order to accommodate the cyclists needs over the needs of the pedestrian pilgrim.
Again, Dave with the extremes.
I'm not asking anyone to be hyper-vigilant. Just reasonably vigilant.
I'm sure you wouldn't advocate pedestrians to be in a meditative state when walking on some of the roads with heavy traffic, or large trucks.
I'm not asking for head-swivelling.
I'd ask that on wide paths that pedestrians pick a side and stay on it.
I'd ask that pedestrians use their walking poles with care, not spread out left and right taking up a larger footprint, or not strap them across their backpacks, but instead along the length when not in use.
I'd ask that pedestrians acknowledge a bell ringing or a call out so that the cyclist knows they are aware.


If the cyclist wishes courtesy, then they can do what is necessary to gently get my attention. It is the pedestrian pilgrims right to access Camino and engage in normal pilgrim behavior. The cyclists progress does not supercede that of the pedestrian's needs.
I'm not aware of saying anywhere that a cyclist's progress should supercede a pedestrian's needs?
Is it not "It is the Pilgrim's right to access Camino"?

This is what I am finding frustrating.
We agree on so much, yet every now and then, there is a definitive statement that I just cannot bring myself to agree with.

Everybody has negative cyclist stories from their Camino.
That doesn't mean that every cyclist is negative.


Pilgrims who walk in that fashion is the norm. Your insistence that they shouldn't do so is an attempt to redefine the norm because it might inconvenience the cyclist who is loath to properly yield the right of way, and to control his vehicle to prevent accidents.

If that is your position, than there is an impasse on that point.

Now, this is just being provocative!
That is not my position, nor never was.

Again, a poster is claiming to read the mind of a cyclist. "They are all the same".

With the greatest of respect, leaving cyclists totally out of the equation, if you can't see the risk in someone meditating their way along the Camino, being unaware of their situation, their position and their environment is not without some degree of risk, well, then, yes we are at an impasse.


This is really a red herring. My post did not say anything about banning bikes, yet you take pains to drag that issue in a direct reply to my post. I am not advocating that bikes be banned or that poor old Juan be deprived of riding his bike. Further, the local authorities will decide if, when, and how any regulations are implemented. Thusly, if any action is ultimately taken, it will be by those who are elected by the citizens, like Juan.
Hardly a red herring. I was clearly stating that a post by another poster brought me into this discussion.

You have used the term "Camino spirit" in a most manipulative manner, basing it on rhetorical hyperbole which has no foundation. Further, where you see indulgence, most pilgrims -- whether of a spiritual nature or otherwise -- see a purpose.
Well, we really have gone down the rabbit hole here. So my meaning of the Camino Spirit is not only up for debate, but criticism?

I have no response to make that could be in any way close to being seen as respectful, so I will decline to reply.

I go out of my way to be respectful and polite and to try to understand a point of view that is contrary to my own. Your post has really tested my limits :) To that end, if you had hoped to convince me to be more receptive to what cyclists want on Camino, you have instead created more polarization than a meeting of minds.
I don't believe I have argued for what cyclists want.
I have attempted to argue against the separation of cyclists from other Pilgrims.
I have introduced ideas that may help to improve the current situation.

In pretty much all my posts on this forum, I stick to what I know - suggesting advice to people thinking of cycling a Camino.
My advice is pretty standard;
Don't expect to go fast
Be comfortable on your bike and have some experience carrying a load
Be aware of pedestrians.

As I have said earlier, I mainly "cycled" the pedestrian route of the CF. Cycled is in "" because there was a lot of pushing, pulling, dragging and sometimes carrying. I mainly cycled outside of the usual walking times. Sometimes, I took the road, doubled back and later followed the pedestrian paths. So there were days that I can directly compare the road route to the pedestrian route. And for atmosphere, camaraderie, and dare I use the word "Spirit", the pedestrian route was so much better.
From Sarria, I exclusively rode in the late afternoon/evening.

The idea that future cyclists, or myself, should I return, could be denied the same experience is very sad to me.
 

peregrina2000

Moderator
Staff member
With huge respect and great admiration, Laurie, “fighting for manners” on the Camino is not my concern... but advocatng to prevent bodily harm to pilgrims is! Many people cannot do many of the other Camino options because the infrastructure does not appear to support their abiliities. How many times have I read seasoned pilgrims of this forum suggest to newbies to take the CF for this reason? How many times have we seen a post with a perspective pilgrim asking....Can I walk the Camino and only do 6km, or 8km or 10km per day (mostly because of medical issues)? Almost every response from experts such as yourself suggests taking the CF. Does one really think that folks with medical issues can easily react to the oncoming speed of the bikers who frequently provide no signal? I have seen fast walkers...which I am not, get nipped by a bike. I, for one, often take to the roads of the CF. I do not have to break my slow rhythm. I can see the ongoing traffic, who are much more predictable than bikes coming from behind, because vehicles and Walker have designated spaces. But that is not a solution for the crowds walking the CF.

From what I have experienced on the CF, there needs to be widening of paths and designated spaces for bikers and walkers in certain areas. Otherwise, at high seasons...especially from Sarria on, more pilgrims are going to be hurt.
I’m sorry if I seemed dismissive of your very legitimate concern. But I just don’t think that these conflicts are going to go away, because the numbers of people are too huge. And again not meaning to sound dismissive, unless there is a method to police the rules, no rules are going to change the behavior of those who don’t pay attention to the rules.

As the camino gets wider and more and more paved, it becomes easier for people to walk, but also easier for cyclists to ride. I was very surprised to see a picture of the Francés on a thread about the heat the other day — the path has been transformed since I was last there. How much wider should it get? https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/help-arriving-madrid-friday-wondering-which-camino-to-hike-given-the-heat-and-limited-endurance.57056/#post-645546. I for one think that having two of these side by side, one for walkers, one for cyclists, would not be an improvement.

I am reminded in this debate by the wisdom of a traffic planner whose works I have read. “Widening roads to reduce congestion is like loosening your belt to lose weight.” Adding more physical infrastructure just increases demand, and that is the dilemma, IMO. At least until the golden egg is totally rotten.

The forum does a great job of alerting people to the many risks that the huge increases in numbers bring — more perverts flashing, more thefts in the albergues, more bed rushes, more rude cyclists, and I’m sure I’m forgetting some. The risks change as the camino changes, and “the authorities” take actions to reduce some of those risks, but I people who walk should be aware of the risks they are likely to be taking and adjust their behavior accordingly.

But as I said, I think that it is important to make people aware of these things and as always we on the forum should shout out for more civility on the camino.

Buen camino, Laurie
 

Bradypus

Antediluvian
Camino(s) past & future
Too many and too often!
There have been news updates on Mikel Azparren's arrival in Santiago. It appears that immediately on crossing the finish line in Santiago he was knocked off his bike by someone who may have been "helpfully" trying to help the cyclist brake. He was taken to hospital and it appears that he has suffered a broken clavicle. So it will be a very memorable occasion but not all for good reasons.

https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/santiago/2018/08/05/mikel-azparren-logra-record-camino-bicicleta-dia/00031533465723064928593.htm
 

Marbe2

Active member
Camino(s) past & future
2015 SJPD to Burgos
2017 Leon to Santiago
Pamplona to Santiago Mar. 2018
Burgos - SCDC (Oct 18)
I’m sorry if I seemed dismissive of your very legitimate concern. But I just don’t think that these conflicts are going to go away, because the numbers of people are too huge. And again not meaning to sound dismissive, unless there is a method to police the rules, no rules are going to change the behavior of those who don’t pay attention to the rules.

As the camino gets wider and more and more paved, it becomes easier for people to walk, but also easier for cyclists to ride. I was very surprised to see a picture of the Francés on a thread about the heat the other day — the path has been transformed since I was last there. How much wider should it get? https://www.caminodesantiago.me/community/threads/help-arriving-madrid-friday-wondering-which-camino-to-hike-given-the-heat-and-limited-endurance.57056/#post-645546. I for one think that having two of these side by side, one for walkers, one for cyclists, would not be an improvement.

I am reminded in this debate by the wisdom of a traffic planner whose works I have read. “Widening roads to reduce congestion is like loosening your belt to lose weight.” Adding more physical infrastructure just increases demand, and that is the dilemma, IMO. At least until the golden egg is totally rotten.

The forum does a great job of alerting people to the many risks that the huge increases in numbers bring — more perverts flashing, more thefts in the albergues, more bed rushes, more rude cyclists, and I’m sure I’m forgetting some. The risks change as the camino changes, and “the authorities” take actions to reduce some of those risks, but I people who walk should be aware of the risks they are likely to be taking and adjust their behavior accordingly.

But as I said, I think that it is important to make people aware of these things and as always we on the forum should shout out for more civility on the camino.

Buen camino, Laurie
Thank you for your kind response.

Laurie there are small sections of the Camino, for example, near Salceda, where the path parallels N547, which is potentially very dangerous. The path cannot be more than 2meters wide. Now the bikes can choose to take the road at that point, but many try and force their way through walkers. . The cars on N547 come quite fast as well. There really is not room for bikers and walkers. Someone has to get off the path. The bikes push there way through, literally forcing walkers to get off the path into high grass or on stones. The bikes literally touch walkers as they go through. Sometimes there are 10-20 walkers going single file and one sees a bike trying to squeeze through. Instead of getting off the bike, they force everyone else off the path. This is not acceptable. This happens a number of times on the CF. So, I must gently disagree with you regarding widening the paths, particularly in Galicia. If you ever experience the crowds and groups, and cyclists heading for SdC during Holy Week you might change your mind about widening the path? As far as separating paths go, most walkers and riders follow the markings in cities. I would think that with clear markings from Sarria to Santiago more people would welcome the lanes. All would be safer!





I
 

davebugg

"When I Have Your Wounded" - Dustoff Motto
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances...
Sept. 2017: SJPdP to Burgos
Sept./Oct. 2018: SJPdP to Santiago de Compostela
Well, Dave, I'm sorry you feel that way. Obviously, it wasn't my intention to create more ploarization, and I genuinely aplogise to you and to other cyclists who I have obviously failed.



The only point I was trying to make, Dave, was that the vast majority of the paths are public. They were not created solely for pedestrians. While pedestrians may make up the vast majority of the traffic on these paths, I think it is an error for pedestrians to believe that the path is for themselves alone.


I'm sorry, Dave, while I agree with much of what you write, I cannot accept the above.
Of course the onus is on the cyclist, especially if arriving from behind. But to say that the pedestrian can never be at fault is not something that is borne out by my experience.

It seems strange that we can agree on so much that is practical, yet a point of principal causes entrenchment.


I don't agree that it's a red herring, I agree with your sentiment 100%. I, too, was the victim of dangerous passes by cyclists on the Camino. I can see a future without bikes on the Camino - that is what I am trying to avoid.
I was merely attempting to point out a possible development of that idea. It seems reasonable to me. I apologise if it seems unreasonable to you.


Again, Dave with the extremes.
I'm not asking anyone to be hyper-vigilant. Just reasonably vigilant.
I'm sure you wouldn't advocate pedestrians to be in a meditative state when walking on some of the roads with heavy traffic, or large trucks.
I'm not asking for head-swivelling.
I'd ask that on wide paths that pedestrians pick a side and stay on it.
I'd ask that pedestrians use their walking poles with care, not spread out left and right taking up a larger footprint, or not strap them across their backpacks, but instead along the length when not in use.
I'd ask that pedestrians acknowledge a bell ringing or a call out so that the cyclist knows they are aware.



I'm not aware of saying anywhere that a cyclist's progress should supercede a pedestrian's needs?
Is it not "It is the Pilgrim's right to access Camino"?

This is what I am finding frustrating.
We agree on so much, yet every now and then, there is a definitive statement that I just cannot bring myself to agree with.

Everybody has negative cyclist stories from their Camino.
That doesn't mean that every cyclist is negative.





Now, this is just being provocative!
That is not my position, nor never was.

Again, a poster is claiming to read the mind of a cyclist. "They are all the same".

With the greatest of respect, leaving cyclists totally out of the equation, if you can't see the risk in someone meditating their way along the Camino, being unaware of their situation, their position and their environment is not without some degree of risk, well, then, yes we are at an impasse.




Hardly a red herring. I was clearly stating that a post by another poster brought me into this discussion.



Well, we really have gone down the rabbit hole here. So my meaning of the Camino Spirit is not only up for debate, but criticism?

I have no response to make that could be in any way close to being seen as respectful, so I will decline to reply.



I don't believe I have argued for what cyclists want.
I have attempted to argue against the separation of cyclists from other Pilgrims.
I have introduced ideas that may help to improve the current situation.

In pretty much all my posts on this forum, I stick to what I know - suggesting advice to people thinking of cycling a Camino.
My advice is pretty standard;
Don't expect to go fast
Be comfortable on your bike and have some experience carrying a load
Be aware of pedestrians.

As I have said earlier, I mainly "cycled" the pedestrian route of the CF. Cycled is in "" because there was a lot of pushing, pulling, dragging and sometimes carrying. I mainly cycled outside of the usual walking times. Sometimes, I took the road, doubled back and later followed the pedestrian paths. So there were days that I can directly compare the road route to the pedestrian route. And for atmosphere, camaraderie, and dare I use the word "Spirit", the pedestrian route was so much better.
From Sarria, I exclusively rode in the late afternoon/evening.

The idea that future cyclists, or myself, should I return, could be denied the same experience is very sad to me.
I could respond to each point, and if I were feeling in normal health I would. Ad Infinitum Ad Nauseum.

What I find puzzling is that you seem to agree with what a lot of pilgrims believe should be rules observed by pedestrians and bicyclists alike; and yet rather than just plainly speak, you expect the reader to understand a catch phrase which can have different specific meanings depending on who is using that phrase or term.

Example: Vigilant. After all the words written and posted on both sides, which were spent trotting around and wasting time with my guessing what your interpretation of the meaning was, you finally state what that term means to you.

Quote: "I'd ask that on wide paths that pedestrians pick a side and stay on it.
I'd ask that pedestrians use their walking poles with care, not spread out left and right taking up a larger footprint, or not strap them across their backpacks, but instead along the length when not in use.
I'd ask that pedestrians acknowledge a bell ringing or a call out so that the cyclist knows they are aware."Unquote.

If that is the intended meaning, I agree. And, btw, bicycles are not trucks or cars, and actual roadway walking on most Caminos -- where no separation exists between pedestrian and vehicle -- is a small fraction of the routes. The other distinct difference is that as a pedestrian, when faced with walking on the shoulder of a road, I walk FACING traffic. With cyclists on a path made up primarily of pedestrians, the conflict is almost solely with bikes approaching from behind.

The cyclist situation will take care of itself, and the bad apples are bringing government attention to the problems which bikes are causing to pedestrians. If you will take note, these government inquiries are not focusing on pedestrians causing problems and injuries to cyclists, they are looking at the cyclist as a problem for pedestrians.

So, despite your insistence that I am incorrect about where liability of action lies in a bike vs pedestrian situation, the rule-making body of officials sees it the way I do; and if the responsible cyclists do not want the bad apples to be the factor which will determine policies about bikes on Caminos, then the burden is on the cyclist community to take action to correct the problem among their own cohort.

You have employed a lot of rhetorical nonsense that I no longer want to be a part of. Each members avatar has an "ignore" selection under the picture. Anyone can "ignore" another member and not see their posts. I will now do that with you. You can have the last word, if you choose, and I won't see that post which everyone else will see.

Goodbye.
 

davebugg

"When I Have Your Wounded" - Dustoff Motto
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances...
Sept. 2017: SJPdP to Burgos
Sept./Oct. 2018: SJPdP to Santiago de Compostela
There have been news updates on Mikel Azparren's arrival in Santiago. It appears that immediately on crossing the finish line in Santiago he was knocked off his bike by someone who may have been "helpfully" trying to help the cyclist brake. He was taken to hospital and it appears that he has suffered a broken clavicle. So it will be a very memorable occasion but not all for good reasons.

https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/santiago/2018/08/05/mikel-azparren-logra-record-camino-bicicleta-dia/00031533465723064928593.htm
That's terrible. I hope he heals quickly. Thankfully, he was able to finish his goal. :)
 

Kathar1na

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Santiago and beyond (own way + voie de Tours + CF + Gulf of Biscay + English Channel)
There have been news updates on Mikel Azparren's arrival in Santiago. It appears that immediately on crossing the finish line in Santiago he was knocked off his bike by someone who may have been "helpfully" trying to help the cyclist brake. He was taken to hospital and it appears that he has suffered a broken clavicle.
The Voz de Galicia claims in their latest article that it was a family member who had caused the fall. They also throw the word peregrinacion into their reporting and mention the Apostol a few times. However, I've never seen the slightest reference to pilgrimage and the apostle James in any of the interviews and other direct reports from either of the two cyclists or their teams.

I also have the impression that this is not about absolute records and competition with others but more about personal challenges.
 
Last edited:

KinkyOne

Veteran Member
Camino(s) past & future
I'am not perfect, but I'm always myself!!!
I agree it was personal challenge, both are athletes not pilgrims in this case.

Anyway I'm sure they can't get the Compostela. Did they have enough time to collect two sellos for last 100km?
:)
 

Flatlander

Member
Camino(s) past & future
Camino Frances May/June 2015, via the Atlantic Cycle Route
I could respond to each point, and if I were feeling in normal health I would. Ad Infinitum Ad Nauseum.

What I find puzzling is that you seem to agree with what a lot of pilgrims believe should be rules observed by pedestrians and bicyclists alike; and yet rather than just plainly speak, you expect the reader to understand a catch phrase which can have different specific meanings depending on who is using that phrase or term.

Example: Vigilant. After all the words written and posted on both sides, which were spent trotting around and wasting time with my guessing what your interpretation of the meaning was, you finally state what that term means to you.

Quote: "I'd ask that on wide paths that pedestrians pick a side and stay on it.
I'd ask that pedestrians use their walking poles with care, not spread out left and right taking up a larger footprint, or not strap them across their backpacks, but instead along the length when not in use.
I'd ask that pedestrians acknowledge a bell ringing or a call out so that the cyclist knows they are aware."Unquote.

If that is the intended meaning, I agree. And, btw, bicycles are not trucks or cars, and actual roadway walking on most Caminos -- where no separation exists between pedestrian and vehicle -- is a small fraction of the routes. The other distinct difference is that as a pedestrian, when faced with walking on the shoulder of a road, I walk FACING traffic. With cyclists on a path made up primarily of pedestrians, the conflict is almost solely with bikes approaching from behind.

The cyclist situation will take care of itself, and the bad apples are bringing government attention to the problems which bikes are causing to pedestrians. If you will take note, these government inquiries are not focusing on pedestrians causing problems and injuries to cyclists, they are looking at the cyclist as a problem for pedestrians.

So, despite your insistence that I am incorrect about where liability of action lies in a bike vs pedestrian situation, the rule-making body of officials sees it the way I do; and if the responsible cyclists do not want the bad apples to be the factor which will determine policies about bikes on Caminos, then the burden is on the cyclist community to take action to correct the problem among their own cohort.

You have employed a lot of rhetorical nonsense that I no longer want to be a part of. Each members avatar has an "ignore" selection under the picture. Anyone can "ignore" another member and not see their posts. I will now do that with you. You can have the last word, if you choose, and I won't see that post which everyone else will see.

Goodbye.
The last word(s)

I originally wrote 2 paragraphs – one for cyclists and one for pedestrians.

But that was just emphasising the differences..

So I rewrote everything to be mode-of-transport neutral.

But that was long-winded and, frankly, waffle.

Then I remembered being inspired by similar to this...

By following the yellow arrows of the Camino pilgrims discover new values for their journey – openness to the stranger, receiving rather than demanding, tolerance of difference. We can discover much about ourselves, about others, about our strengths – and our limitations. The Camino can be an opportunity to see ourselves afresh.

https://www.csj.org.uk/the-present-day-pilgrimage/the-spiritual-dimension/

Not to say that I can express things better than the Confraternity of St. James, but if the last paragraph included “and the opportunity to see others afresh too”, then it would describe pretty much the perfect Pilgrimage.

Buen Camino
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

OLDER threads on this topic


Book your lodging here

Booking.com



Advertisement

Booking.com

Most downloaded Resources

Forum Rules

Forum Rules

Camino Forum Store

Camino Forum Store

Casa Ivar Newsletter

Forum Donation

Forum Donation
For those with no forum account, it is possible to donate here as well. Thank you for your support! Ivar

Follow Casa Ivar on Instagram

When is the best time to walk?

  • January

    Votes: 12 1.3%
  • February

    Votes: 5 0.5%
  • March

    Votes: 41 4.3%
  • April

    Votes: 142 14.9%
  • May

    Votes: 237 24.9%
  • June

    Votes: 72 7.6%
  • July

    Votes: 20 2.1%
  • August

    Votes: 15 1.6%
  • September

    Votes: 278 29.2%
  • October

    Votes: 114 12.0%
  • November

    Votes: 12 1.3%
  • December

    Votes: 5 0.5%
Top