cherreymikus
New Member
- Time of past OR future Camino
- 2019
For 2024 Pilgrims: €50,- donation = 1 year with no ads on the forum + 90% off any 2024 Guide. More here. (Discount code sent to you by Private Message after your donation) |
---|
Thank you for sharing this information. I agree and on two occasions I had to jump off the trail so they would not hit me. Towards the end of my walk I had had enough and was yelling at them!!! I think there should be another path for cyclists. I will never do the Camino France again!!!!My daughter and I have just completed the Camino Portuguese Coastal route. A delightful walk apart from expected foot troubles.
Met some lovely pilgrims walking the path. However, our experience with cyclists who may or may not have been pilgrims was not so great.
Many, but not all behaved as if they owned the paths.
These are shared paths where most pilgrims are walkers. The “guilty” cyclists rode two abreast at speeds which intimidated the walkers and were dangerous.
Please cyclists remember you are sharing the path. Slow down when you encounter walkers and ring your bell so we know you are coming. We are happy to move over so you can pass.
My daughter and I have just completed the Camino Portuguese Coastal route. A delightful walk apart from expected foot troubles.
Met some lovely pilgrims walking the path. However, our experience with cyclists who may or may not have been pilgrims was not so great.
Many, but not all behaved as if they owned the paths.
These are shared paths where most pilgrims are walkers. The “guilty” cyclists rode two abreast at speeds which intimidated the walkers and were dangerous.
Please cyclists remember you are sharing the path. Slow down when you encounter walkers and ring your bell so we know you are coming. We are happy to move over so you can pass.
My daughter and I have just completed the Camino Portuguese Coastal route. A delightful walk apart from expected foot troubles.
Met some lovely pilgrims walking the path. However, our experience with cyclists who may or may not have been pilgrims was not so great.
Many, but not all behaved as if they owned the paths.
These are shared paths where most pilgrims are walkers. The “guilty” cyclists rode two abreast at speeds which intimidated the walkers and were dangerous.
Please cyclists remember you are sharing the path. Slow down when you encounter walkers and ring your bell so we know you are coming. We are happy to move over so you can pass.
I agree...most were ignorant peasants disdainful of mere walkers
Surely forgiveness and understanding are worth more than any inconvenience caused.In my experience cyclist do not respect anyone,they treat the road as their own
The "inconvenience" might be being hit by a cyclist coming from behind with no warning whilst. in a foreign country "forgiveness and understanding " wouldn't be my first reactionI am not a cyclist. I find the antipathy to cyclists and others quite extraordinary especially from people on a spiritual/religous/faith endeavour such as a Camino, surely the point of a camino is to learn who to deal with yourself and others? Weren't the original pilgrims sent on a camino as a pennace to absolve them of their sins? Embarking on a pilgrimage voluntarily indicates to me that the pilgrim recognises that they are not 100% blameless or in the right, I walked mine to do a personall account of my actions to wards others, I know I am not perfect nor is everyone else, but I try to give others the benefit of the doubt, unlike
Surely forgiveness and understanding are worth more than any inconvenience caused.
In life annoyances happen, deal with it.
I was told (by a cyclist) it was to keep the weight down"...ring your bell..."
Very few cyclists have a bell on their bikes now, mores the pity.
That's all well and good until you get hit and are injured by an inconsiderate cyclist, thereby ruining your Camino. Walkers should use caution, not expect courtesy from cyclists, and be grateful when you do. A "Thank You" goes a long way, too.I am not a cyclist. I find the antipathy to cyclists and others quite extraordinary especially from people on a spiritual/religous/faith endeavour such as a Camino, surely the point of a camino is to learn who to deal with yourself and others? Weren't the original pilgrims sent on a camino as a pennace to absolve them of their sins? Embarking on a pilgrimage voluntarily indicates to me that the pilgrim recognises that they are not 100% blameless or in the right, I walked mine to do a personall account of my actions to wards others, I know I am not perfect nor is everyone else, but I try to give others the benefit of the doubt, unlike
Surely forgiveness and understanding are worth more than any inconvenience caused.
In life annoyances happen, deal with it.
I am not a cyclist. I find the antipathy to cyclists and others quite extraordinary especially from people on a spiritual/religous/faith endeavour such as a Camino, surely the point of a camino is to learn who to deal with yourself and others? Weren't the original pilgrims sent on a camino as a pennace to absolve them of their sins? Embarking on a pilgrimage voluntarily indicates to me that the pilgrim recognises that they are not 100% blameless or in the right, I walked mine to do a personall account of my actions to wards others, I know I am not perfect nor is everyone else, but I try to give others the benefit of the doubt, unlike
Surely forgiveness and understanding are worth more than any inconvenience caused.
In life annoyances happen, deal with it.
I believe that we all understand walking to the right and passing on the left. Unfortunately it is not always that simple. Given the choice between walking in deep mud on the right and a dry part on the left, I will take the dry path. So far I have been OK but have watched a few cyclists racing into a collision!
Perhaps the cyclists find the increasing number of walkers on their local trails impeding their exercise as much of a challenge as we sometimes find them
I am waiting for the day that a walking pilgrim accidentally hoists an aggressive overtaking bicyclist on a pointy hiking pole. All you have do is turn around with your pole raised... as if you were surprised... and presto... “shish kabob” biker.
Hi all, I realise this issue has been flogged to death on this forum, but if I may express a minority view as one who has biked the Camino Frances. I think its important to distinguish between the bicigrinos who are carrying panniers on the back of the bike, doing the pilgrimage and battling the hills just like any other pilgrim. Then there are the Spanish speedsters out on a 10km mountain bike ride / day trip dressed in lycra with no packs and flying down the trails. I too was pushed out of the way on a trail when I was riding the bike and unable to use an equivalent route on a road.
Just to clarify, I don't think anybody doing a camino on a bike wants to battle the crowds on the trails, but in some places they are unavoidable. You learn fairly quickly that the pilgrim trails require about 20% to 30% more energy to ride over than on the road, so most of us use the roads whenever we can. As for the Spanish day trippers, I don't think you are going to change their attitude on this forum.
Cheers M
So, yes, I have a personal dislike of both bikers and hikers sharing the same paths, especially when there is no need to do so.
For us it may be the camino, but for many MTBers its their local routes.
Please don't tar us all with the same brush. I cycle regularly and I get sick of being called all sort of names even when I am riding with care. Equally, some pedestrians on shared paths seem to think that they own the path and regard cyclists as a nuisance. I've had walkers step straight in front of me without looking, and amble along in a big bunch and move aside with very bad grace and a lot of tutting when cycles want to come past.In my experience cyclist do not respect anyone,they treat the road as their own
That isn't even slightly funny or appropriate. I am frankkly disgusted that someone here should post that sort of thing. What you are joking about (I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that it is a joke) is killing someone who has as much right to be there as you do. Please think about what you are saying.I am waiting for the day that a walking pilgrim accidentally hoists an aggressive overtaking bicyclist on a pointy hiking pole. All you have do is turn around with your pole raised... as if you were surprised... and presto... “shish kabob” biker.
My Dear t2andreo, I pray you honestly do not wish for such an event for it would result in your poor pilgrim facing murder or manslaughter charges and many years in a Spanish jail.
As one who has both cycled and walked the Frances i do understand those pilgrims who get "p*ss off" at the unthinking, uncaring cyclists. But the walkers are not always "blameless". My bike has the loudest bell - easily heard at 50 / 75 metres, but I had a pilgrim with her earbuds so far in her ears and the music so loud I could hear it. Luckily for us both I had slowed right down as she wandered left and right without any thought to other pilgrims (walkers or cyclists). But I think the most idiotic pilgrim was the one who stepped directly into my road as I came down that steep hill after to Monte Gozo, luckily for him (and me) one of this friends pull out of my way as I was doing 30km and as its an official road I was legal. I hate to think of the result if he had not been moved.
To close - with care for each of our fellow pilgrims I believe that there is room on most camino sections for both walking pilgrims and those on bikes.
I am NOT advocating violence.
I have never had problems sharing the path with bicycle pilgrims, as I indicate in my previous post. But no one is talking about pilgrims here, rather the bicycle clubs that use the pilgrim routes for their off-road cycling, often at considerable speeds. At present, this is hazardous for all concerned.As to the question whether mixed paths are a growing problem, I checked some statistics. Since 2012 the number of pilgrims that arrives in Santiago by bike has decreased from 14 % (of the total arrivals) in 2012 to 6 % in 2018. In total numbers this means that the number of pilgrims arriving by bicycle in Santiago has decreased from 26.880 in 2012 to 19.620 in 2018. So if there is a growing problem, this does not seem to be caused by a growing number of cyclists
But no one is talking about pilgrims here, rather the bicycle clubs that use the pilgrim routes for their off-road cycling, often at considerable speeds. At present, this is hazardous for all concerned.
I am not sure that no one is talking about pilgrims here as I have read some general rants against cyclists.
Some posts have pointed out that what for us is a pilgrim route, is actually also a local path being used by locals (on mountain bikes). I agree this the situation may be hazardous, but I disagree with the presumption that walking pilgrims have more "right" to walk there, than local bike clubs have the "right" to cycle there. In fact they may have cycled there before "us", and before the camino got popular. But I keep reading posts about cyclists "that simply shouldn't be there". This seems a bit odd. But well, there seem to be some misunderstandings going in this thread...
I quoted the statistics to "lighten up the discussion" a bit and proposed an unortodhox and 'out of the box' solution. But I probably failed here - I will re-evaluate my sense of irony
In the case of the incident that @simply B described, I don't think there's any misunderstanding. It's a narrow rocky path, carrying thousands of pedestrians every year, Spanish and otherwise. If local people want to ride their mountain bikes on technical trails, there are plenty of other options in that area. It's more a matter of common sense: why be stupid and try to ride where all the walkers are?Why should foreign people tell local Spanish people where to ride their bike ? But well, there seem to be some misunderstandings going in this thread...
I am not sure that no one is talking about pilgrims here as I have read some general rants against cyclists.
Some posts have pointed out that what for us is a pilgrim route, is actually also a local path being used by locals (on mountain bikes). I agree this the situation may be hazardous, but I disagree with the presumption that walking pilgrims have more "right" to walk there, than local bike clubs have the "right" to cycle there. In fact they may have been there before "us", and before the camino got popular. But I keep reading posts about cyclists "that simply shouldn't be there". This seems a bit odd. But well, there seem to be some misunderstandings going in this thread...
I quoted the statistics to "lighten up the discussion" a bit and proposed an unortodhox and 'out of the box' solution. But I probably failed here - I will re-evaluate my sense of irony
It's more a matter of common sense: why be stupid and try to ride where all the walkers are?
Because people have been doing that for millenia, whereas the bikes are the newbies? It's not as though mountain bikers have no other options. But there's a single Camino Francés, carrying a huge number of pilgrims.why walk on an local mountain bike trail where people have rode their mountain bike for ages, particularly when there are other options to walk to Molinaseca ?
I liked your post a lot, til I got to this part, @twh.The local Mt. Biking Spaniards on the Camino trails (who are riding the most aggressively because they are not carrying extra weight) deserve a place to ride and understandably feel this Spanish dirt is much more "theirs" than the pilgrims. Perhaps the fee for a pilgrim credential is raised by $1 to $3 and that $1 goes to making new local Mt. Biking trails for them.
I could turn your argument around: why walk on an local mountain bike trail where people have rode their mountain bike for ages, particularly when there are other options to walk to Molinaseca ? But this would be pedantic. Not intending to re-enact the Monthy Python Argument sketch here....
I agree that it is common sense not to bike certain parts of the camino, given the amount of people walking. I think I am triggered by some comments in this thread, making some wild generalisations about cyclistst and expressing some kind of 'ownership' of the paths we happen to walk on. I also do think that part of the problem is that some walkers are not used to share paths with cyclists (so there is a responsibility for walkers to consider if they are up for this this)
We can recognize there are those who are safe with a bicycle, and who are cognizant of THEIR need to share the Camino pathways with pedestrians, and who are not a danger or problem. But that still leaves a large percentage of dangerous cyclists, many who are probably local and club riders that are residents of Spain, who do act in a manner that is careless and poses a danger to Camino pedestrians.
I do not imagine that you are meaning to say that bicycles have been in existence as long as pedestrians. I would argue that pedestrians ARE, in fact, the 'legacy' users of the Camino pathways (farm roads, etc), although horses also share that distinction even though infrequently seen outside of the O Cebreiro section.
Rode their mountain bikes for "ages"? What, like thirty years or so? lol
The only other path down to Molinaseca, as far as I am aware, is the road. I would advise against!I could turn your argument around: why walk on an local mountain bike trail where people have rode their mountain bike for ages, particularly when there are other options to walk to Molinaseca ? But this would be pedantic. Not intending to re-enact the Monthy Python Argument sketch here....
I agree that it is common sense not to bike certain parts of the camino, given the amount of people walking. I think I am triggered by some comments in this thread, making some wild generalisations about cyclistst and expressing some kind of 'ownership' of the paths we happen to walk on. I also do think that part of the problem is that some walkers are not used to share paths with cyclists (so there is a responsibility for walkers to consider if they are up for this this)
Lycra-tribe.
So I am not sure if the concept of the legacy user is getting us anywhere here.
I mainly agree with this, but the disagreement is probably in the assesment of how large the percentage of dangerous cyclists actually is.
Publication of general trail etiquette needs to be disseminated in one form or the other to rule out ignorance, in the addition to trail signs depicting right of way. Whether Im foot or on bike, I see infractions on both sides:
Bikers: who don't consider hikers given their age may be hard of hearing, not waiting for trail clearance before decent, etc
Hikers: walking a breast and not choosing a lane, failing to yield properly to uphill hikers..
At any rate I won't hesitate to confront anyone who puts my safety at risk with actions that may have life long consequences and neither should you.
The walking pilgrims will never adhere to some type of "lane" technique when on the Camino, which is varied in its surface, width, surrounding environment etc. Simply put, there are no lanes on it and it is nothing like an actual path in a city designed for bicycles and walkers with designated lanes marked for such. I could not imagine groups of pilgrims marching single file on the Camino in their designated lane calling cadence "hup two three four, watch out for the lycra clad corps"......Hikers: walking a breast and not choosing a lane, failing to yield properly to uphill hikers..
My intent was not to ridicule. My apologies if that is how it came across.This is actually what I meant to say: some (20 or 30) years. I wrote 'ages', which apparently is not correct as I now realize that 'ages' means something else than years (which I meant to say). Please remember English is not my first language, and this forum is not for native English speakers only. You could try to be aware of this. And thus you could try to react in a different way instead of "laughing out loud".
"Bikes and walkers simply do not mix. There is no coming to a compromise. It just does not work."
Lots of opinions. Hardly any arguments. But I admit you speak better English than me.
The walking pilgrims will never adhere to some type of "lane" technique when on the Camino, which is varied in its surface, width, surrounding environment etc. Simply put, there are no lanes on it and it is nothing like an actual path in a city designed for bicycles and walkers with designated lanes marked for such. I could not imagine groups of pilgrims marching single file on the Camino in their designated lane calling cadence "hup two three four, watch out for the lycra clad corps"......
Pilgrims walk in large groups sometimes, two or three across, two or three deep, engrossed in conversation, taking in the scenery, enjoying their walk etc. To expect them to be on high alert, constantly scanning the area for bicyclists is unreasonable and frankly unrealistic and not what walking a pilgrimage is about.
The Way is and was always a path for walking pilgrims. The bicyclists are invasive upon the walkers. The walkers are not invasive upon the bicyclists.
Maybe I’m just assuming that people understand shared spaces/trails and trail etiquette is universal regardless of continent. I’m m sure I he way has been a walking path devoid of horses mules camels and any other live stock past pilgrims have used to hasten their journey.
Btw I’m a hiker, biker, surfer, snowboarder... and each discipline requires a certain universal etiquette.
To expect less of people on the Camino is absurd. On a bike or on foot you need to be alert, for your safety and the safety of others... its not unrealistic to hold people and educate them on proper use of shared spaces. If youre hiking and listening to music and not aware of your environment and can’t hear a cyclist bell or call “Left” that’s your mistake. If you and your friends want to walk side by side and don’t give way when people have given you fair warning to pass... you’re inconsiderate and have a false perception, thinking this path is for you and you alone.
HYOH
It's a shame you have to tell someone it was meant in jest ,pretty obvious really...and no oneseems have taken it any other wayOf course it was offered humorously, by way of explaining clearly and in an unambiguous manner the sort of tragedy that will likely have to occur before someone in charge actually does something.
I do not for a moment advocate any violence of any sort...PERIOD!
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify.
'Legacy user" is another way of saying who was here first, historically: pedestrians or cyclists. As the context of what I wrote intended to indicate, it was responsive to your statement, " In fact they may have cycled there before "us", and before the camino got popular."
I would agree with you, if the claim was made that these were statements of an entire cohort of cyclists to ever use the Camino. What I am reading is what each individual has assessed based on their unique experience with bicyclists.
Let me argue the opposite case
Pedestrian "etiquette" are not laws or regulations, it is a self-imposed observation of courtesies. Conversely, cyclists DO have laws and regulations dictating required behavior. There is NO equivalency between how bicycles are to behave when encountering pedestrians, vs how pedestrians are required to behave.
This isn't a matter of the path "belonging" to pedestrians, it is a matter of the cyclist being under a legal obligation to yield the right-of-way.
Practically speaking, I am under NO obligation to be aware of a cyclist. An argument made that I must dilute my experience as a hiker in order to heighten the experience of a cyclist, is one I flatly reject. I will not be on alert for cyclists; I will not spoil my Camino or backpacking trip to do so. That is not what the law requires, nor is it incumbent on me to make a cyclist's life easier.
I won't purposefully hinder a cyclist, but I will not subjugate MY needs to his/her desires. There is no such thing as a cyclist giving a "fair warning", which suggests that I am under an obligation to behave in a required manner when a cyclist is present.
As a subsection of all walkers are those who have hearing difficulties. It is also a fact that it is NORMAL for walkers to be inward focused. It is not THEIR mistake for not hearing a bicycle. I would point out that the cyclist is supposed to already be prepared for such issues, and in fact are required by law to act and ride in such a manner.
Amplifying this a bit further, using the word 'mistake' is an assessment of liability. Since there are no laws or regulations which dictate how pedestrians must walk on shared paths -- but which do exist for bicycles -- the liability issues (mistakes) fall to the cyclist to avoid. If a bicycle vs pedestrian accident occurs, the liability or mistake will likely be on the head of the cyclist.
So bottom line: based on the law, if anyone needs to be alert to shared path use, it is the cyclist. Pedestrians should be courteous if they are aware of a cyclist's presence, but it is the responsibility of the cyclist to adapt to shared use with pedestrians, not the other way around.
Moreover, it is also forbidden by Dutch law for everybody (including pedestrians) to behave in any such way which endangers other traffic. If Spanish legislation has a similar provision (which I do not know) it seems to me also pedestrians have some legal obligations. Or am I wrong here ?
Don't go there.
I do wonder which law you are referring to: to Spanish legislation ?
@davebugg Did not get back to this yet because your post made me wonder about subjects like legacy and heritage in general, and I drifted off to the UNESCO website to get an idea of what actually is considered 'the heritage' while recognizing the Camino as world heritage. Interesting stuff, maybe worth another thread some time.
As to the point you made. The question "who was here first, historically ?" - it may seem a simple question, but I think it is not, as it very much depends on which "benchmark" (if this is the correct word) one uses, and what we mean with "here".
With "here" I tend to refer to the paths we walk nowadays, and these are for a large part existing paths and roads that were redesigned as the Camino Frances during the 80's. The current CF paths are mostly not the paths that were walked by pilgrims in the middle ages., the medieval footpaths are often now roads. So when us modern-day walkers claim we were "here" first, we actually mean our 'predecessors' were "over there" first : somewhere where there is now a road or highway". I have read people giving the argument "that we have been walking here for centuries". This is factually not true.
Using the 80's camino revival (and the establishment of the current path) as a benchmark, I conclude that both walking and cycling pilgrims were "here" first - as a substantial number of pilgrims since the 80s' are cyclists. In addition to that, and presuming local Spaniards rode their bikes along country paths in the 70's (also on the paths that were designed as the CF in the 80's) one could argue that they were the ones that were "here" first. You are probably right that mountain bikes were not in use in the 80's though.
I wrote that "they may have cycled here before us", to put into context someone's assumption that us walkers were here first. However, I did not intend to promote the legacy argument as a major argument in this discussion about etiquette on shared paths. I actually find the legacy argument rather uncomfortable in general, as arguments about ownership of territories and claimed historic rights often lead to polarisation and have been the subject of some rather nasty political conflicts all over the world.
Not sure if I full grasp what you meant to say. But - back to the subject of this thread (how we can all behave senisbly on a mixed path). Let me just make clear that I do not deny that accidents happen and friction exists. And I do acknowledge there are cyclists/bikers that behave dangerously. And I do think a risk assesment is advicable for certain stretches of the Camino which are narrow. And I do agree that anecdotical evidence could be helpful in this assessment. Of course then we may disagree about which level of risk is acceptable, and what are effective, necessary and proportional measure to reduce the risks.
It would make sense if local cyclists & cycling associations are to be involved in this process of risk assessment. In fact I stumbled upon a Spanish cycling site, that advices cyclists to follow the main road from Riego de Ambros to Molineseca as it considers cycling this stretch as potentially dangerous. Maybe the relevant authorities should decide that this is a stretch that should no longer be used as a mixed path. But imho NOT because pilgrims have walked this particular stretch for centuries as has been mentioned in one post (it is more likely that medieval pilgrims followed the road close to the camino path), but because it is the best safety option given the current situation on such a stretch, which could justify a general infringement on the rights of cyclists on this particular stretch as being proportional. In principal I do not see a reason why this should automatically imply that, on this stretch, all cyclists should cycle somewhere else - we could also walk somewhere else. I actually walked this part on the road (as I found the camino path too busy with walkers), no big deal. However, when large numbers of people start walking on this road, this would possibly lead to new safety issues.
Sorry, Marc, but this is getting into a bit of a circular argument.
I do not think we disagree with the issue of bicycles on Camino.
Agree Dave. Maybe I sometimes argue for the sake of the argument. Hope you don't mind . Let's leave it at this - I appreciate your arguments though.
Agree.
Yes, I am referring to Spanish legislation because we are focused on Camino de Santiago routes in SpainI posted a summary of the various aspects of the legislation previously. I also summarized that there are no similar legal requirements for pedestrian behavior on shared pathways, outside of signals and crosswalks within urban traffic areas.
Therefore it is not helpful to talk about pedestrian expectations in other nations as a practical application to walking in Spain.
I have also argued for observing reasonable levels of courtesy and other practices of etiquette. My central thesis, however, is that as pedestrians on Camino, walkers/hikers are NOT responsible for making the cyclist's recreational pursuits easier, more pleasant, or fun, or otherwise fulfilling.
Their is no legal, ethical, or moral argument that will persuade me to lessen MY reasons for walking on the Camino just so a cyclist can freely engage in unimpeded recreation. In other words, I will occupy my mind with whatever I wish to as I am walking. I will converse with others. I will walk on a part of a pathway that makes MY walking less hazardous or easier.
I will not lessen my normal expectations and experiences in order to heighten the experience of the cyclist. What I will do is make reasonable accommodation and share the pathway IF I am aware of an approaching cyclist. It is up to the cyclist to safely make himself known to me, it is NOT up to me to devote time or effort at being aware of when a cyclist is approaching.
If this might be seen by a cyclist as a frustration, or disrespect, or other bad thing is not MY problem, it is his.
Overall, my totality of experiences with Camino cyclists have been positive, and I sense that most bicyclists try to be respectful of the shared pathway.
@davebugg I say the above fully aware that courteous behavior and etiquette and commonsense are things which are good to practice. Their practice, however, is based on KNOWING that a cyclist is present. My position is that I do not need to make MYSELF aware of an approaching cyclist. . .it is the approaching cyclist who has the total responsibility for making me aware of his presence. If the cyclist makes an effort to make me aware he is coming, yet I do not respond for whatever reason, the cyclist is then required to react accordingly and yield the right of way.
My daughter and I have just completed the Camino Portuguese Coastal route. A delightful walk apart from expected foot troubles.
Met some lovely pilgrims walking the path. However, our experience with cyclists who may or may not have been pilgrims was not so great.
Many, but not all behaved as if they owned the paths.
These are shared paths where most pilgrims are walkers. The “guilty” cyclists rode two abreast at speeds which intimidated the walkers and were dangerous.
Please cyclists remember you are sharing the path. Slow down when you encounter walkers and ring your bell so we know you are coming. We are happy to move over so you can pass.
I am sure that your behaviour on Camino is courteous in the extreme but you seem to be coming dangerously close to encouraging others to apply a lower standard.
Do you really believe that it is appropriate that you have no need to respond "for whatever reason" and therefore the cyclist is entirely responsible for managing the situation? Does this give a pedestrian licence to simply ignore the bell or call by the cyclist? Is the walker allowed to wander around on the path, at will, paying no attention to anyone arriving from behind, whether on foot or bike?
I might also take issue with your version (upthread) of Spanish cycling rules. It is difficult to find these (in English) but your insistence upon a 10km/hr speed when pedestrians are present seems to me to apply in the special circumstance where cyclists are being allowed (unusually) to ride on sidewalks, in public parks etc. I can find no evidence that this is the legal situation on trails in the countryside. I rather think that I made a similar point in the discussions last year.
Yes, I am referring to Spanish legislation because we are focused on Camino de Santiago routes in SpainI posted a summary of the various aspects of the legislation previously. I also summarized that there are no similar legal requirements for pedestrian behavior on shared pathways, outside of signals and crosswalks within urban traffic areas.
My daughter and I have just completed the Camino Portuguese Coastal route. A delightful walk apart from expected foot troubles.
Met some lovely pilgrims walking the path. However, our experience with cyclists who may or may not have been pilgrims was not so great.
Many, but not all behaved as if they owned the paths.
These are shared paths where most pilgrims are walkers. The “guilty” cyclists rode two abreast at speeds which intimidated the walkers and were dangerous.
Please cyclists remember you are sharing the path. Slow down when you encounter walkers and ring your bell so we know you are coming. We are happy to move over so you can pass.
I think the original poster was talking about the Camino Portugues rather than the Camino Frances. I found many cyclists to be considerate on both caminos, although inconsiderate ones can really dominate your memories.Thank you for sharing this information. I agree and on two occasions I had to jump off the trail so they would not hit me. Towards the end of my walk I had had enough and was yelling at them!!! I think there should be another path for cyclists. I will never do the Camino France again!!!!
Stand to the right, walk / pass to the left. My Commonwealth friends may need a rubber band on their left wrist, but you get the idea. My pet peeve is moving sidewalks in large airports when I have a tight connection... like at T-4 at Madrid. Same construct, same solution...
Although, I point out that this discussion is in the Camino Portugues forum and was initiated by a comment of someone's experience on the Camino Portugues, much as it may now be more properly situated on the Camino Frances forum.Yes, I am referring to Spanish legislation because we are focused on Camino de Santiago routes in Spain
Please, please don't make the assumption that all cyclists are as rude and opinionated as the cyclist who ran you down. His behaviour is appalling. To be honest, I cannot understand why a path frequented mostly by pilgrims who are walking is used by anyone on a bike. But then I'm thinking of conventional bikes, rather than mountain bikes. I rode the Camino back in 2013 with my husband and we stuck mainly to the roads. On the rare occasions when the path ran parallel to a very busy main road, we would resort to using it, but generally there was plenty of room for everyone and we always rang our bells to warn of our approach. Slowing down to make sure you passed them without any trauma on either side meant that all of us would reach our destinations safely.On the meseta last October, on a long, flat stretch of dirt farm road that was exceptionally wide, I had the fun experience of being knocked down by a cyclist when I was all the way to the right. There was a lot of space on the road, and the guilty cyclist's buddies were all to the left as they passed giving me lots of room.
These were local cyclists, I think, because I was about 8 km out of a town, the guys were dressed in some serious and colorful lycra, and they had no other bags or panniers, etc.
The contact with me knocked the cyclist down about 6 feet from where I was piking myself up. The cyclist was yelling at me in Spanish and started walking toward me in an aggressive manner. I apologized Lo Siento multiple times, even though I was blameless, and he kept approaching til one of his cycling group interceded.
His buddy looked upset at the at-fault cyclist, looked at me and asked - I think - if I was alright. He apologized as he escorted his friend back to his bike.
It was apparent to me that that cyclist was seeing how close he could get to get a reaction of some kind; perhaps he hated pilgrim walkers. Or maybe he was blind. He was probably trying to be funny for his friends. I was thankful no one, especially me, was hurt. It was no big deal, especially after the Burgos incident, and I just shrugged it off.
In any case, this is one of many examples that I could offer of why I do not like sharing space with cyclists, and why there is a reason for pedestrian pilgrims to feel negativity and even anger. There is absolutely nothing wrong with feeling angry and upset. It is HOW one handles being angry and upset which makes a difference. To me, this Forum represents a space where expressing negative feelings and venting is acceptable can be cathartic.
Just my two cents.
Come to think of it, I don't think mountain bikes come with bells attached.Please, please don't make the assumption that all cyclists are as rude and opinionated as the cyclist who ran you down. His behaviour is appalling. To be honest, I cannot understand why a path frequented mostly by pilgrims who are walking is used by anyone on a bike. But then I'm thinking of conventional bikes, rather than mountain bikes. I rode the Camino back in 2013 with my husband and we stuck mainly to the roads. On the rare occasions when the path ran parallel to a very busy main road, we would resort to using it, but generally there was plenty of room for everyone and we always rang our bells to warn of our approach. Slowing down to make sure you passed them without any trauma on either side meant that all of us would reach our destinations safely.
With regard to bell ringing, I always thought bikes these days came with bells attached! Indeed, it should be against the law (as cycle helmets are) not to have one and it should be used when necessary. We often came across pilgrims walking and in a world of their own so at these times we never rode passed them until we had made them aware that we were behind. Sometimes if they had headphones on, this would prove to be quite difficult but patience and perseverance always won the day.
Don't know about Spain, but in the US and the UK, in the absence of signals and crosswalks, the pedestrian always has the right of way, Cycles are considered to be vehicles, and must be used as such.I have read that summary, and I read it as a usefull summary of legal requirements for cyclists. Instead of asking the rather stupidly formulated question (if you based yourself on Spanish legislation) I meant to ask whether - apart from legal requirements for cyclists- there are separate legal requirements or obligations for pedestrians (apart from signals and crosswalks). But apparently there are not.
Thank you for the including the links (some of them I had found by googling also). Sure you have also used some Spanish sources and Spanish law texts. Anyway, I am reaching the limits of my linguistic skills in this part of the thread. Discussing the details of legal matters is hard enough in my own language, so I'd better not further attempt in English.
Please, please don't make the assumption that all cyclists are as rude and opinionated as the cyclist who ran you down.
That's correct for roads with car/truck/bus traffic, but not pedestrian/bike only trails.I'm reading about people keeping to the right side of the road. I always thought that walkers should always be facing traffic, which in Spain would mean walking on the left.
I think the difference between a road and a path is significant here. "Road" being for motorized vehicles; path being for pedestrians and possibly cyclists.I'm reading about people keeping to the right side of the road. I always thought that walkers should always be facing traffic, which in Spain would mean walking on the left.
I believe in Canada (at least, the part where I live), there are also rules for pedestrians on roads (hence jaywalking by-laws). For example, pedestrians can cross streets not at a corner/stop sign/traffic light but must do so in a way and at a time that won't obstruct traffic. You can't just step out into a busy street with oncoming traffic and expect them to stop, claiming "right of way". So the slower moving/less powered = always right of way isn't universally applied here. Which isn't to say that I don't think it stands as a general principle, just that there are exceptions.Don't know about Spain, but in the US and the UK, in the absence of signals and crosswalks, the pedestrian always has the right of way, Cycles are considered to be vehicles, and must be used as such.
All true, I think I was referring to hikers on the roads outside of towns in terms of “right of way”. Walking in/near towns is another matter. I’ve always walked/cycled defensively, as you can never depend on the common sense of others.I believe in Canada (at least, the part where I live), there are also rules for pedestrians on roads (hence jaywalking by-laws). For example, pedestrians can cross streets not at a corner/stop sign/traffic light but must do so in a way and at a time that won't obstruct traffic. You can't just step out into a busy street with oncoming traffic and expect them to stop, claiming "right of way". So the slower moving/less powered = always right of way isn't universally applied here. Which isn't to say that I don't think it stands as a general principle, just that there are exceptions.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?