Reckless riding is going to get us banned

[Darrell Wesh]

2 hours ago, davinche said:

Why aren't EUCs allowed on the highway? A: Because there's literally zero legal circumstances in which they are allowed. Same reason why bikes and stuff are not allowed on the highway.

Uh what? Why are you telling me something I already know (by virtue of the wording of my question) and then purporting to have answered my question? I clearly asked why they aren’t allowed on the highway which clearly means I know they aren’t allowed on the highway from a legal standpoint. My question asks from a rational, NOT legal, standpoint why are they not allowed.
 

Accidents are far more common in the city instead of the highway, and speed seems to be the only factor RATIONALLY (not legally) stopping a bicycle from being on the highway (if we disregard the ridiculous registered BS you try to spin on why things shouldn’t be on the highway but can somehow still be on the City roads unregistered).

If an ebike, scooter, or EUC has the speed to keep up or pass traffic on a 40mph highway I don’t see a problem when it’s a straight shot with no chance of t bones, hitting pedestrians in crosswalks, wobbling into opposite direction traffic(separated by a median on the highway) etc 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Darrell Wesh

[Gasmantle]

39 minutes ago, Darrell Wesh said:

If an ebike, scooter, or EUC has the speed to keep up or pass traffic on a 40mph highway I don’t see a problem when it’s a straight shot with no chance of t bones, hitting pedestrians in crosswalks, wobbling into opposite direction traffic(separated by a median on the highway) etc 

Would you honestly feel safe driving your car on a highway with people riding EUC's at 40 mph?

If I saw one I'd either have to drive so slow to keep well behind it (causing unsafe congestion behind) or wait for loads of room at the side to overtake it as fast as I could then get well ahead.

I would not in the least bit feel safe driving in an area with an EUC rider at high speed.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Gasmantle

[Alj]

1 hour ago, mrelwood said:

 But my speed while I pass them is never above 25km/h, usually 15-20km/h. And that is what the issue is we’re talking about in this thread. No matter how much room the pedestrians take, it doesn’t allow others to be dickheads as well. One’s speed must always be proportional to the situation at hand. “Look what you made me do” has never been an excuse for anything, let alone in traffic.

Well!  Apparently bicycle trail etiquette in Europe is not that much different of the US one.

But i just realized that you have to ride a bicycle for some time to be accustomed to it, if one just got introduced to bicycle trail with the purchase of EUC, he/she doesn't know much about how things should be done there...

Stepping away from the topic for a sec - FYI: AVAS feature of "EUC World" android app completely solves "pedestrian spookiness" issue you mentioned.

[Livingston B]

On 6/25/2020 at 5:51 PM, Rehab1 said:

I can’t sit idly by without posting my opinion on this subject! 

 

The father of the kid he's about to buzz on the right should've laid him out.

Everyone praises the skills of these kinds of riders, but sorry I don't see EUC riding as an activity with a particularly high skill ceiling, and this myth that there's a huge divide between the NYC riders and the dad/zombies gives those people unwarranted status. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Livingston B

[Darrell Wesh]

2 hours ago, Gasmantle said:

Would you honestly feel safe driving your car on a highway with people riding EUC's at 40 mph?

If I saw one I'd either have to drive so slow to keep well behind it (causing unsafe congestion behind) or wait for loads of room at the side to overtake it as fast as I could then get well ahead.

I would not in the least bit feel safe driving in an area with an EUC rider at high speed.

Why did you only include EUC’s in your example? Why not scooters and ebikes? Would you feel scared if an ebike or escooter was going 50mph on the highway? People don’t know about the cut out/self balancing problem of an EUC. So to them they won’t have the same worry as our community does. The majority would view us as vulnerable as a bicycle or scooter. But that’s dependent on the speed.

Speed is relative. If there is no huge divide between the cars traveling speed and the e vehicles speed then a car won’t really think twice about how fast that person is going. Especially at the turtles pace 40mph I see in the city highways compared to a real 70mph highway speed. 
 

The risk cars see is dependent on the speed disparity. If you’re going 20mph slower then they are and they come rushing past you then you look vulnerable/like you don’t belong. If you’re going the same speed or they’re slowly coming up on or passing you then they won’t really worry. 
 

Once our speed is the same as the cars on the 40mph-45mph highways, cars would view us no different then they do moped/motorcyclists. They know they’d kill a motorcyclist if they hit him, but yet no one freaks out to tail right behind one. However, get a low powered moped on the highway going 30 in a 50, and all of a sudden everyone is giving huge following distances because of the speed disparity. 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Darrell Wesh

[Livingston B]

19 hours ago, Hsiang said:

There are two issues here;

1. Is exactly as the title states: will this type of behavior get us banned and my position is no, I don’t think it will, because we are still too niche and no one will regular something they don’t know exist.

 

1. Security by obscurity is not a plan I'd bank on.  The nicheness of the hobby makes it more vulnerable, not less.  One loud grieving family vs an industry that provides very little domestic employment and no lobbying/political contributions.  It's a no-brainer for a politician.

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by Livingston B

[Darrell Wesh]

2 minutes ago, Livingston B said:

1. Security by obscurity is not a plan I'd bank on.  The nicheness of the hobby makes it more vulnerable, not less.  One loud grieving family vs an industry that provides very little domestic employment and no lobbying/political contributions.  It's a no-brainer for a politician.

 

You are right and wrong. The nicheness is what protects us from having laws on a state wide or federal level. You would only see laws enacted on a city wide level because of the obscurity.

[davinche]

3 hours ago, Darrell Wesh said:

My question asks from a rational, NOT legal, standpoint why are they not allowed.

You did not indicate in any way that you did not want an argument from the legal standpoint.

3 hours ago, Darrell Wesh said:

Accidents are far more common in the city instead of the highway, and speed seems to be the only factor RATIONALLY (not legally) stopping a bicycle from being on the highway (if we disregard the ridiculous registered BS you try to spin on why things shouldn’t be on the highway but can somehow still be on the City roads unregistered).

Have you ever considered that accidents are far more common in cities because of bikes, pedestrians etc? In other words,  perhaps it's the absence of bikes and pedestrians on highways that make accidents less common?

But let's say hypothetically we allow bikes on the highway. Hell, let's even allow pedestrians on the highway because by your argument, if a guy is fast enough (can run 40mph+) they should be allowed to participate in the flow of traffic. Sure, accidents happen less often on highways, but what are the statistics on fatal accidents? I would imagine a pedestrian struck at 15mph is less likely to die than being struck at 40+mph. Surely this has to be a factor to be considered?

Hopefully the "pedestrian on a highway" hypothetical is a clear enough example of why I don't think speed is the only factor.

So back to my registration example which you disregarded as "BS". I gave the registration example because (in my mind) this is probably the only reason why bikes/eucs/pedestrians are not allowed on the highway. Because a registered vehicle does at least 2 things (all I can think of at the moment):

1. Accountability - which we've already discussed
2. Provides information about a vehicles (make, model etc).

The second point is probably important because knowing the make and model means giving you the ability to find how how the vehicle was made, what parts it contains, statistics pertaining to said make and model etc. This is useful for documentation purposes... but also certifications / quality assurance purposes.

So if we accept that accidents at high speeds are more fatal, then it would make sense to have measures put in place to mitigate it. One way to do that is through certifications / quality assurance. One way to implement that is through vehicle registration...you see where I'm going right?

 

Anyways, I'm not a traffic expert hence all the "probably"s and "I would imagine"s. But hopefully I've conveyed my thoughts in a clear enough manner. Feel free to disagree though, I like hearing other peoples perspectives.

 

 

Edited June 28, 2020 by davinche

[Livingston B]

41 minutes ago, Darrell Wesh said:

You are right and wrong. The nicheness is what protects us from having laws on a state wide or federal level. You would only see laws enacted on a city wide level because of the obscurity.

Bird kinda eff'd up that level of obscurity in CA.  They got a state law passed, fined-tuned to their business needs:  no helmets, more roads access, and a top speed of 15 MPH (about as fast as their shit mobiles can go).   The helmet part seems particularly indefensible, but that's how the system, uh, works.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Livingston B

[Nic]

7 hours ago, Mike Sacristan said:

I don't understand why everyone is pointing their fingers at the riders.

What about the pedestrians? What about everyone else?
 

Look at this disgusting display:

How much room is left for anyone else? Is this not a shared pedestrian path / bike path that is meant for two way traffic?
What gives those two idiots and their child the right to claim half of it for themselves? They don't care about anyone else than themselves so why should anyone care about them?
THEY are the ones responsible for their child and this is irresponsible parenting. They are creating a problem for others to solve and then what? Are they going to complain about the solution that was chosen? DON'T CAUSE THE PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.

What happens when this repeats over and over again? Obviously people will stop caring and it will just become a game of chicken not to mention navigating an obstacle course.

Actions will cause reactions.

And this classic scenario.
Hmm an incoming vehicle. Oh it's not going that fast... i'll just cross the street.
Does it have to be a motorcycle doing 100 mph? Because it could just has easily been that.
Is that a street crossing? Is there a green light or red light?
If the Sherman rider is blasting through a red and the pedestrian still decides to cross it is his choice. He obviously looked, measure the speed, measured his pace and crossed.
He is an adult.

People do the same thing in Stockholm all the time.
In New York they do it because if you snooze you lose.
In Stockholm people do it but just pretend not to see and play stupid.
I can crawl behind someone at 5 kmh and ring my bell 5 times and they won't move.
But if I try to cross a crosswalk and it's green for me a car can just as easily rip right through it and kill me.

Pedestrians aren't breaking the law by walking down a shared path and they aren't putting anyone in danger. They will move out the way if then know you are approaching. They don't carry mirrors and can't see what is behind them. Yes, its a little bit inconsiderate but you can't expect them to walk single file just so you can ride faster. There is still plenty of space to pass. Pedestrians can be charged for jaywalking so they do have rules to follow. People that are registered blind, deaf, or that have other disabilities need to be safe as they aren't able to act in a way that you would deem considerate.

[Mike Sacristan]

6 hours ago, Rehab1 said:

Please...please ...please tell me your being facetious.

Sort of. But what I am really trying to do is offer a different point of view.

6 hours ago, ShanesPlanet said:

I've enjoyed his videos enough to say with surety...Mike is being serious.

Thank you for knowing me that well and for understanding me. You are correct.

5 hours ago, Rehab1 said:

I can’t believe Mike would throw this heartfelt, serious discussion under the bus. 

Hey...how about a big posted sidewalk sign: Parents Beware- Silent Vehicles Approaching From Behind At 40MPH. 

Phew... now that is not really how I use the phrase "throw under the bus". Maybe that is a cultural difference too.
But please try to understand me and what I am saying.

Bicycles are silent vehicles too. My EUC is usually less silent as I play music so that others can hear me, I lower and raise the volume according to the situation and I try to spread good vibes. But this isn't about me... this is about us and about understanding. We have always been picking on the NYC riders. To the point of banning them, censoring them, etc. 

What I am merely trying to explain is that bad behaviour will breed bad behaviour.

4 hours ago, mrelwood said:

 

The law is probably identical in Sweden to that of Finland, so:

 There are two types of shared pathways between pedestrians and bicyclists, always pointed out with a traffic sign. One has the other side for only pedestrians and the other for only bicycles, separated with a painted solid white line. The other type has all pedestrians and bicyclists on the same path, usually without any markings.

 Some of the pathways are split with a white non-continuous painted line, to split the sides for traveling in either direction, but this is tough for pedestrians since the teaching of walking on the left side of the car road (when no pedestrian path is present) makes some of them take the left side.

 While I used to be annoyed at pedestrians walking side by side and taking up enough room for me not to be able to pass, I have later been able to look at it from their point of view. The paths are often narrow enough that even just two people walking side by side take most of the width. If I were walking with a friend, would I walk behind him/her just in case a bi-/unicyclist wishes to pass from behind? Would it be a sensible attitude to expect in suburban areas? I think not.

 But it is far too common to have a single pedestrian (and sometimes a bicyclist) go on the dead center of the pathway, as if they weren’t expecting to meet anyone else on the same path. I admit, I don’t mind if they get spooked from me quietly passing on the left side, since looking at the mirror I always see them continuing on the right side of the pathway.

 But my speed while I pass them is never above 25km/h, usually 15-20km/h. And that is what the issue is we’re talking about in this thread. No matter how much room the pedestrians take, it doesn’t allow others to be dickheads as well. One’s speed must always be proportional to the situation at hand. “Look what you made me do” has never been an excuse for anything, let alone in traffic.

Yes it is mostly identical. There is even a non-enforced pedestrian walking law that was introduced in August 2018 stating that pedestrians should walk to their left on shard paths. Bikes, etc on their right.. which means they meet other incoming and can have eye contact. Pedestrians rarely follow this and cause bikes to swerve because all of the bicycles are obviously racing on Strava and doing time trials and what not and graze by pedestrians at 40kmh+ using their handlebars as weapons. A single pedestrian, a group of pedestrians, spreading out and claiming half the path or more. Now I can be judgemental and say they are Aholes but I see it as they are just pedestrians who want to go out for a walk and they should be able to do so without risk or fear of getting hit. 

6 hours ago, Alj said:

If 2 pedestrians collide with each other it will not cause problem. Unless one side of the party decides to make a projectile out of himself by mounting on top of some motorized device. That essentially means that vehicles are weapons. A source of danger. And person who handles weapons has always elevated responsibility.  If someone will run into them in EUC that will cause problem for both sides. Yes idiot pedestrian may die but EUC rider will have to live for the rest of their live with the fact that he murdered a person (need to remember that all the time). But I see where you coming from, if pedestrians break the law then why should we care about not speeding around them? THats not how it works in real life, pedestrians represent least danger for everyone and they are not assumed to have any knowledge of walking next to speeding EUCs, some of them have never seen EUC in their life. The only thing you can expect from them is to not jump in front of the car on a roadway or do very stupid things like crossing highway.  I know in some EU countries (I never been in Denmark but at least in Netherlands) bicycles have right of way against pedestrians, but it is never the case in USA. The pedestrian can be an idiot, but (sorry for disappointment), you still cannot kill them, and people usually do as much as honk and pass slowly, politely and carefully, that's how things are at least where i live, and we are culturally very far from that changing any time soon.

Thank you for explaining. The problem becomes worse. This means the parents are out walking amongst weapons using their child as a shield.
That is a lot of responsibility to put in the hands of strangers.

The rest of this post is just some more explaining:

I am not saying that if pedestrians break the law then why should we care about them. Of course we should care about them.
I am saying that it is human nature and a normal human response to eventually become desensitised. And New York is a perfect example of a desensitised city just as some of the suburbs out here are. Where people talk in VERY LOUD VOICES and with aggressive tones because that is how their cultures are and they introduce those same cultures into Sweden. Which normally consists of quiet people who don't speak their minds.

This will be the same situation if it is a bicycle. Bicycles will only have right of way if the pedestrian is jaywalking which includes jaywalking over a bike path.
I treat my EUC as a bicycle. I wear the same gear I would wear if I am riding a bicycle.
Which means I wear nothing. Because my EUC is not a motorcycle and I refuse to ride it like one or dress like I am on a killing machine.
A lot of people complain about me not wearing gear.
I want eye contact with pedestrians, I want to be able to smile at them and wave.
My riding philosophy is a bit different from others and I believe in evening out the playing field.

So my whole point with my original post is that there are different ways to see things.
Life is not a mathematical equation even though I sometimes would love it be so.

What if NY just painted a white line down that path?
Then that path would be solved.
Will this prevent pedestrians from walking on the thin crappy bike lines that are on the roads?
Probably not.

If everyone follows the rules then it would be great.
If rules are rarely followed then this will usually cause a chain reaction of rules not being followed as a response.

 

 

[Mike Sacristan]

16 minutes ago, Nic said:

Pedestrians aren't breaking the law by walking down a shared path and they aren't putting anyone in danger. They will move out the way if then know you are approaching. They don't carry mirrors and can't see what is behind them. Yes, its a little bit inconsiderate but you can't expect them to walk single file just so you can ride faster. There is still plenty of space to pass. Pedestrians can be charged for jaywalking so they do have rules to follow. People that are registered blind, deaf, or that have other disabilities need to be safe as they aren't able to act in a way that you would deem considerate.

Thank you Nic for reading and for answering.
In my country those pedestrians would be breaking a law. However this law is not enforced. Walking law states that they should be on their left of the shared path.
They should also be leaving space for others so as not to endanger them. If they do not then they are creating a problem for others. The problem will then by solved by others within the limits of their generosity and intelligence.

Of course there is space to pass. In this particular scenario at least. However they will have to break the law to pass by riding on the wrong side.
And what happens when the next family does this but in the opposite direction?
Then there is no space to pass.
And where does that leave the cyclists? They have a very thin profile yet they have nowhere to go.

Also I am sure that there are other choices than the two choices presented.
Choice 1: Spread out and take half the path
Choice 2: Walk in a single file

I am sure that there is some middle ground there that could be applied.
People that are deaf, blind, etc could just stick to the shoulder.

Or they could just spread out their lats trying to assert gorilla dominance. 

[Alj]

18 minutes ago, Mike Sacristan said:

. The problem becomes worse. This means the parents are out walking amongst weapons using their child as a shield.
That is a lot of responsibility to put in the hands of strangers.

In Seattle shared trails have 15mph speed limit which is usually posted everywhere. I don't know about NY though, but even if it is not posted, bicycles normally do not go as fast as EUC. Lets assume  this kid is not being used as shield but he is on a bike....  which does not change situation much.... he goes about 5 mph (and completely allowed to do so) and 35mph speed difference is enough to kill someone in the event of collision (especially kid).....

That said, i agree that some parents are somewhat reckless, Partially because pedestrians have right of way even on the road in USA and they have a bad habit to just step on the pavement and never look around for the cars knowing cars  will all stop anyway (I was very surprised about that when I migrated here many years ago).. and partially because parenting is hard, and total 24/7 control of your kids wears you out pretty fast.. also there are many people living in USA which have completely different culture origin (including myself) that have different idea about cost of human life. However 1) It is absolutely pointless to try to fix everyone around us to our liking (and in a moment change the culture and everyone's habits) and kids are not guilty if their parents are idiots. 2) this is not a parenting forum :-) We only have control over what WE do. 

 

 

[Gasmantle]

8 hours ago, Mike Sacristan said:

I don't understand why everyone is pointing their fingers at the riders.

What about the pedestrians? What about everyone else?
 

Look at this disgusting display:

How much room is left for anyone else? Is this not a shared pedestrian path / bike path that is meant for two way traffic?
What gives those two idiots and their child the right to claim half of it for themselves? They don't care about anyone else than themselves so why should anyone care about them?
THEY are the ones responsible for their child and this is irresponsible parenting. They are creating a problem for others to solve and then what? Are they going to complain about the solution that was chosen? DON'T CAUSE THE PROBLEM TO BEGIN WITH.

To call the 2 adults in the above photograph disgusting and irresponsible parents is ridiculous.

Any 2 adults would walk side by side, they are holding the hands of the child - are you seriously suggesting they should be in single file?

Let's not forget here this is a screen shot of the video with the guys riding at 30+ mph along this path with people walking along. 

[Rehab1]

24 minutes ago, Mike Sacristan said:

A lot of people complain about me not wearing gear.
I want eye contact with pedestrians, I want to be able to smile at them and wave.

Your a great communicator with a civil tone. Thanks!

The highlight area above stood out the most for me.Totally the opposite on what this discussion is about. There was zero eye contact as the riders approached the pedestrians and children that I could see. Certainly no smile. 

[Nic]

42 minutes ago, Mike Sacristan said:

In my country those pedestrians would be breaking a law. However this law is not enforced. Walking law states that they should be on their left of the shared path.

Is this an actual law with penalty for those that break it, or is it just guidance? In the UK there is a difference. I admit that I too get frustrated by pedestrians, but when I think of people like my elderly mother I can understand that it isn't so easy and we need to put up with some inconvenience from time to time. If people can't feel safe when they are out walking then they will be too afraid to go out.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Nic

[Gasmantle]

For those that haven't seen the video clip that the above photograph was taken from here it is :-

 

 

[Nic]

3 minutes ago, Gasmantle said:

For those that haven't seen the video clip that the above photograph was taken from here it is :-

 

 

That is scary fast ... and reckless. I can see that the rider is aware of his surroundings and trying to judge the situation as well as he can (he's not a complete idiot), but his assessment of risk is a huge miscalculation.

[Rehab1]

8 minutes ago, Gasmantle said:

For those that haven't seen the video clip that the above photograph was taken from here it is :-

 

 

Good refresher so we don’t loose sight of the original subject.

[Mike Sacristan]

9 minutes ago, Gasmantle said:

To call the 2 adults in the above photograph disgusting and irresponsible parents is ridiculous.

Any 2 adults would walk side by side, they are holding the hands of the child - are you seriously suggesting they should be in single file?

Let's not forget here this is a screen shot of the video with the guys riding at 30+ mph along this path with people walking along. 

I just don't see that as the only two choices.
Taking up 50% of the path or walking single file.
I didn't call the parents disgusting I said it was a disgusting display. One can do something disgusting without being disgusting.
It provokes thoughts and feelings in me just as the reckless riding provokes thoughts and feelings in you.
And my thoughts and feelings provoke thoughts and feelings in you where my disgust gets called ridiculous.
And so the infinite circle is born. With a finger always pointing outwards.
 

10 minutes ago, Rehab1 said:

Your a great communicator with a civil tone. Thanks!

The highlight area above stood out the most for me.Totally the opposite on what this discussion is about. There was zero eye contact as the riders approached the pedestrians and children that I could see. Certainly no smile. 

Thank You Rehab. Yes... I know the discussion is about whether reckless riding is going to get us banned.
What I am trying to do is offer a solution where everyone is part of the problem and part of the solution.
I would not get very far in NYC with my mentality. 
If any city can adapt I am sure NYC can.

6 minutes ago, Nic said:

Is this an actual law with penalty for those that break it, or is it just guidance? In the UK there is a difference.

It is an actual law but there is no fine.
I have had many discussions with pedestrians about it but very few are aware of it. Which means people just walk everywhere... including right on the bicycle symbols that are on the bike paths. I have also discussed it many times with Monika and how we should approach it.

https://www.sydsvenskan.se/2018-10-15/ny-lag-fotgangare-ska-ga-till-vanster-pa-cykelbanan

3 minutes ago, Gasmantle said:

For those that haven't seen the video clip that the above photograph was taken from here it is :-

 

 

It looks like they slowed down quite a bit there. 

[Mike Sacristan]

8 minutes ago, Nic said:

That is scary fast ... and reckless. I can see that the rider is aware of his surroundings and trying to judge the situation as well as he can (he's not a complete idiot), but his assessment of risk is a huge miscalculation.

They are obviously very skilled. The riding looks very flamboyant and over the top for us normal riders I agree. 
I would save that kind of riding for my 2 AM cruises.

I would like to see them do it without helmets. 

The assessment of risk is definitely outside the tolerance level of what feels comfortable to us. Especially with the wide mode on.

But will it get us banned?
Should it be reported to the police?
Maybe someone already did report it to the police.

I wouldn't be shocked if someday someone reports ME to the police.

[Gasmantle]

@Mike Sacristanit's all very well saying he slowed down - he should have tried slowing down for the full 2 miles. 

What ever the issues are with the parents there is no escaping that riding like this is dangerous, look at the part around 57secs he doesn't seem to slow down when overtaking the man pushing a pram just inches away.

People riding like that will cause serious injury before long if they don't get us all banned first.

Riding like that is indefensible.

[Rehab1]

9 minutes ago, Mike Sacristan said:

Thank You Rehab. Yes... I know the discussion is about whether reckless riding is going to get us banned.

Hey Mike, I was referring to your sensible riding approach and the visual/ communicative interaction conveyed to pedestrians you encounter during your rides.

If every rider would apply those attributes we would not be having this discussion. 

[Nic]

14 minutes ago, Mike Sacristan said:

It is an actual law but there is no fine.
I have had many discussions with pedestrians about it but very few are aware of it. Which means people just walk everywhere... including right on the bicycle symbols that are on the bike paths

Its a common problem ... pedestrians walking in bicycle lanes ... cyclists riding on pavement ...

[Darrell Wesh]

1 hour ago, Gasmantle said:

For those that haven't seen the video clip that the above photograph was taken from here it is :-

 

 

My first time seeing the video. What an over reaction. For starters, they slowed down PLENTY for those parents walking their kid in the beginning. And David was talking to U stride in general about this being dangerous, not saying U stride in particular was dangerous( at that point). 
 

I saw riders giving adequate room to avoid any potential situations. You forget that speed means less time in a given space, which is why sometimes we speed up to pass a pedestrian because we know they can’t possibly intercept us “accidentally” in the time that we’re passing. People on here act like someone is just going to spazz out and dive to the right or left without warning, or throw an arm to the side with no reason. 
 

while I agree the speed was too high for pedestrians to feel comfortable(who are probably desensitized however), I feel the riders were taking precaution at the speeds they were going.
 

It’s just a different kind of comfort you won’t understand in your other states. People in NY drive/ride soo close to each other, yet it’s not a problem. To you viewers you expect an entire football field of space at any sort of speed but that’s completely unnecessary.