- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:04 am to jbgleason
I always run against the traffic.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:04 am to al_cajun
Absolutely pedestrians should walk/jog/run against the flow of traffic...shocks me to see how many people run either with headphones/earbuds with the flow of traffic, or two abreast with the flow of traffic having a conversation and oblivious to surroundings. Recipe for disaster.
I'm out early in the morning and late in the evening with a big dog, and see plenty of people look at me like what the hell is this guy doing walking the "wrong way" and not getting out of their way when I'm headed down the street on the left side.
I'm out early in the morning and late in the evening with a big dog, and see plenty of people look at me like what the hell is this guy doing walking the "wrong way" and not getting out of their way when I'm headed down the street on the left side.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:05 am to jbgleason
Against. Dumb Mille uals were never taught anything if it wasn't on the standardized test.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:05 am to jbgleason
While I agree with almost everyone on this board you run against and bike with, I personally run with traffic. With everyone on their cells phones driving these days, I figure it's only a matter of time before I get run over whether I'm running with or against, so I would prefer not to see it coming.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:08 am to jbgleason
Neither. Run on a trail.
Don't have a trail? Move to a civilized town that provides trails and greenways.
Don't have a trail? Move to a civilized town that provides trails and greenways.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:10 am to jbgleason
Away
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:10 am to LSUfan20005
quote:
Move to a civilized town that provides trails and greenways.
F**king Socialist
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:11 am to jbgleason
I preferred to run the levees and avoid all traffic when possible. I'd even head to Chalmette Highs track after hours and on weekends and do laps on it, then hit the stands for some real hard cardio.
I'd sometimes run with a buddy that lived in N.O. and we'd often hit City Park and run laps around Roosevelt Mall and do so against traffic even though folks coming through the park are generally very aware of runners and not driving fast.
I'd sometimes run with a buddy that lived in N.O. and we'd often hit City Park and run laps around Roosevelt Mall and do so against traffic even though folks coming through the park are generally very aware of runners and not driving fast.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:16 am to jbgleason
Paved trails. No need to ever run on the street.
This post was edited on 8/23/18 at 9:31 am
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:16 am to jbgleason
Here’s the deal - if you go against traffic all the liability should be with you. A car turning right to come at you isn’t looking your way before they turn.
Unfortunately I don’t think legallyfor liability it works this way.
Buts it’s one of many reasons you are supposed to go with traffic even though you, as an individual, feel safer going against traffic.
Unfortunately I don’t think legallyfor liability it works this way.
Buts it’s one of many reasons you are supposed to go with traffic even though you, as an individual, feel safer going against traffic.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:22 am to Tigerstark
Saw a jogger yesterday running with on a 4 lane hwy. I thought about the same thing, and she had headphones on. Why isn't biking against also?
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:23 am to Tigerstark
quote:
Buts it’s one of many reasons you are supposed to go with traffic even though you, as an individual, feel safer going against traffic.
Wait. Your theory is to run WITH traffic so that when you get run over the driver will be liable?
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:33 am to jbgleason
I would want to see who was about to run me over.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:34 am to jbgleason
Run against, ride a bike with.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:38 am to Tigerstark
quote:
Here’s the deal - if you go against traffic all the liability should be with you. A car turning right to come at you isn’t looking your way before they turn.
Unfortunately I don’t think legallyfor liability it works this way.
Buts it’s one of many reasons you are supposed to go with traffic even though you, as an individual, feel safer going against traffic.
You think you have less liability if you are breaking the law?
LA RS 32:216
quote:
LA RS 32:216
§216. Pedestrians on highways or interstate highways
A. Where sidewalks are provided, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent highway.
B. Where sidewalks are not provided, any pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk only on the left side of the highway or its shoulder, facing traffic which may approach from the opposite direction.
C. It shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to cross an interstate highway, except in the case of an emergency.
D. Upon conviction of a violation of this Section, a court may order, in lieu of the penalty provisions provided in R.S. 32:57, that the offender perform three eight-hour days of court-approved community service activities, at least half of which shall consist of participation in a litter abatement or collection program.
Acts 1962, No. 310, §1; Acts 2001, No. 585, §1.
This post was edited on 8/23/18 at 9:38 am
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:41 am to jbgleason
quote:
Wait. Your theory is to run WITH traffic so that when you get run over the driver will be liable?
Not my theory. Its what I was told by a police officer here in NOLA - no idea if its true or not. You are supposed to travel with traffic.
If you want my thoughts/theory on how it should be - when you go against, you are operating out of the expectation of other drivers. So any traffic coming onto (turning, going through an intersection, etc.) the road isn't expecting to see you in the direction you are coming from.
To me, when you go against, that should mean you are responsible for your safety because you are operating outside of expectation. I'm fine with a that - and would prefer to go against myself and be responsible for myself. The driver would no longer be legally liable for anything that happens to you unless they operated the vehicle unsafe (i.e. swerved and hit you, etc.). The right of way, when you go against, should shift to the automobile, imo with the jogger or biker responsible for slowing down for any turning vehicle.
When you travel with, you are operating in the flow of traffic and therefore anything that happens, to me, should legally be the responsibility of the driver. The right of way should go to you.
That being said - you dead either way. But your family might get a wind-fall if you were going with traffic.
I've witnessed one bad accident and a couple of near accidents where bike riders were going against traffic and a car turned right from a side street right into them.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:42 am to jbgleason
(no message)
This post was edited on 7/5/21 at 2:27 am
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:46 am to mdomingue
quote:
You think you have less liability if you are breaking the law?
If the law is stupid, yes.
I'm not advocating for what legally is right at this point, just, what to me, make sense. Just my opinion - doesn't mean it works for everyone. But going with the flow of traffic is better for traffic, overall operation of vehicles, flow, etc.. Going against the flow is theoretically safer for the specific individual. Therefore, the individual should take the responsibility.
Posted on 8/23/18 at 9:48 am to jbgleason
Always against.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News