Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by mjr »

Trigger wrote:Lucky you. I too tend to keep left out of instinct, but every cyclist I meet coming towards me on the section of shared use path near me are always on their right/my left so I'm forever trying to make eye contact and playing the game of trying to see who is going to move over (usually me).

My trick is to show the palm of my hand on the side I want to pass (usually left) to the front just above my handlebars, on its side. Usually works.

I thought walking on the right was so they could draw their swords unobstructed? ;-)

I think brring bells sound friendlier, plus might trigger memories of bikes of the past in some people.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Bicycler »

Mark1978 wrote:
Bicycler wrote:The highway code and most traffic laws apply equally to off road paths so vehicles (including cycles) should keep left and pedestrians ought to keep right.


No matter what the HC code says, this is a bad idea. IMO pedestrians should walk on the left of the path so I'm overtaking them in the same fashion as I would another bicycle or like a car would overtake a bicycle on the road. Them walking towards you creates problems if there's a cyclist coming the other way, and they are also walking towards you at the same time.

We've had this subject come up before and I do remember not everyone agreed. I do keep right when walking on roads and cycle paths. I once had personal experience of being clipped from behind by a passing cyclist when walking along a shared use path. No injuries but there could have been. We can not assume that others' behaviour will always be up to scratch so I would much rather trust my own judgement and move a bit to my right if I think a cyclist is about to pass too close, than put all my faith in the actions of the cyclist approaching from behind. The type of cyclist who will pass too fast and too close is also the type of cyclist who won't bother to announce his presence. A wary pedestrian needs to keep looking over his shoulder if he keeps left and wants to be aware of approaching cyclists. Much greater comfort and better observation are possible by facing the oncoming traffic.

As a cyclist I would much rather be approaching pedestrians looking towards me than with their backs to me. They are instantly aware of my presence and this reduces the number of times where you need to alert them to your presence with a bell or call. Pedestrians seeing an oncoming cyclist may courteously choose to move slightly to the side to give you more room, allow you to pass through a barrier first, go into single file or get their dogs under control. These factors may allow you to pass more quickly and easily.

I don't accept the idea that right-keeping pedestrians are an inconvenience to cyclists. The difference the pedestrian makes to overall closing speed is small. Approaching and during an overtake speeds should be sufficiently low that both parties can safely stop anyway. If the pedestrian's direction of travel did make a significant difference then surely it would benefit the cyclist by reducing the duration of the overtaking manoeuver lessening the chance of having to give way to an oncoming cyclist. A simple assumption would be that there are equal numbers of people travelling in each direction so the chance of being unable to pass a pedestrian because of oncoming cyclists would be the same regardless of whether pedestrians were required to keep left or right. In reality traffic tends to be greater in one direction than the other at particular times of day. Thus it is reasonable to expect a cyclist would, on average, have to make more overtaking manoeuvers of left keeping pedestrians than right keeping ones, increasing the chance of conflict with oncoming cyclists. That holds true for a simple path where there is room for a cyclist to pass a pedestrian. Obviously it becomes a non-issue where there is no room to pass.
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Mark1978 »

mjr wrote:So you'd rather they created problems for the cyclist coming the other way who they maybe won't have seen? Way to throw the rotting dead squirrel from your lawn onto your neighbour's roof! :roll:


What on earth are you on about? You're going down a cycle path, pedestrians on the left, just like you would on the road you check the way is clear to overtake and you overtake them. If there's another cyclist approaching in the opposite direction you wait and overtake after they've passed. If the pedestrians are walking on the right, i.e. towards the cyclist this creates problems for both as both are approaching each other and so both parties will likely have to stop to wait for the cyclist in the opposite direction. In both situations the pedestrians are expected to do nothing but hold their line, as you would expect.

I think "walkers keep right" is a good idea, but I know some people walk on the left of country roads without footways


That's a very different situation. Walking on the right on country roads, is so that you can see cars approaching you and step out of the way in good time, pedestrians are not expected to that on cycle paths, nor should they, so lumping the two together is dangerous.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by mjr »

Mark1978 wrote:If there's another cyclist approaching in the opposite direction you wait and overtake after they've passed. If the pedestrians are walking on the right, i.e. towards the cyclist this creates problems for both as both are approaching each other and so both parties will likely have to stop to wait for the cyclist in the opposite direction.

Why can a cyclist in the walkers-on-left situation slow and wait to overtake, but the one in the walkers-on-right situation can't? That doesn't seem realistic.

Walking on the right on country roads, is so that you can see cars approaching you and step out of the way in good time, [...].

OK, that's at least twice that fallacy has been posted now and so I ask both Mark1978 and Postboxer: should we also tug our forelock or bow to the passing car when stepping out of its way? Why only when walking and not when riding?

If you step off the road when cars approach, you'll make poor progress and before long sprain your ankle in rabbit holes or molehills, be in a hedge or fall into a drain. Basically, the road is the only fairly-sure safe area. HC rule 206 says "Drive carefully and slowly when ... approaching pedestrians on narrow rural roads without a footway or footpath. Always slow down and be prepared to stop if necessary, giving them plenty of room as you drive past." HC rule 2 for pedestrians without footways does not tell them to step off the road, nor should they. Drivers and riders should give way to walkers, even on roads.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Bicycler »

Mark1978 wrote:
I think "walkers keep right" is a good idea, but I know some people walk on the left of country roads without footways


That's a very different situation. Walking on the right on country roads, is so that you can see cars approaching you and step out of the way in good time, pedestrians are not expected to that on cycle paths, nor should they, so lumping the two together is dangerous.

No, walking on the right on country roads is for the safety of the pedestrian not the convenience of the motorist. It helps to be able to be aware of the thing about to pass you at close quarters. For the reasons detailed above I do think that doing so on cycle paths potentially conveys safety advantages.The notion that pedestrians are obliged to escape to the verge or otherwise get out of the roadway is just a motorists' fantasy equivalent to the one which requires cyclists to move into the gutter or otherwise get out of the roadway at the first sign of their presence. The pedestrian is no less entitled to the tarmac roadway than the cyclist, horse or motorcar.

Sorry mjr, I see you posted much the same point at the same time
Ellieb
Posts: 905
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Ellieb »

I agree that the reason why pedestrians should walk on the right is for safety. The person on foot shouldn't need to step out of the road, but if a car is about to hit them, they can see it and take evasive action. The point is on a cycle path if a pedestrian is walking the same way as the cyclist, the cyclist can cycle at walking pace until they are able to overtake. If the Ped is walking towards the cyclist, what is going to happen? In my experience the cyclist stops and the Ped steps into the path of the bloke coming the other way. If you are both going in opposite directions there is going to come a point when you are going to meet head on & then have to avoid each other, going in the same way both parties can keep going until it is safe to overtake.
Brummoi
Posts: 16
Joined: 25 Jun 2014, 12:35pm
Location: Birmingham

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Brummoi »

I thought that walking on the right down pathless roads was mainly used at night time so your torch light would be picked up by the on coming vehicle.
Mark1978
Posts: 4912
Joined: 17 Jul 2012, 8:47am
Location: Chester-le-Street, County Durham

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Mark1978 »

Ellieb wrote:I agree that the reason why pedestrians should walk on the right is for safety. The person on foot shouldn't need to step out of the road, but if a car is about to hit them, they can see it and take evasive action. The point is on a cycle path if a pedestrian is walking the same way as the cyclist, the cyclist can cycle at walking pace until they are able to overtake. If the Ped is walking towards the cyclist, what is going to happen? In my experience the cyclist stops and the Ped steps into the path of the bloke coming the other way. If you are both going in opposite directions there is going to come a point when you are going to meet head on & then have to avoid each other, going in the same way both parties can keep going until it is safe to overtake.


Thanks, that was my point. It's the same when a car meets a cyclist on the road, they can stay behind them for a while at slower speed until its safe to overtake. Imagine if you were cycling the wrong way on the road if you meet oncoming traffic most of the time you'd have no option other than for both parties to have to stop.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Bicycler »

Ellieb wrote:I agree that the reason why pedestrians should walk on the right is for safety. The person on foot shouldn't need to step out of the road, but if a car is about to hit them, they can see it and take evasive action. The point is on a cycle path if a pedestrian is walking the same way as the cyclist, the cyclist can cycle at walking pace until they are able to overtake. If the Ped is walking towards the cyclist, what is going to happen? In my experience the cyclist stops and the Ped steps into the path of the bloke coming the other way. If you are both going in opposite directions there is going to come a point when you are going to meet head on & then have to avoid each other, going in the same way both parties can keep going until it is safe to overtake.
Can you really ride for any length of time behind a pedestrian at their 2mph? I think I'd be weaving all over the path or falling off :oops: In reality it rarely happens that i'm stuck behind a pedestrian for any length of time but if it did happen I think i'd prefer to dismount than try to maintain balance. Of course pedestrians may do silly things but if we cyclists take the appropriate amount of care I can't see any harm coming (the other bloke in your example should have seen that coming a mile off). As a cyclist I am happy to take on the extra responsibility for the danger I present to pedestrians by slowing, anticipating and accepting their occasionally daft movements. As a pedestrian I prefer not to entrust my safety entirely to the unknown competence of a cyclist coming up behind. If pedestrians keep right two people have to make mistakes for anyone to come to harm, if pedestrians keep left it only needs the cyclist.
Brummoi wrote:I thought that walking on the right down pathless roads was mainly used at night time so your torch light would be picked up by the on coming vehicle.

As far as I am aware the practice has always been for all times of day and long predates any belief that pedestrians should be carrying torches (60 years ago bike lights were controversial, the idea that someone should carry a lamp to walk on the road would have seemed ridiculous)
Last edited by Bicycler on 26 Jun 2014, 12:20pm, edited 1 time in total.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Bicycler »

Mark1978 wrote:at slower speed until its safe to overtake. Imagine if you were cycling the wrong way on the road if you meet oncoming traffic most of the time you'd have no option other than for both parties to have to stop.

And yet it works well for pedestrians on the road. Could this be because a cyclist's speed is significant whereas a pedestrian's isn't?
Ellieb
Posts: 905
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Ellieb »

Well, anecdotally, the only time I have been hit (brushed) by a bike while walking on a cyclepath was by someone coming in the opposite direction. (& I was on the left)
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Bicycler »

It goes without saying that it becomes irrelevant whether pedestrians should keep left or right if cyclists aren't going to keep left. As it happens, mine was from behind and I was keeping right as I had always been taught. I was less wary of bikes before that incident, I was wearing headphones and wasn't regularly checking behind but nor did I alter my course. That simple enjoyment of walking without a care on that path has been taken from me by that inconsiderate cyclist and I am now always alert to the dangers. Now I think a cyclist would have to go out of his way to hit me as being alert and keeping right allows me the maximum scope for taking evasive action if necessary. Maybe my experience has made me over cautious as I have only had to take such action on a handful of occasions despite walking the path regularly.

As I said in my first post I don't generally think it is necessary to apply strict road rules to most off road paths and I rather value the less formal more social environment they provide. However, for busy cyclepaths it helps to have some conventions and I strongly prefer the one that allows me to see the approaching danger
User avatar
Trigger
Posts: 1459
Joined: 6 Aug 2010, 11:54am
Location: Derby/Notts

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Trigger »

I think walking on the right on shared used paths is a bit dangerous, people's natural instinct is to keep away from the kerb edge and from traffic so they leave less room to "under take" them on the left, where as if they keep left they can get tighter in and leave more room for passing.

For paths that aren't along a road then it's usually a free-for-all from what I can see, usually these paths are loose stone so they can usually hear you coming and move over.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by [XAP]Bob »

mjr wrote:
Mark1978 wrote:If there's another cyclist approaching in the opposite direction you wait and overtake after they've passed. If the pedestrians are walking on the right, i.e. towards the cyclist this creates problems for both as both are approaching each other and so both parties will likely have to stop to wait for the cyclist in the opposite direction.

Why can a cyclist in the walkers-on-left situation slow and wait to overtake, but the one in the walkers-on-right situation can't? That doesn't seem realistic.

In one case you have to slow to walking pace, in the other you have to reverse at walking pace - since the pedestrian is on the "wrong" side of the road from a moving traffic perspective.

On the road the advice is to allow evasive action to protect against Mr Toad.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Bicycler
Posts: 3400
Joined: 4 Dec 2013, 3:33pm

Re: Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

Post by Bicycler »

Trigger wrote:I think walking on the right on shared used paths is a bit dangerous, people's natural instinct is to keep away from the kerb edge and from traffic so they leave less room to "under take" them on the left, where as if they keep left they can get tighter in and leave more room for passing.

I think you are on about shared use pavements here, am I right? Yes I could imagine why some pedestrians might wish to keep to the side furthest away from the carriageway (depending on direction of travel this is equally likely to mean pedestrians keeping to their right as keeping to their left). Incidentally why would the instinct to keep away from the kerb apply more to the pedestrian than the cyclist? If the effect was the same for both then the passing space would be equivalent in both scenarios.

I wasn't really considering those roadside 'facilities', I was talking about proper off-road paths such as railway routes ( a good many of which are straight, tarmacked and seem to encourage a minority of cyclists to travel far too fast).
Post Reply