Hello and a question about cycle path etiquette

[mjr]

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.

Huh? Why reverse, rather than just stop a little way out while they walk past you? OK, it might temporarily gridlock you with the oncoming cycle but that's the correct outcome IMO - and it's usually avoided in practice by both riders naturally adjusting speed to desynchronise their passing moves. I'm reminded once more of all the pedestrians being mown down by cyclists in the video a couple of pages down https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... -capacity/

On the road the advice is to allow evasive action to protect against Mr Toad.

Source for that claim, please! And again, should walkers bow to Mr Toad while in the hedge or should Mr Toad be prosecuted for some driving offence?

[Ellieb]

Source for that claim, please! And again, should walkers bow to Mr Toad while in the hedge or should Mr Toad be prosecuted for some driving offence?

I think you are missing the point... It isn't that walkers are expected to get out of the way, but that in the interests of safety , if you can see the car coming towards you, you can see if it is going to hit you, and if it is then you can get out of the way. Yes, the driver is guilty of driving without due care or whatever, but the fact is you won't be dead, so the advice is given with that in mind.

[[XAP]Bob]

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.

Huh? Why reverse, rather than just stop a little way out while they walk past you? OK, it might temporarily gridlock you with the oncoming cycle but that's the correct outcome IMO - and it's usually avoided in practice by both riders naturally adjusting speed to desynchronise their passing moves. I'm reminded once more of all the pedestrians being mown down by cyclists in the video a couple of pages down https://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.c ... -capacity/

The point being that someone has to come to a complete halt, and probably more than one person (the cyclist and pedestrian in this example. If pedestrians and cyclists (who are similar massed objects, travelling at relatively low speeds) both keep to the left then no-one needs to come to a complete halt - the cyclist (assuming they are the faster moving party) can simply slow behind the pedestrian until it is safe to overtake.
Moreover the pedestrian could easily see the oncoming cyclist and step across out of their way - only to get hit from the rear.

On the road the advice is to allow evasive action to protect against Mr Toad.

Source for that claim, please! And again, should walkers bow to Mr Toad while in the hedge or should Mr Toad be prosecuted for some driving offence?

On the road the advice allows the pedestrian to be aware of oncoming vehicles - that allows all sorts of things - less surprise is one, and the ability to get out of the way of an illegally driven vehicle is one other.
Yes Mr Toad should be prosecuted, but we live in a world where the judge and jurors are all close imitators of Mr Toad...

[kwackers]

Pedestrians are only in any danger on shared paths if inconsiderate cyclists are present.

[mjr]

The point being that someone has to come to a complete halt, and probably more than one person (the cyclist and pedestrian in this example. If pedestrians and cyclists (who are similar massed objects, travelling at relatively low speeds) both keep to the left then no-one needs to come to a complete halt - the cyclist (assuming they are the faster moving party) can simply slow behind the pedestrian until it is safe to overtake.

As Bicycler explained a few posts ago, this is far worse because it's rather difficult to ride at a slow walking speed, while the walker knows nothing about a conflicting cyclist approaching and misjudging it until it's too late - it only takes one person to get it wrong, compared to two if people walk on the right.

I suggest that the walker doesn't come to a complete halt in the other case, but possibly both cyclists have to stop if they misjudge the timing, but that's a good thing for low-speed stability and therefore for safety.

Moreover the pedestrian could easily see the oncoming cyclist and step across out of their way - only to get hit from the rear.

Only if all three are idiots - the walker is an idiot for moving left without looking, the oncoming rider is an idiot and doesn't overtake correctly and the rider approaching from behind the walker is an idiot and neither rings a bell nor slows for the congestion - and in a situation with that many idiots, there's not much rules will do to avoid a collision and all bets are off!

Source for that claim, please! And again, should walkers bow to Mr Toad while in the hedge or should Mr Toad be prosecuted for some driving offence?

On the road the advice allows the pedestrian to be aware of oncoming vehicles - that allows all sorts of things - less surprise is one, and the ability to get out of the way of an illegally driven vehicle is one other.

Is that your opinion or is that why it was put in the highway code?

And why doesn't that same logic apply to shared paths? Would you prefer walkers to be surprised by cycles on shared paths more often and less able to get out of the way of wanton and furious cyclists?

[mjr]

Pedestrians are only in any danger on shared paths if inconsiderate cyclists are present.

Sadly not true. All the other usual path dangers are still there: out of control animals, unsafe hedgecutting, roadworks being undertaken without proper warning signage, motor vehicles used by various maintenance and utility providers... these are a few of the other dangers I've faced over the years. Actually, I was behind a maintenance truck today and it did a left turn at a T junction between paths, no indicators - but at least it was moving slowly, slower than cycles.

Inconsiderate riders are actually a fairly minor danger compared to the others: you'll probably hurt a cyclist too if you collide, so they're usually interested in not picking that fight... but if too many people walk like prats, they might not get where they're going efficiently, give up and use a car instead and cars still kill far far far more walkers than cyclists... so hey, everyone keep looking around, keep it all moving along and it's nice to be nice, eh?

[kwackers]

Sadly not true. All the other usual path dangers are still there: out of control animals, unsafe hedgecutting, roadworks being undertaken without proper signage, motor vehicles used by various maintenance and utility providers...

Can't say I have any issues with any of them. Even cyclists in the main aren't an issue - most are courteous. But sadly like everything there are a few.

I've been jogging along on the right side of a path (in excess of 12 feet wide) only to have a cyclist shoot past in the 18 inches to my right shouting "keep left". Sadly I didn't see or hear him coming otherwise he'd have ended up in the bushes after colliding with my arm.

One guy I did see coming shot around a blind bend on a narrow footpath with no chance of avoiding me or stopping. I managed to sidestep and simultaneously smack the top of his head with my hand - he was wearing a helmet although it somehow managed to leave his head and land on the floor next to me. He shouted abuse from about 20m away but made no attempt to come and collect his helmet.

Several times I've had groups of cyclists barrel along the full width of a path whilst heading towards me and show no signs of moving over, although in these cases simply holding one's arms out is usually enough to force them to slow down and bunch up.

It's not rocket science, if you can't share a path then don't use a shared path.

[Ellieb]

I'm a bit disturbed at the number of people who find it difficult to ride at walking speed....... However, in practice you often don't have to. If you have any sense of anticipation at all you can slow up behind the pedestrian and wait for the gap to appear. If you are able to go at, say 6mph, you will have a closing speed of 3mph or less and therefore plenty of time. If you are going towards the Ped, the closing seed is 9mph = less time to decide what to do.

[Ellieb]

I suggest that the walker doesn't come to a complete halt in the other case, but possibly both cyclists have to stop if they misjudge the timing, but that's a good thing for low-speed stability and therefore for safety.

So as a walker, I'm going along and a bike is coming straight towards me, which then stops in front of me. I then have to turn around, hope the bike coming the other way knows I'm going to step into the path, walk around the stopped bike and continue on my way. If there is another bike coming, I am going to have to guess whether he is going to stop, keep to his left or assume I'm going to move to my right.Alternatively. As a cyclist, I approach a walker. Move into the centre of the path, in the way of a bike coming the other way and stop dead.? Sorry, that isn't a sensible way to handle things on a busy cycle way. In fact it is a recipe for an accident. I can see if there isn't much in the way of foot/bike traffic it might work, but if you have half a dozen people involved it would just be chaos.

[Bicycler]

I'm a bit disturbed at the number of people who find it difficult to ride at walking speed....... However, in practice you often don't have to. If you have any sense of anticipation at all you can slow up behind the pedestrian and wait for the gap to appear. If you are able to go at, say 6mph, you will have a closing speed of 3mph or less and therefore plenty of time. If you are going towards the Ped, the closing seed is 9mph = less time to decide what to do.

I'm glad you brought up the anticipation aspect that means you don't often have to stop or slow to walking pace. Now to put that extra 3mph into perspective we license car drivers with the (in my view unreasonable) expectation that they can make judgements with closing speeds of 120mph. Average urban road situations may involve closing speeds of 60mph and the utopian ideal 20mph speed limits produce closing speeds of 40mph. Now is it unsafe for humans to make judgements at speed or is 3mph really not significant?

[Ellieb]

The answer, quite simply is that overtaking on a cyclepath is completely different to doing so in a car on the road. For a start, you are suggesting that two people in the same 'lane' should be going in opposite directions, if this happened on the road, tell me what the result would be. If I was driving at 30, there was someone coming towards me at 15 mph on my side of the road, with someone on the other side doing 30 , do you think that would be a good idea or an easy situation to judge?

[Bicycler]

Not overtakes but vehicle operators travelling in opposite directions still have to factor in each other's behaviour and even without the other vehicle a driver at the national speed limit is still approaching every static object and road hazard at a closing speed of 60. The eyes and brain which are used to make those judgements are the same ones which allegedly have so much trouble with the jump from 6 to 9. If the road comparison isn't close enough for you how about two walkers (closing speed 6mp) or joggers (10mph) on a pavement. Do we really think that the latter situation is significantly harder for humans to judge? Also, if cycling at walking pace is no problem, couldn't the 6mph cyclist just slow to 3mph, neutralising the effect of the pedestrian's speed whilst still allowing the cyclist to pass more quickly than if the pedestrian was walking in the same direction?

[Ellieb]

All I can say is that I live next to a very busy cycle path which I use every day. (The North Edinburgh path) My daily experience of using this path, when you might easily have over a dozen walkers/cyclist in sight during the rush hour, is that most walkers keep left, and I find it much, much easier when they do. Everyone else using the path, appears to find it the same, there are far more problems with an oncoming person on 'my' side of the path than if we are all going in the same direction.
EDIT For the simple reason that you can slot in behind a walker, match your speed to theirs and then choose when to overtake. You simple cannot do that if you are heading towards each other.

[mjr]

I'm a bit disturbed at the number of people who find it difficult to ride at walking speed.......

I'm sorry to hear that. It's been established for years in things like LTN 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design page 16 which says "At low speeds, cyclists are prone to wobble and deviate from a straight line" and suggests 7mph as the cut-off. (That book goes downhill after that ) How many people walk at 7mph?

However, in practice you often don't have to. If you have any sense of anticipation at all you can slow up behind the pedestrian and wait for the gap to appear. If you are able to go at, say 6mph, you will have a closing speed of 3mph or less and therefore plenty of time. If you are going towards the Ped, the closing seed is 9mph = less time to decide what to do.

But in practice, still plenty of time if everyone's being considerate. See the video I linked earlier (post at the top of this page atm).

The answer, quite simply is that overtaking on a cyclepath is completely different to doing so in a car on the road. For a start, you are suggesting that two people in the same 'lane' should be going in opposite directions, if this happened on the road, tell me what the result would be.

(Emphasis mine.) It does happen on the road, every time someone walks along a road without a footway and follow Highway Code Rule 2. People can cope with this. It's the safest possible approach for all involved.

Edinburgh's paths stand accused of manufactured conflict by many articles like http://mccraw.co.uk/barnton-cycle-path- ... -conflict/ - not having ridden them myself, I'm wary of taking them as examples of good practice.

[[XAP]Bob]

7mph? I rarely limit myself to two wheel, but I can still do 2-3 happily.

The difference between doing 2mph and being stopped is huge - if HGBs drove on the right and everyone else on the left we'd have chaos.

The HC does suggest that "stay right" is to allow peds on a shared use highway to see the motorised traffic approaching for their own safety. Without the huge discrepancy in mass and velocity that logic is no longer needed - so revert to the default "keep left"