[XAP]Bob wrote: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"
To be fair it mentions oncoming traffic I cannae see any suggestion of 'motorised'. There has never been a default "keep left" for pedestrians to revert to. The convention that pedestrians should keep right not only predated motorised traffic but it predated the convention of left driving vehicles. It is likely that the Highway code rule originally just described the existing convention rather than any conscious attempt to improve safety. My pedantry aside, I'm sure you are right in saying that it has been left in the Highway code because it does improve pedestrian safety. Given the narrow widths, poor sightlines and pinch points of many uk cycle paths and the poor standards of cycling I witness on a regular basis both through a lack of competence and a lack of patience I cannot share your faith that I do not need to be able to see the non-motorised traffic approaching for my own safety.
Your safety is simply not endangered by cyclists in the same way that it is by motorists. The speeds are inherently lower, the mass vastly so.
As a cyclist I can happily slow behind someone who is walking away from me, and wait for some time until an overtaking opportunity approaches. If the pedestrian is walking towards me then I MUST either stop (and force them to stop) or overtake in the time it takes us to converge. And as I'm approaching there is a tendency for the pedestrian to try and move out of the path of the vehicle he can see - that would be inevitably into the path of the vehicle he can't see/hear coming from behind.
The road doesn't function well for pedestrians, I think we can probably all agree on that. But one of the reasons for that is the ridiculous discrepancy in mass and energy between a pedestrian and a motor-vehicle. That issue simply doesn't exist on a shared use facility (here I am assuming away from other traffic).
If the path is narrow enough for this to be an issue at all then having half the people stay right whilst the other half stay left is a recipe for, at least, serious inconvenience to all. If everyone stays to the left (which, aside from on water, is the convention in this country) then the paths are a much easier place to navigate - overtaking can be done by the normal methods, rather than by everyone coming to a standstill.
Of course sensible width paths would be preferable - and looking at the blog post (although not yet the videos) I'd be visiting with a bunch of lads to move the stones into the fenced cage.
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.
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.
Not having ridden the paths yourself, you probably wouldn't realize that the Barnton path referred to is not actually a connected part of the main network. Compared to the the main part, this section features a relatively high speed descent from a road into a short 200m semi-rural section which sees relatively little pedestrian traffic. Compared to the main section, which is flat and features a high level of people on foot and no hills(being ex railway), this is highly atypical. So quoting Dave's blog (who I know well,) doesn't really convince me as an argument. I''me not really sure what the installation of these gated chicanes have to do with this discussion.
edit: more to the point. Yes,these paths in general are indeed a potential source of pedestrian/cyclist conflict. That is why I'm suggesting that there is a preferable way of using them.-based on my experience of both walking & riding them every day.
TBH I think all this "pedestrians should keep right/left" is beside the point. On a shared path, pedestrians will walk where they will (obviously deliberately blocking the path is anti-social). When cycling along shared paths, it's my responsibility as the vehicle operator to take any avoiding action necessary to be safe - whichever side they walk on (or even if they walk down the middle as many do). If this slows me unacceptably, then I will need to choose a different route/leave earlier etc.
AlaninWales wrote:TBH I think all this "pedestrians should keep right/left" is beside the point. On a shared path, pedestrians will walk where they will (obviously deliberately blocking the path is anti-social). When cycling along shared paths, it's my responsibility as the vehicle operator to take any avoiding action necessary to be safe - whichever side they walk on (or even if they walk down the middle as many do). If this slows me unacceptably, then I will need to choose a different route/leave earlier etc.
Yes, ultimately, I agree with AlanInWales and it's up to the rider to give way, but it all works better with a bit of give and take to keep things moving.
Also, if we are talking about cycle paths and cycle lanes (as in part of the Original Post) then arguably the pedestrians should not behave like obstructive swines because they have footways nearby which we're not intended to use. Any obstructive walkers deliberately hijacking cycle paths/lanes really need to think about what they're doing - will it really make walking much nicer if cycling becomes so awful that some riders switch to motor vehicles? I think not.
I'd prefer people to walk on the right and above all to keep looking and listening and be aware of other users on roads and paths, but if they don't, I deal with it. Still beats driving IMO.
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.
Regardless of the wording of the law or Highway Code bear in mind that strict on road rules cannot be applied to off road paths. One of the reasons why unsegregated paths are often preferred is to allow all users to enjoy the use of the full width of the path. We need to bear in mind that we are not on a road and other path users behave accordingly. They may not be expecting cyclists approaching them at speed, they may be wearing headphones, in a world of their own or accompanied by free range dogs and children. I have often suggested on this forum that if we cyclists start insisting upon modifying the behaviour of other path users the moment we are allowed to use paths, then we may find that they will be opposed to the opening of other paths to cyclists.
Other cyclists may be beginners or children or may have little road sense. Again, we need to remember that we are not on a road and that these are some of the very few places where cyclists too young, inexperienced or unconfident to use the roads can enjoy the act of cycling.
(emphasis added) I agree that the obligation is the cyclists'. We are in the pedestrians' domain and should adapt to their behaviour rather than try to bring with us the same regimentation and "keep the traffic moving at all costs" attitude which has displaced so many of us from the roads. We know this creates a hierarchy of speed, a tyrannical expectation of the faster moving that those they endanger ought to do all they can to accommodate their extra speed.
I would not say it is the right of the pedestrian to be deliberately obstructive, more that it is their right to be carefree. My regular walk down the busy local path is an hour round trip. I used it before it was tarmacked over. Back then I wore a Walkman and can't remember looking over my shoulder once. Now I feel the need to keep alert and to keep to one side, an enjoyable necessary journey has become a tiresome chore. This clear loss of utility is not caused by cycling per se (I maintain we could share almost any path with the correct amount of courtesy). It is caused by those inconsiderate cyclists whose idea of their right to progress at excessive speed and their belief in my obligation to enable that excessive speed and be as little of an inconvenience as possible is incompatible with my enjoyment of the path (at least at busy times).
Isnt the main problem that the paths are simply not really suitable for the purpose, and amount of use, they have been designated for? If they were wider (Where possible), would this not solve many of the conflicts of interests?
That's one way of dealing with it, but then you could just as easily make the same case for motor vehicles. If the roads aren't wide enough to cope with the traffic, make them wider and add more lanes. We all know where that leads to. Its easier, cheaper and more civilized just to be polite, realize we can't all have our cake and eat it and just get along with each other. I believe wider lanes would invite faster speeds from cyclists, more crashes and injuries to peds and cyclists alike and more calls from the pedestrian masses to have us banned from more rights of way.
Bill
“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
After reading through the many replies to this thread it's clear that there is no agreed etiquette for cycle paths / lanes / towpaths except for slowing down when coming across other users. But thank you for your enthusiam in replying!
I am reminded of a trip to Vietnam late last year where there are few cars and fewer rules of the road that I could see. The cities are congested with thousands of mopeds, motorbikes, bicycles and pedestrians all sharing the same over crowded space. I saw mopeds overloaded with crates, pigs, sheet glass, TVs and multiple passengers, some even pulling overloaded trailers to boot. Pedestrians just step off the pavement into oncoming traffic without looking as there is never a gap in the traffic to wait for. Mopeds mount the pavement if the road ahead is blocked or turn into oncoming traffic at junctions if it suits them.
You would expect to see carnage every couple of hundred yards yet in the 3 weeks that we were there we only saw two minor shunts.
It all worked because everyone went slow, I would say you would be lucky to get over 10 mph on any city street there, 5 mph being more realistic estimate.
So maybe that's the only rule we need to observe here, keep it slow and you will be able to overcome most obsticles in your way.
Bill, I agree to an extent, though unlike cars cyclists are fairly limited in their maximum speed and a good many believe it perfectly okay to travel at that speed (be it 10 or 15mph) on the existing infrastructure regardless of conditions (though as I look I see that the leader for the Strava segment running the length of my local path posted an average speed of 40kph [insert rude word here!] ). Like road lanes it might be beneficial to avoid certain problematic widths which allow overtaking as long as a pedestrian doesn't deviate from a die straight line. I'm not eactly proposing cycle motorways, but certainly fairly busy paths where cyclists can pass but can't give pedestrians plenty of space when passing are problematic and would benefit from a little extra width. They require a slowing of pace or maybe waiting for a widening which a minority of cyclists seem unable to comprehend. At the other extreme are minor roads which are now closed to through motor traffic. I find these great on a bike and never have any problems with other road users. If all cycle paths could be made this wide I'd be happy (though I'd still be walking on the right )
Brummoi, I'm glad to know we haven't put you off with a rather long and opinionated discussion (they don't all end up that way). I think you are right about speed leading to conflict. I suspect the fact that cycling in the UK is so focused upon cycle sport leads to a much higher proportion of cyclists who expect to travel at a higher speed than is normal where utility cycling is commonplace.
Yep - stepping back a moment. I tend to walk on the left, since that what I would like people to do. Now I don't always do that, and I am sure that at times I am erratic.
The *most* important request (note that is is a request, not a rule) is that (adult) pedestrians behave predictably. We all know that children and dogs will do as they please (normally about the worst possible thing at the worst possible time) - so "ultra slow" is a reasonable approach around them. Adults however are, in theory, much more predictable, and we should be able to pass by pretty much unimpeded without significant anxiety for either party. I don't actively care on most paths - but on a busy path it strikes me as perverse to have two groups of traffic following opposing conventions.
I have no objection to someone overtaking me at 70mph on the road, so long as they do it sufficiently far away... Most people are happy to walk on a pavement just 1-2 feet away from lorries passing at (supposedly) 30mph, yet faced by a cyclist at the same speed/distance they think it's too close.
There is a serious issue there in terms of perceptions - clearly being passed by a lorry is more dangerous than being passed by a cyclist at the same distance, noting that in general the lorry will actually be significantly faster as well.
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 wrote:Back then I wore a Walkman and can't remember looking over my shoulder once.
Then you had a good innings and I think you were lucky not to fall victim to one of the other path dangers I mentioned above. I grew up in the countryside and I never have used a Walkman in a way that prevented me hearing and being aware of my surroundings. That's just not safe. Even in completely green space, there's everything from farm vehicles going about their work, through wild animals, to hot air balloons landing. If you're plugged into headphones so deeply that one is ignorant of your surroundings, is that really enjoying the path in its whole glory?
Nevertheless, I agree riders should slow down if in doubt and I acknowledge there are a few inconsiderate riders using shared paths and they are also wrong and probably bear more responsibility due to their greater kinetic energy, although less than if they were a lorry - morally, if not legally yet in this country. I think there's some organisations pressing for a change in that... one might involve the letters C T and C...
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 wrote:Back then I wore a Walkman and can't remember looking over my shoulder once.
Then you had a good innings and I think you were lucky not to fall victim to one of the other path dangers I mentioned above. I grew up in the countryside and I never have used a Walkman in a way that prevented me hearing and being aware of my surroundings. That's just not safe. Even in completely green space, there's everything from farm vehicles going about their work, through wild animals, to hot air balloons landing. If you're plugged into headphones so deeply that one is ignorant of your surroundings, is that really enjoying the path in its whole glory?
Well, I'm quite a keen hiker and even back when I used one I wouldn't have been using them out in the country. I'm all for peace and quiet and solitude in a rural idyll. Semi-urban footpaths surrounding grim northern industrial towns are another matter entirely. It was traffic,dangerous wildlife and landing aircraft free I assure you. The journey was a necessity, it was however a good opportunity to keep on top of the latest music (when I cared about such things) and get lost in my thoughts. It made the journey a lot less tedious
mjr wrote: If you're plugged into headphones so deeply that one is ignorant of your surroundings, is that really enjoying the path in its whole glory?
But as discussed in previous threads relating to headphone/earphone use, not everyone who uses them is ignorant of their surroundings. Some say they feel cut off from the rest of the world and unaware of what's going on around them while others such as myself are equally at ease in cycling whilst having their eardrums massaged by Doris Day or massacred by Nine Inch Nails. Mirror use helps enormously here. The sound of some half-wit giving the engine some welly behind me makes me more nervous and jumpy than listening to Driving My Life Away by Rhett Atkins YeeHaw as they say
edit: Forgot about wind noise, especially when wearing a helmet and the straps, as someone pointed out previously, churn up the air so you can't hear anything in the countryside anyway.
Bill
“Ride as much or as little, or as long or as short as you feel. But ride.” ~ Eddy Merckx It's a rich man whos children run to him when his pockets are empty.
). Like road lanes it might be beneficial to avoid certain problematic widths which allow overtaking as long as a pedestrian doesn't deviate from a die straight line. I'm not eactly proposing cycle motorways, but certainly fairly busy paths where cyclists can pass but can't give pedestrians plenty of space when passing are problematic and would benefit from a little extra width. They require a slowing of pace or maybe waiting for a widening which a minority of cyclists seem unable to comprehend. At the other extreme are minor roads which are now closed to through motor traffic. I find these great on a bike and never have any problems with other road users. If all cycle paths could be made this wide I'd be happy (though I'd still be walking on the right 
)