Cycling UK Forum

Ruadh495 wrote:...Is it so unreasonable to expect them to behave similarly where they share space with cycles? Seems it is...

Shared paths are often not wide enough for two or more people to walk side by side. Is it reasonable to expect people to walk in single file, preventing conversation, just so that you can ride a bit faster? Some shared paths that I have been on have a nicely paved side for bicycles, and a rough gravel side full of muddy puddles for pedestrians. If I was walking, I would be on the cycle path there too.

Squishing bicycles and pedestrians together is bound to lead to confilcts, but it's the situation we have, so we need to deal with it as best we can. I find that a loud freehub and a smile helps a lot.

Mr Evil wrote:Shared paths are often not wide enough for two or more people to walk side by side. Is it reasonable to expect people to walk in single file, preventing conversation, just so that you can ride a bit faster?

Probably not, but it would be nice if walkers looked behind them sometimes.

Also, today, I was on a 5m-wide section of cycle track and two people were walking along it, equal spaces between the sides and each other. Shoulders repel, clearly. I had no hesitation in asking them to excuse me passing on the left... and they didn't seem to mind. Absent-mindedness, I guess.

I think people walking on the 9m-wide section tend to be fairly close together, less than 1m between them. Maybe there's some maximum width between 5m and 9m where people switch between equal spacing and walking side-by-side not trying to fill the whole width?

PH wrote:

Adam S wrote:

PH wrote:Your post reads like you think pedestrians are obliged to stay on one side of the line, I don't believe this to be the case.

Not 'obliged'. There is no legal requirement but it is clearly intended that pedestrians should be aware of the segregation and should at least move over to the pedestrian side when cyclists approach. Otherwise the segregation is pointless

I can't see the difference between your argument and the one motorists make about cyclists using cycle lanes. I'll share the path on equal terms with the pedestrians and the road on equal terms with he other vehicles.

Please do. I do too. I do not understand how the idea that pedestrians and cyclists encountering each other should move to or remain in their marked sides of segregated paths is advocating inequality. I really didn't expect it to be a controversial comment.

Mattyfez wrote:I agree but cyclists also have a responsibility to be aware, and considerate...

Of course. I never implied otherwise.

Mr Evil wrote:

Ruadh495 wrote:Squishing bicycles and pedestrians together is bound to lead to confilcts, but it's the situation we have, so we need to deal with it as best we can. I find that a loud freehub and a smile helps a lot.

I thought so too, loud hubs do tend to alert most people, but it's surprising how many don't recognise the sound, or maybe choose to ignore it. I have hope hubs that make quite a racket, that combined with dinging my bell still doesnt work 10% of the time, even if I back pedal and then they really make a racket.

Mr Evil wrote:

Ruadh495 wrote:...Is it so unreasonable to expect them to behave similarly where they share space with cycles? Seems it is...

Shared paths are often not wide enough for two or more people to walk side by side. Is it reasonable to expect people to walk in single file, preventing conversation, just so that you can ride a bit faster?

Personally I don't think it is. But they wouldn't walk side by side on the road, would they? That is also wide enough.

I would on a quiet rural road.I wouldn't where there was alot of traffic

Adam S wrote:I would on a quiet rural road.I wouldn't where there was alot of traffic

So you modify your pedestrian behaviour to allow for the presence of cars, but pedestrians don't seem to modify their behaviour in the presence of cycles. Not that they should, but why to they feel they have to for cars? Is it just fear, or some kind of social pressure? Both?

Well I rather think we should all (regardless of mode of transport) modify our behaviour in consideration of other traffic

I once did 30+ mph on a cycle path! I passed two stationary cyclists and gave them quite
a surprise! I think 35 mph was my top cycle path speed.

cjabingham1973 wrote:I once did 30+ mph on a cycle path! I passed two stationary cyclists and gave them quite
a surprise! I think 35 mph was my top cycle path speed.

That's a rather controversial way to start on here!

I wouldn't consider going so fast on a cycle path, especially not passing stationary cyclists. What if one of them had set off and wobbled into your path?

I went along the Pill Path from Bristol to Pill last night. I go along there a couple of times a year to remind myself how much I prefer tarmac. Anyhoo: riding my hybrid with panniers along there I found the speedy MTBers with no bells and silent hubs who came up from behind and close passed me (no choice: it's not a wide path) pretty intimidating. Just saying...

simonthepostie wrote:I have a question, what does everyone think is a reasonable maximum speed on a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists?

What is a reasonable speed for a cyclist riding along a basic country road without a footway, open to all categories of user, where pedestrians might be encountered at any time?

Assuming a 'shared path' of similar width and sightlines to that all-user road, should the cyclist's speed be any different there?

jgurney wrote:

simonthepostie wrote:I have a question, what does everyone think is a reasonable maximum speed on a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists?

What is a reasonable speed for a cyclist riding along a basic country road without a footway, open to all categories of user, where pedestrians might be encountered at any time?

Assuming a 'shared path' of similar width and sightlines to that all-user road, should the cyclist's speed be any different there?

It depends on the circumstances. I've gone 20 mph on a rural path with clear sightlines and no apparent hazards, and I've gone walking speed on a busy paths with lots of hazards. I've also gone rather faster than 20 mph on a single track rural lane.

A road is likely to be different, as even a single track road is wider than a path, but the same applies to both. One should be able to stop in the distance that can be seen to be clear. The sightlines and/or likelihood of hazards (dogs or children running out, other cyclists, etc.) should determine the appropriate speed. If there is a speed limit, it is probably a good idea not to exceed it.

jgurney wrote:

simonthepostie wrote:I have a question, what does everyone think is a reasonable maximum speed on a shared path for pedestrians and cyclists?

What is a reasonable speed for a cyclist riding along a basic country road without a footway, open to all categories of user, where pedestrians might be encountered at any time?

Assuming a 'shared path' of similar width and sightlines to that all-user road, should the cyclist's speed be any different there?

depends how far or how much of the road you can see surely, if its flat straight and you can see for miles and theres nothing there, go for it, if its a blind left hand corner you might want to be riding nearer the middle of the road at a reduced speed

Vorpal wrote:A road is likely to be different, as even a single track road is wider than a path, but the same applies to both. One should be able to stop in the distance that can be seen to be clear. The sightlines and/or likelihood of hazards (dogs or children running out, other cyclists, etc.) should determine the appropriate speed. If there is a speed limit, it is probably a good idea not to exceed it.

Single track roads start at 3.7m or less, "path"s or cycleways are up to 9m wide, so that's not necessarily true. I agree with the rest.