Shared Cycle Paths Again.

[kwackers]

or always be ready to get over to the left if you encounter traffic coming the other way.

Except when that would put you into conflict with said traffic. Common sense really.

[brooksby]

or always be ready to get over to the left if you encounter traffic coming the other way.

Except when that would put you into conflict with said traffic. Common sense really.

Like others have said: if there aren't any pedestrians to throw into the mix, surely it just makes sense to treat the cycle path like a road (ie. keep to your left, and overtake to your right). Less confusion, less stress, and you know you haven't accidentally cycled across the Channel!

[mjr]

Like others have said: if there aren't any pedestrians to throw into the mix, surely it just makes sense to treat the cycle path like a road (ie. keep to your left, and overtake to your right). Less confusion, less stress, and you know you haven't accidentally cycled across the Channel!

Most countries with higher cycling levels seem keen on putting dotted lines down the middle of cycle tracks to reinforce that it should be treated like a small road - at least at conflict points (France and Benelux, for example) if not almost everywhere (Denmark, for example). It sometimes seems like this country would rather try to save the money on paint at the expense of some injuries.

[kwackers]

Like others have said: if there aren't any pedestrians to throw into the mix, surely it just makes sense to treat the cycle path like a road (ie. keep to your left, and overtake to your right). Less confusion, less stress, and you know you haven't accidentally cycled across the Channel!

I'm not sure what your point is.

You're cycling along, a guy is heading towards you on the 'wrong' side - do you stop? Do you shout "oy, f'wit!"?
Or do you simply move over and pass on the other side - a manoeuvre which in my many years of experience results in two bicycles simply passing each other, but is dependent on the other guy who despite being on the "wrong" side, sees the bicycle and decides on principle to swerve over onto the right side and risk collision and then has the audacity to claim some form of moral superiority (if not somewhat suspect intelligence).

[Ellieb]

Well, you can make them aware that you are there without being offensive: Giving them time to move to the left and thus avoiding any risk of collision/friction.

[kwackers]

Well, you can make them aware that you are there without being offensive: Giving them time to move to the left and thus avoiding any risk of collision/friction.

Did you bother reading what I'd written?
They spot me and swerved over to the side of the path I'd moved onto to in order to avoid them in the first place; "so late I couldn't do anything much but brake".

Obviously if you think that it's perfectly acceptable to swerve into someone's path regardless of the side of the path they're on and risk a collision then you are that man and we've got nothing else to discuss.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
I think common sense prevails that you cycle on the left unless there are peds and another cyclist is mirroring what you are doing in mutual sense and safety-
Peds are on your left and you wish to pass, so you pass on the right at the same time another cyclist coming towards you attempting to pass on another peds right..........mutual wrong pass........that's ok.

There is no logic where head on cyclist pass on the right..................but seldom the oncoming cyclist is on their right and teetering so I make good eye contact and safely pass on my right.......again mutual.

Where a cyclist is on their left and meets a oncoming cyclist moving at same speed and determination cycling on their right then the cyclist who is on the right should move swiftly and safely to their left or just stop, putting a foot down is an indication that the cyclist is stopped.

Not procrastinate.

[ChrisButch]

A senior ex-military clubman of my acquaintance, when confronted by a cyclist approaching on his left, used to call out in his parade-gound voice 'OFFICERS AND GENTLEMEN TO THE LEFT'. It seemed, miraculously, to work, whatever the gender or class of the culprit.

[Cyril Haearn]

A senior ex-military clubman of my acquaintance, when confronted by a cyclist approaching on his left, used to call out in his parade-gound voice 'OFFICERS AND GENTLEMEN TO THE LEFT'. It seemed, miraculously, to work, whatever the gender or class of the culprit.

+1

[brooksby]

Like others have said: if there aren't any pedestrians to throw into the mix, surely it just makes sense to treat the cycle path like a road (ie. keep to your left, and overtake to your right). Less confusion, less stress, and you know you haven't accidentally cycled across the Channel!

I'm not sure what your point is.

You're cycling along, a guy is heading towards you on the 'wrong' side - do you stop? Do you shout "oy, f'wit!"?
Or do you simply move over and pass on the other side - a manoeuvre which in my many years of experience results in two bicycles simply passing each other, but is dependent on the other guy who despite being on the "wrong" side, sees the bicycle and decides on principle to swerve over onto the right side and risk collision and then has the audacity to claim some form of moral superiority (if not somewhat suspect intelligence).

Yes, that is what you do (move over and pass), but I think my point was that the closing speed between two bicycles is a great deal higher than between a bike and a pedestrian and it makes things significantly less stressful to expect not to have to keep an eye out for oncoming bikes. I think that's why the roads have a central separator line and motor vehicles are expected to keep left (in the UK)...

[awavey]

Like others have said: if there aren't any pedestrians to throw into the mix, surely it just makes sense to treat the cycle path like a road (ie. keep to your left, and overtake to your right). Less confusion, less stress, and you know you haven't accidentally cycled across the Channel!

Most countries with higher cycling levels seem keen on putting dotted lines down the middle of cycle tracks to reinforce that it should be treated like a small road - at least at conflict points (France and Benelux, for example) if not almost everywhere (Denmark, for example). It sometimes seems like this country would rather try to save the money on paint at the expense of some injuries.

most countries with higher cycling levels dont just put up a sign on a substandard pavement and say there you go get on with cycling on that. they might actually consider decent sight lines, and blind entry/exit points, tree roots, who knows they might even sweep the broken glass away that magically congregates on the cycle lane side but never the pedestrian side, or the leaf mulch in the winter.

till then Ill ride in the position that I feel is the safest for me and others using a shared path together, and it wont always be nailed to the left side

[jgurney]

it just makes sense to treat the cycle path like a road

In what sense is a cycle path (unless it is private property being used by permission) not a road?

If it is a public highway (and even a public footpath is a highway) then surely the same rules apply there as do on any other highway? The presence or absence of motor vehicles makes no difference to the legal status of any highway.