What's with cycling on the RIGHT of a path?

[jgurney]

With pedestrians I prefer them on their left. If I'm doing 15mph, and they are walking at 3 mph the closing speed is 12 mph, .... If they are walking towards me on my side, then the closing speed is 18 mph.

That won't make very much difference if you collide with them. If they were facing you rather than your passing them from behind on the same side, a collision would be less likely in the first place as they would see you were there.

A situation I have seen on a number of occasions is where a pedestrian was walking towards me on my left. I could see another cyclist coming up behind the pedestrian, so stayed to my left. As the other cyclist is about to pass the pedestrian, the pedestrian decides to get out of my way by walking into the path of the other cyclist. I have seen a couple of very near misses like this.

That is due to the pedestrian being over-deferential and not following the simple rule that pedestrians walk on the right and stay there. It is the vehicles which have to move over around them: pedestrians in the right place are not required to get out of a vehicle's way. Vehicles in that situation have to move out of the pedestrian's path.

[jgurney]

for a lot of shared path users they are perceived as not being roads or highways .... A lot of people feel them to be a place where things are more relaxed and the need to think about rules does not apply.

The idea that roads without motor traffic need fewer rules makes good enough sense. There was, after all, a lot less highway and traffic legislation in existence before the IC engine. However the idea that there should be opposite rules for pedestrians depending on the presence or absence of motor traffic does not seem to me to make any sense. The idea that there is no need for any rules of the road in the absence of motor traffic seems to me to be based in the idea that anything without an engine is either a pedestrian or does not count at all: it is treating all non-motorised traffic as being the same thing as pedestrians on a footway.

Arguably, apart from pedestrians on exclusive footways and footpaths, the only road users really entitled to mill about all over the road are herds. I've yet to see the shepherd or dairyperson who could get livestock to stay on one side of the road.

That said ... in Bristol last week I noticed this case of space-sharing with no scope for compromise....

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jonathang ... ed-public/

[mjr]

A situation I have seen on a number of occasions is where a pedestrian was walking towards me on my left. I could see another cyclist coming up behind the pedestrian, so stayed to my left. As the other cyclist is about to pass the pedestrian, the pedestrian decides to get out of my way by walking into the path of the other cyclist. I have seen a couple of very near misses like this.

Then it sounds like the other cyclists were passing too close (possibly because the cycleway was too narrow), too fast and probably without audible warning of approach.

[Audax67]

On most paths I've been on "ride or walk anywhere you like" seems to be the rule, with the proviso that dogs on long leads must walk on the side opposite their owners. When a group of walkers is occupying the full width of the path it is sufficient for one or two from the middle to move to either side, leaving a gap slightly wider than the handlebars. As a cyclist threads this gap it is customary, but not obligatory, to treat him to a short sally of sarcastic remarks, especially on Sunday afternoons just after lunch.

[eileithyia]

Seems to have been a day for meeting joyful others on shared paths. First one a path with a defined white line and definite marked cycle and pedestrian sides.... aproaching 2 walkers from behind, spread out so they were both in each part of the path, called out and both moved into the cycle lane!!!!!!!!! Commented that we get abuse if we ride in the pedestrian side... only to receive a mouthful of abuse from the 'kindly' gent including fall off and break your neck.... charming.

Next incident was catching a young lady on a bike on a shared use path, she was drifting to her right as we approached and as I closed I realised she was holding a phone in her left hand...... called to son behind, 'take care she is looking at her phone' (no one comment to her directly) to again receive a mouthful of abuse about how rude I was to her????!!!!!! After passing I thought of all the witty things I could have said, Like I was not actually talking to you but warning another rider of the potential danger... and how riding one handed in an area of walkers, dogs off leads and other cyclists was not particularly safe....... As you do.....

[Bmblbzzz]

Marked cycle and pedestrian sides do not work. I would never expect pedestrians to keep out of the cycle side. If they move to the 'cycle' side, you pass on the 'walk' side.

[pwa]

I don't use shared use paths a lot because we don't have any close to me, but when I do I use it as a chance to stop and talk to people. And maybe that is one reason that I don't have fractious encounters. When i meet walkers I give them a friendly greeting before they have a chance to consider how they want to react to me being there. I smile at them. I chat if they seem in the mood for that. If I meet a dog walker I'll talk about dogs with them. This is all leisurely cycling, of course, not commuting, so I have time for it. It might be different if I were in a rush.

[Cyril Haearn]

I don't use shared use paths a lot because we don't have any close to me, but when I do I use it as a chance to stop and talk to people. And maybe that is one reason that I don't have fractious encounters. When i meet walkers I give them a friendly greeting before they have a chance to consider how they want to react to me being there. I smile at them. I chat if they seem in the mood for that. If I meet a dog walker I'll talk about dogs with them. This is all leisurely cycling, of course, not commuting, so I have time for it. It might be different if I were in a rush.

+1
A good way to meet people, better than going to the pub

[mjr]

Not in a rush, but I do usually have places I want to get to in reasonable time and this is meant to be transport! Also, it's barely possible to hear one's own voice over the nearby A10 or A149, much less anyone else's!

[Ric2013]

Next incident was catching a young lady on a bike on a shared use path, she was drifting to her right as we approached and as I closed I realised she was holding a phone in her left hand...... called to son behind, 'take care she is looking at her phone' (no one comment to her directly) to again receive a mouthful of abuse about how rude I was to her????!!!!!! After passing I thought of all the witty things I could have said, Like I was not actually talking to you but warning another rider of the potential danger... and how riding one handed in an area of walkers, dogs off leads and other cyclists was not particularly safe....... As you do.....

Seen from her point of view, it probably did come across as rude. I know you were probably trying to avoid confrontation by not speaking to her directly but, when you think about it, she probably saw it as you making a point of ignoring her and instead talking ABOUT her instead. Sometimes you can't win

[Cyril Haearn]

Marked cycle and pedestrian sides do not work. I would never expect pedestrians to keep out of the cycle side. If they move to the 'cycle' side, you pass on the 'walk' side.

[mjr]

Marked cycle and pedestrian sides do not work. I would never expect pedestrians to keep out of the cycle side. If they move to the 'cycle' side, you pass on the 'walk' side.

That's illegal like cycling on a footway alongside a carriageway, but one famous case where a camera-using cyclist refused to pay the fine for leaving a substandard cycleway and infringing the footway was decided to be "not in the public interest" to prosecute. Make of that what you will.

I have very mixed feelings about cycleways with adjacent footways for this sort of reason, that people can and do still walk on both, so it's probably better to have the full width available to both for people to sort it out themselves. One I can remember near me had its white line removed nearly 20 years ago and there seems pretty much no chance of the councils spending money on the white paint to reintroduce it. The few remaining ones are the responsibility of Highways England and they are basically ignored: the 1.5m cycleways are too narrow for the current volume of traffic, the cycleway is counterintuitively OUTSIDE the footway (because otherwise it would be too difficult to make some of the tight turns needed to cross side roads), and now many people treat the white lines as centre lines, keeping left of it except where turning circles encourage otherwise, with walkers almost always using the outer edge, furthest away from motorists.

I know cycleways with adjacent footways work in other countries. Even in other cities like Cambridge. But would they work in much of the UK? People walking do tend to ignore signs we don't like...

[kwackers]

Where footpaths are split into 'cyclist' and 'pedestrian' sides it's a foregone conclusion pedestrians will prefer the cyclist side, or at best they'll prefer the cyclists side and their dog the pedestrian side.

Can't really blame them it's wider for a start!
In all the cases near me the choice of sides makes no sense as almost always it's obvious why a pedestrian would prefer to walk on the cyclist's side. It's almost as if the person designing them hasn't a clue...

[mjr]

Can't really blame them it's wider for a start!
In all the cases near me the choice of sides makes no sense as almost always it's obvious why a pedestrian would prefer to walk on the cyclist's side. It's almost as if the person designing them hasn't a clue...

Well, the walking side was wider with the HEng ones I mentioned, 2.5m wide compared to the 1.5m for two-way( ) cycling, but of course it's pretty obvious people would walk further away from the lorries. Actually, except for the presence of tramline tiles and tight corners, a quick paint swap would fix it.

[Bmblbzzz]

I have very mixed feelings about cycleways with adjacent footways for this sort of reason, that people can and do still walk on both, so it's probably better to have the full width available to both for people to sort it out themselves.

Yes. If there is to be a white line it's far more use dividing directions (for cyclists -- I would not expect pedestrians to observe directional walking).

I know cycleways with adjacent footways work in other countries. Even in other cities like Cambridge. But would they work in much of the UK? People walking do tend to ignore signs we don't like...

There is a difference, in practice even if not in law, between a cycleway with adjacent footway and a pavement (footway) you're allowed to cycle on. Most obviously, in width, surface quality and previous established use.