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

[MikeF]

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.

One problem is that they are often not signed frequently or well enough, but I agree they are unsatisfactory. There's one or more in Crawley where the sides swap! But then West Sussex CC classes cycling as leisure akin to walking and horse riding.

[kwackers]

But then West Sussex CC classes cycling as leisure akin to walking and horse riding.

If it's a shared path then imo it should be ridden as though it were a leisure activity.

If there's any peds etc around or any chance they could suddenly appear then speeds should be 'leisurely', if not then knock yourself out.

I cycle along the Liverpool waterfront to avoid the dual carriageway into Liverpool but it is a lot slower (although massively more pleasant).
It has good sight lines, wide paths and only a few places peds can suddenly appear. If there's nobody around I've often used the wind to hit 30mph along there, when there are people around I slow down to about 15 and drop to 8-10 to pass them (less if I can't pass on the far side).
I'm pretty rare though, I often see cyclists barrel through groups of pedestrians and then folk wonder why we get a bad name...

TBH it's not a particularly crowded route so that's fine, if it was busier and I didn't want to ride slower then I'd simply revert to the road. Ultimately though as a commuter it only really means getting out of bed 5 mins earlier.

[MikeF]

But then West Sussex CC classes cycling as leisure akin to walking and horse riding.

If it's a shared path then imo it should be ridden as though it were a leisure activity.

But if one side is marked for pedestrians and the other for cycling it's not shared but segregated. As regards WSCC all cycling is a leisure activity; it's not considered as a means of transport as that's what cars are for. All cyclists do on roads is to hold up busy more important motorists.

[kwackers]

But if one side is marked for pedestrians and the other for cycling it's not shared but segregated. As regards WSCC all cycling is a leisure activity; it's not considered as a means of transport as that's what cars are for. All cyclists do on roads is to hold up busy more important motorists.

Marking a side for pedestrians is as meaningful as marking a bike lane on a road - all it does is make the faster vehicle feel aggrieved if the other party isn't in it.
To work they require proper segregation in both cases, not a bit of paint.

It's all about ownership and the problems that entails. It's a perfectly valid thing to swap "car" for "bike", "road" for "path" and "cyclist" for "pedestrian" in all these discussions.
What we get then is "All pedestrians do on paths is to hold up more important cyclists".

Anyone who thinks they need to travel faster than the slow traffic but without making the necessary compromises is THE problem, not the slower traffic.

[jgurney]

If it's a shared path then imo it should be ridden as though it were a leisure activity. ..... Anyone who thinks they need to travel faster than the slow traffic but without making the necessary compromises is THE problem, not the slower traffic.

A position which might work if actually applied to the motorists as well.

What is really happening seems to be motorists are not being expected to travel at walking pace and weave around pedestrians on their way to work, etc, but cyclists are.

If all cycle/ped shared routes are to be treated as leisure routes (although why, when all-user shared routes are not?) then they should only be installed as circuits around parks, etc, not be used on routes which actually connect one place to another, as in fact they are.

[kwackers]

If it's a shared path then imo it should be ridden as though it were a leisure activity. ..... Anyone who thinks they need to travel faster than the slow traffic but without making the necessary compromises is THE problem, not the slower traffic.

A position which might work if actually applied to the motorists as well.

What is really happening seems to be motorists are not being expected to travel at walking pace and weave around pedestrians on their way to work, etc, but cyclists are.

If all cycle/ped shared routes are to be treated as leisure routes (although why, when all-user shared routes are not?) then they should only be installed as circuits around parks, etc, not be used on routes which actually connect one place to another, as in fact they are.

Why does it have to apply to motorists before we're willing to accept responsibility for the way we ride?
That makes no sense. It's not safe for motorists to not take care around cyclists even though we know they don't and therefore we don't think we need to take care around pedestrians?

Sorry the comparison doesn't work. Because the occasional motorist drives like a ******* doesn't mean we should cycle like ****** (although some obviously do).
Regardless of what you think the idea that we should ride considerately around others isn't open for discussion, it's an absolute.

As for the suitability of paths, why can a shared path not connect two places? Why can it only run around parks?
It's a bit like claiming you should be allowed to drive at motorway speeds in 20mph areas. A shared path is a 20mph equivalent therefore you should treat it as such.

Seems to me if you want fast cycling connections between places (aka cycling motorway) you should try to get some made and have pedestrians banned on them. But if you're not on one then you can hardly claim its not your fault if you're involved in a collision with a 'random' pedestrian.
We know peds are unpredictable, that's why we make allowances.

I have very little sympathy for cyclists that hit pedestrians - in fact about the same as for drivers that hit cyclists. Both seem to be knee deep in excuses for their behaviour instead of accepting that they're ultimately responsible for the way they're driving or riding.

[MikeF]

But if one side is marked for pedestrians and the other for cycling it's not shared but segregated. As regards WSCC all cycling is a leisure activity; it's not considered as a means of transport as that's what cars are for. All cyclists do on roads is to hold up busy more important motorists.

Marking a side for pedestrians is as meaningful as marking a bike lane on a road - all it does is make the faster vehicle feel aggrieved if the other party isn't in it.
To work they require proper segregation in both cases, not a bit of paint.

It's all about ownership and the problems that entails. It's a perfectly valid thing to swap "car" for "bike", "road" for "path" and "cyclist" for "pedestrian" in all these discussions.
What we get then is "All pedestrians do on paths is to hold up more important cyclists".

Anyone who thinks they need to travel faster than the slow traffic but without making the necessary compromises is THE problem, not the slower traffic.

Perhaps I didn't word that well. "All cyclists do on roads is to hold up busy more important motorists." is what seems to be WSCC's view, and other councillors elsewhere views as well. It's not my view.
I agree that properly defined segregation is needed. Some paths have a raised white line, but in all cases it is a solid white line, which should indicate it shouldn't be crossed, but of course many disregard this.

It's not perfectly valid to swap "road" and "path" and "cyclist" for "pedestrian" etc, because while there are "rules of the road" there are not "rules of the path". Cyclists use the same side of the road as the motor traffic eg the left side in the UK. They don't use the right hand side or randomly use one side and then the other as pedestrians will on a path. If motorists "shared" the road with cyclists or pedestrians this is what they would have to expect. "Infrastructure" set aside for cycle use should be just that, not a confused muddle that irritates both types of users.

[Ric2013]

Interesting. Would you say my understanding is wrong then?:

My understanding is that the 1835 Highways Act as amended 1888 makes cycling on a footway (pavement) illegal i.e. a criminal offence. However, cycling on a footpath is a matter of trespass (unless you have the landowner's permission, of course) so is not illegal, and though it might constitute a civil offence, being sued (not prosecuted) is really quite unlikely. This being the case, a bike crossing a segregation line on a cycle path adjacent to a road is a legally different matter from a bike crossing a segregation line adjacent to a footpath. Although there may then be local byelaws that make cycling illegal locally except on the cycleway.

With regard to practicality, there is an interesting case in Colchester where what is signposted and marked as a segregated footway along Cowdray Avenue has recently been seemingly marked as a left and right cycle route with give way dashes where it forms a junction with Mason Road. Google Street view: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.89808 ... 312!8i6656

[MikeF]

I'm not sure if the pedestrian part of a segregated path is still regarded as a footway. If it is then riding on it is illegal. But I would assume the reverse wouldn't apply.

In your streetview it doesn't seem at all clear which side is meant for cycles. It's typical of the little thought given to cycling schemes; as long as cyclists don't cause congestion for car drivers that's all that really matters.

[MikeF]

The problem with shared/segregated routes we have this from Sustrans. Local Authorities take heed of Sustrans, but not other cycling organisations, and that's why we have these poor facilities. They're advocating "anarchy" on shared paths with everyone avoiding each other rather than providing separate facilities for each. In some countries it's like this or used to be on carriageways, but fortunately not here, where at least there are keep left rules, which everyone (nearly) obeys.

One thing cyclists, whether slow or fast, always want to do is maintain momentum. Busy shared paths do not allow this. Compare facilities in Holland.

[kwackers]

One thing cyclists, whether slow or fast, always want to do is maintain momentum. Busy shared paths do not allow this. Compare facilities in Holland.

Cars too, they don't like slowing down. I think there might be a clue in there.

As for the cycling nirvana that is Holland, I'm not convinced. May be better for cyclists but they still mix with pedestrians and expect them to stay out of their way. Plenty of angry, bell ringing, shouting cyclists in mixed areas there too!

[mjr]

As for the cycling nirvana that is Holland, I'm not convinced. May be better for cyclists but they still mix with pedestrians and expect them to stay out of their way. Plenty of angry, bell ringing, shouting cyclists in mixed areas there too!

Plenty? Really? I've not yet seen the oft-claimed angry or shouting cyclists in a couple of trips cycling there. I've only seen it on video and to be fair, the walkers shouted at have often done something pretty daft, usually looking at a phone rather than where they're going. Even then, there's been no impact or injury - thank $DEITY it wasn't a motorist...

[kwackers]

Plenty? Really? I've not yet seen the oft-claimed angry or shouting cyclists in a couple of trips cycling there. I've only seen it on video and to be fair, the walkers shouted at have often done something pretty daft, usually looking at a phone rather than where they're going. Even then, there's been no impact or injury - thank $DEITY it wasn't a motorist...

I'm not generally there for more than a weekend at a time and I've never ridden a bike there either but as a pedestrian I've witnessed plenty of cycling aggression in the cities.
(I should add this tends to be in the shared use parts of which there are plenty)

If you ride a bike there perhaps it's a bit like driving here? I rarely see bad behaviour whilst driving, but as a cyclist I see it daily.
Perhaps this is also why I may see the other side of path use here, as a 'jogger' I use them a lot, around 50 miles of path use a week and I see some shocking behaviour by cyclists when really there simply is no need.

[LollyKat]

A couple of years ago in Amsterdam I thought I was going to miss my train to the airport as the constant stream of fast cyclists refused to stop for red pedestrian crossing lights, and I was stuck with no way to get to the station. They were really quite aggressive.

[Username]

For the purposes of cyclists vs pedestrians, do snowmans count as pedestrians?