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

[pwa]

I remember being out for a jog in Edmonton along the river.

I was jogging next to the river bank and admiring the view when a cyclist approached me (on a very wide and mostly empty path), deliberately rode at me and then veered at the last second shouting "keep right".
As a pedestrian admiring the view that can only be appreciated from the left of the wide path and the fact that everyone else on the path seemed to manage without being bum-holes it's not difficult to come to the conclusion that some folk are simply idiots.

I think it's quite easy as a cyclist to get along with other path users be them cyclists, pedestrians, dog walkers etc. It just requires the nonce to be able to pick a path through, be prepared to slow down as necessary and think 'brakes' rather than 'bell/shout'.

+1

[Ellieb]

... incidentally on said path you can easily get half a dozen bikes or more passing you in a minute during rush hour. Funnily enough everyone keeps left. Imagine the chaos you’d get if every 10 seconds you had to decide which side you were going to pass opposite direction traffic. This is also why ‘salmoning’ pedestrians cause a problem. You keep coming face to face with people with nowhere to go. Just keep it simple. Don’t come up with rare scenarios like bridle paths with cars on, because quite frankly, the instances of this happening are so infrequent that I am sure people would be capable of finding a solution at the time.

[Mick F]

...........when the rule is we walk on the right in this country?

What rule is that then?
News to me.

[pwa]

...........when the rule is we walk on the right in this country?

What rule is that then?
News to me.

I guess that the reference is to the advice generally given to pedestrians walking on country roads and lanes with no footway, which is to walk on the right of the road so that the traffic closest to you is facing you. The exception to that is on bends, where you are advised to walk on the outside of the bend where you are likely to be seen sooner. But that is all for roads, not shared use paths.

[Graham]

Rational people on bikes follow the simple, de facto, protocol :-

When other path users are present, keep to the left-hand side of the path UNLESS there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.

I find that my multi-purpose, arm signal further emphasises my intention . . . . . .

i.e. left arm horizontally out : forearm vertically downwards

This manages to convey to, all but nutters, that I am staying on the left-hand side.

An earlier version, with a diagonal arm, was interpreted by the occasional nutter, as me ordering the oncoming rider to pass me on the left. ( usually off the track ! ).
Take care, there are some right idiots out there.

[thirdcrank]

Isn't this something to do with which hand you hold your sword in? ie Ride on the left so your sword is ready for somebody coming the other way. That gives a certain logic to others wanting to pass on the non-sword side. I've heard it suggested that they drive on the other side of the road in €urope because Napoleon was being awkward.

[Cyril Haearn]

Shared space is rubbish

Rules are needed!

I wonder if you have been in Germany too long.

Long enough to learn the language
Almaen am byth! I just wish I had been forced to learn Welsh when I lived there

Went to Bohmte the shared space town in Germany, there are tactile strips on both sides of the road from the station into town, both were blocked by parked vehicles
No rules, especially for motons
I asked at the police station and was told that there had been fewer "accidents" (anecdotal). I was feeling a bit queer from sitting in air-conditioned trains so I did no more investigation
There is a bookswap station at Bohmte station though

[mjr]

Rational people on bikes follow the simple, de facto, protocol :-

When other path users are present, keep to the left-hand side of the path UNLESS there is a compelling reason to do otherwise.

I find that my multi-purpose, arm signal further emphasises my intention . . . . . .

i.e. left arm horizontally out : forearm vertically downwards

This manages to convey to, all but nutters, that I am staying on the left-hand side.

Actually, that sounds like a signal for a pothole on the left... which would still stop most people wanting to pass that side, I guess!

[mjr]

[…] If you are confronted by a pedestrian on your left & a bike on your right, both coming towards yo, where exactly are you supposed to go. There comes a point when you will be nose to nose with one of them.

No: if you ease up, the bike will be going faster so pass first, then you can pull out to pass the walker.

The Highway Code advice is just advice & the road/cycle path situations are totally different. If a car drives up towards you & can’t move out due to other traffic, the pedestrian moves onto the verge. If they don’t do this then they are going to end up walking over the top of the car because it won’t have anywhere else to go.

No, we'll meet face to face, both stopped. I'm not stepping off the tarmac because I'll end up ankle deep in a rabbit hole or bramble, or neck deep in a drain. If they don't want to stop, motorists should learn to anticipate, ease up and pass in gaps, not bully other users off the roads. Very similar situation.

[Ellieb]

No: if you ease up, the bike will be going faster so pass first, then you can pull out to pass the walker.

It depends on how many bikes. It depends on where the other bike is in relation to the walker. It depends on whether you have just come round a bend & easing up isn't going to help. Don't forget you have to allow for the closing speed of the walker or jogger as well. The jogger may well be travelling almost as fast as the bike. Just to make things even more entertaining heading towards a walker often makes them assume that you are going to hold your line , so they helpfully move out...straight into the passing bike.
All I am saying is that it is much easier to follow behind a walker than to have to negotiate them head on. All of the near misses I have ever had on a cycle path as a walker involve a cyclist coming straight at me. I just don't understand why something this simple is made so difficult. As I have said above: 99% of cyclists keep left, most walkers keep left. Nobody seems to find it difficult. I do wonder what sort of paths some people on here ride/walk on & why they do not notice the problems they are causing. Why do one or two people have to be so stupidly obstinate for no appreciable benefit. It sums up why the UK is such a miserable place to travel round compared to other places.

[Ellieb]

No, we'll meet face to face, both stopped.

Right, so if we translate this to a cyclepath: Do you think that is preferable to you keeping walking & the cyclist being able to follow you at walking pace until a gap is available?

[Username]

Groups of **ggers are awful
When cycling in a group one singles out

Wa*king one should keep right (HC!), I keep as far away from motor traffic as possible, even wa*k on the grass

Walking and joggers!! Dont say those words!!!! Almost as bad as the C word.

What I find funny is when said jo****s have to run along the side of a road despite a perfectly decent pavement. Now I can understand why wheelchairs or mobility scooters would do that, wheels dont like bumps, kerbs etc. But shoes dont suffer rolling resistance.

[Thornyone]

Where I live not only do many cyclists cycle on the right on cycle paths, but pedestrians invariably obey the laws of pedestrianism:

1) Pedestrians plural expand to occupy the space available to them (twenty pedestrians walk twenty abreast when the conditions allow. Such conditions include the presence of those pesky two-wheeled obstructions).
2) Solitary pedestrians walk slap bang down the middle of the path, and weave unpredictably, thus making overtaking even on a seven-foot-wide path problematic.
3) Most pedestrians outside city centres have one or more dog(s), either not on a lead, or on a “washing line” lead (the sort that maybe prevents the pooch from straying into the neighbouring county, but does little otherwise).

The errant cyclist I normally deal with by cycling straight at them. Normally they get out of the way, sometimes by veering onto a verge on my left. Just occasionally I flinch and swerve right (I wouldn't deliberately cause an accident). This action is often accompanied by the involuntary utterance of an expletive. I wish it wasn’t but it just happens

[kwackers]

The errant cyclist I normally deal with by cycling straight at them. Normally they get out of the way, sometimes by veering onto a verge on my left. Just occasionally I flinch and swerve right (I wouldn't deliberately cause an accident). This action is often accompanied by the involuntary utterance of an expletive. I wish it wasn’t but it just happens

"I normally deal with by cycling straight at them" and "I wouldn't deliberately cause an accident".

I can't be the only one that sees the problem with that statement.
I imagine a world where everyone deals with errant users by cycling/driving right at the other person and waiting for them to get out of the way.

I guess the statement "Just occasionally I flinch and swerve right" is meant to make it ok - but what if they 'flinch and swerve left'?
Either you left plenty of time to 'fix' the problem in which case your initial statement of "cycling straight at them" is bluster or you didn't in which case you crash which makes your statement "I wouldn't deliberately cause an accident" to be somewhat false.

[Audax67]

I always keep right on cycle paths.