Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

[ElectricFox]

Hi all,

Just had a nasty experience on a shared use path today and wanted to share it with you for feedback. I've attached a diagram of what happened.

It was on a shared use bike path with a steep Earth bank covered in trees on one side, and a regular pavement kerb on the other side to a very busy 40 MPH road. There was enough room only for 2 users to pass with no escape route on either side. I was on a bike shown at the bottom of Figure A riding towards a pedestrian coming my way. A second bike was coming up behind the pedestrian at roughly the same speed as me. We were all initially on the same side of the pavement to keep away from the busy road traffic.

We both manouvered to overtake the pedestrian at roughly the same time (Figure B). I'm then faced with 3 choices; stay my course and slow down/don't slow down, or else slow down and pull back into the left (shown in red). I know that if I take the latter option, then the pedestrian would likely step to the other side of the path, and into a collision course with the other cyclist overtaking from behind.

So I held my position and slowed down to walking pace, forcing the other cyclist to brake and pull in behind the pedestrian (Figure C). Because we'd pretty much stopped by this point, I asked him what the hell he was doing overtaking someone into oncoming traffic. He said that I was cycling on the wrong side of the road, and therefore it was me who was in the wrong. It's the first time I've gotten into a heated argument in some time.

My opinion is that I would never overtake a pedestrian from behind unless it was clear for me to do so. I'm not aware of any law or right of way on a shared use path that enforces/advises passing on the left. I usually work around whatever pedestrians are doing as I know how unpredictable they can be on these paths.

The last time this happened, on a different stretch of this same path, I opted to ride onto a grass verge (which was available in that stretch) in order to avoid the conflict alltogether; but still felt the other cyclist had gone and run me off the path as there was nowhere safe to be.

Should this ever happen again in the future, I think the wisest choice would be to adopt a head on position to the oncoming cyclist and come to a stop.

If any of you can point me to some guidelines for this situation or tell me if there's something else I should have done, then I'm eager to listen and learn.

[[XAP]Bob]

No attachment, but from the description you did something sane - though the shouting match wasn’t needed. ‘If I’d pulled in the pedestrian would likely have stepped across you’ is a reasonable explanation.

[ElectricFox]

Thanks for that Bob,

I've tried to re-attach the image on this post. Thanks for the pointers on the shouting match too; I wish it could have been a cool, rational conversation. This is why I'm posting on the forum now after some time to reflect and calm down...

[mjr]

The law requiring one to keep left is one of the old highways acts (1870s I think but wouldn't swear to) and what the con artists call "shared use paths" are highways for the purpose of it, so keep left and you were the one overtaking into oncoming traffic, really, more than the others.

But really, there are times when it's safer to apply some sense to try to reduce conflict and I agree this sounds like one (although the other cyclist could have rang their bell if the walker did indeed start to move sideways without looking) but the main thing done wrong was the slanging match. Well, that and not building the cycleway wide enough for the usage levels.

[ElectricFox]

Hmm, so that would then be like encountering a pedestrian walking on the right hand side of a country road with no pavement (as recommended in the highway code) as you drive up to them on the left. In such a situation, you would then only be able to drive round them if it was clear to do so. Thanks for clarifying the higways act's application to shared use paths. Our local one seems to be a free-for-all as to what side you pass people on; as long as you both agree!

[irc]

Hi all, He said that I was cycling on the wrong side of the road, and therefore it was me who was in the wrong. It's the first time

Basically this is correct IMO. Though the other cyclist caused the confusion by initially being on the wrong side then only going on to the correct side to overtake the ped.

Had the other cyclist been keeping to his left before you saw him it would have been clear his side of the path was clear and the OP's side was blocked by the ped, in which case the correct thing is for the OP to slow and give way.

Though many cyclists fail to keep left on paths it is like the road best to have a convention. No reason to have anything other than keep left.

99% of the time this works for me. Once when an oncoming cyclist kept moving right I kept moving left until we both halted on the edge of the grass verge. Followed a few seconds later with his friend riding into the back of him. I didn't bother arguing it though. I just moved off.

[tatanab]

I hope I would have obeyed the other Highway Code rule which says that on a narrow road, if an obstruction is on your side you yield to oncoming traffic. So I would have slowed and stayed left, and early enough not to confuse the pedestrian.

[Bez]

This sort of thing happens all the time and my approach, which has never been a problem, is just to slow down and be cheerful. It's like walking towards someone in a corridor: you know you're both going to do that daft dancing act where you both go the same way at the same time, so you might as well do it with good humour. Arguing about something practically inevitable is just futile.

So, nobody in the wrong if you ask me, it just didn't need whatever aggro arose.

If you have any energy to vent over this issue, save it for your local authority and suggest that they do better than bodged shared paths alongside busy roads.

[reohn2]

Hi all, He said that I was cycling on the wrong side of the road, and therefore it was me who was in the wrong. It's the first time

Basically this is correct IMO. Though the other cyclist caused the confusion by initially being on the wrong side then only going on to the correct side to overtake the ped.

Had the other cyclist been keeping to his left before you saw him it would have been clear his side of the path was clear and the OP's side was blocked by the ped, in which case the correct thing is for the OP to slow and give way.

Though many cyclists fail to keep left on paths it is like the road best to have a convention. No reason to have anything other than keep left.

99% of the time this works for me. Once when an oncoming cyclist kept moving right I kept moving left until we both halted on the edge of the grass verge. Followed a few seconds later with his friend riding into the back of him. I didn't bother arguing it though. I just moved off.

I agree with this analysis.
The same thing happened to me some time ago but I was the cyclist coming up from behind the pedestrian whom I informed I was coming past on their left.
The cyclist coming the the other way(in the OP's porition) thought I was in the wrong and made his feeling known as he me on my left on the grass verge by effing and jeffing at me but carried on.I stopped and apologised to the pedestrian for the other cyclist's behaviour,she said she thought it was he who needed to apologise for his language and his bad cycling attitude.

[foxyrider]

My general rule of thumb is keep left, cede to pedestrians wherever they choose to walk (you'll be in the wrong if you collide with them regardless of their carelessness in the matter) and not overtake into traffic.

Of course sometimes you end up on the RH side for some reason but IME most oncoming traffic is quite happy to pass on whichever side causes least conflict and effort - me darting across to the left is as bad as a wandering pedestrian so better to stay put.

And whilst I might curse a wandering foot soldier, i'm not sure why you got into an argument with another cyclists over this, you spoilt 2 rides for no reason. Stop, smile, on your way - life's too short as it is.

[Bez]

whilst I might curse a wandering foot soldier, i'm not sure why you got into an argument with another cyclist

Ugh

[PH]

I'm then faced with 3 choices; stay my course and slow down/don't slow down, or else slow down and pull back into the left (shown in red). I know that if I take the latter option, then the pedestrian would likely step to the other side of the path, and into a collision course with the other cyclist overtaking from behind.

4th choice was to stop, you're slowing down to walking pace anyway so there's little disadvantage. Rights and wrongs don't really come into it, there's a situation with some danger and your primary concern should be avoiding it, even better if you can do it with a smile. Unpredictability is to be expected on shared use paths, simply ride accordingly, or don't use them.

[AlaninWales]

Hmm, so that would then be like encountering a pedestrian walking on the right hand side of a country road with no pavement (as recommended in the highway code) as you drive up to them on the left. In such a situation, you would then only be able to drive round them if it was clear to do so. Thanks for clarifying the higways act's application to shared use paths. Our local one seems to be a free-for-all as to what side you pass people on; as long as you both agree!

Encountering a pedestrian in the roadway on the right of a narrow road, with oncoming traffic behind the pedestrian: I would not drive up to them on the left. I would stop and wait for the situation to sort itself out safely (or potentially reverse to a passing place if necessary).

[Pete Owens]

The best way to avoid this sort of confrontation is to ride on the carriageway, rather than the pavement. Just because some numpty from the council has put up blue signs permitting it it doesn't mean it is a good idea.

[Tangled Metal]

OP was in the wrong IMHO. Keep left, overtake obstructions only when safe to do so and stopping is a good policy if in doubt. All mentioned above.

The only addition I have is that the pedestrian read walking towards the OP which means they were facing the OP. That meant they would have seen the cyclist op. Not guaranteed the pedestrian would have known there was another cyclist behind. Stopping keeps them safe until the oncoming, other cyclist has past by. There's three players here and it's the pedestrian that is most vulnerable so you have to act to not cause a harm to them.

Better the cyclist in the pedestrian's line of sight stops. That's the only way to avoid conflict and issues.

BTW arguing afterwards is poor form too. However we live and learn. Hopefully the OP and others reading this will have learnt and bear in mind. Basically common courtesy when cycling on mixed use paths.