Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

[Bez]

The best way for a confident, fit rider who isn't burdened with a heavy load up a hill, carrying or accompanying children, or otherwise preferring a sedate approach today and in this place, to avoid this sort of confrontation is to ride on the carriageway, rather than the pavement. However the best way to avoid potential numpties in cars struggling to deal with the same sort of confrontation in the carriageway with the added fun of three tonnes of metal heading towards each other at a closing speed of up to 80mph is to ride on the shared path and to deal with passing slower path users with the very same care and caution as you would want from people in cars when you're on the carriageway.

FTFY

[[XAP]Bob]

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.

I'd generally want to slow rather than stop (even if that's slow to an absolute crawl), and I could easily envisage a pedestrian deciding to 'get out of my way' by stepping sideways, directly into the path of the cyclist approaching from behind.

By 'controlling' the lane as the OP did they minimised the risk to the pedestrian, at slight expense to both cyclists' journeys.

It's very easy to say that you shouldn't have a shouting match after the fact, but it's also very easy to get suckered into one.

[Tangled Metal]

Very easy to avoid a slanging match, keep on riding! It is a conscious decision to argue or not. I do not hold with the red mist idea that you can't help but get suckered into arguing in those situations.

Mind you I'm a laidback, gentle giant and perhaps my height stops others arguing with me. So I'm probably wrong for those reasons.

I would stop. Stopping signals that you've identified a hazard I reckon. It's like riding on the road, if in doubt take primary it's the advise given. On mixed use paths the advise I have is if in doubt stop. It makes clear your intentions. Going slow and track standing just makes your actions less clear because you can set off again quickly without a sign of what you're about to do. Stopping means you give signs of impending forward motion.

All just my opinion and experience. I've seen similar situations and the intentions of a still moving cyclist isn't always clear.

[ElectricFox]

Hopefully the OP and others reading this will have learnt and bear in mind. Basically common courtesy when cycling on mixed use paths.

Thanks all for weighing in on this. I really appreciate your frank and honest feedback.

1:
If there's plenty of distance and the top cyclist is already on his left indicating his intention to pass the pedestrian from behind then slow right down/stop on my left (on the same side of the pedestrian) to give plenty of room to prevent the pedestrian from moving over to the other side. This relies on you identifying the hazard well in advance.

2:
If there's not much room left, and I think that the pedestrian will switch sides based on me stopping in front of them, then I pull over the the right and stop in order to protect the pedestrian. I only then proceed forward if the oncoming cyclist pulls to the right hand side of the road behind the pedestrian and makes eye contact/signals for me to do so.

3:
Above all else, don't ever get into a shouting match. It's the first time that this has happened to me in over 15 years' commuting and I'm feeling pretty ashamed by it all.

Both of us identified the hazard and slowed right down yesterday to prevent any collision; which was ultimately the most important course of action to take. I'll be sure to apologise for the shouting if I ever meet him out there again.

Thanks again for your feedback

[Tangled Metal]

Don't feel ashamed. It was obviously your honest reaction. Plus the other cyclist got into the shouting match too so at worst it's 50:50 on that. It happens, learn and move on. It seems to me that learning is what you're about on this matter judging by your enquiry and response to our replies.

You'll get a range of views on what you should do, who's to say what's right (even the strict interpretation of the law might not be right). The main thing I think that is right in all this is to start from a basis of common courtesy. If the way you ride wouldn't be appreciated by yourself if you were on the receiving end then you're probably in the wrong. Keep safe and keep others safe. Prime responsibility IMHO.

BTW I admit to liking your summary. You've read what ppl have posted and taken it on board. Then put down what you learnt from others views. It's a good summary too.

One question, are you new to cycling or commuting? I can't work the answer out to that one.

[ElectricFox]

I've been commuting daily on my bike since 2001 and been using shared paths since 2009 (it was all city centre roads prior to that). I've been cycling recreationally since the late 80's. I find commuting on my own on my bike to be a solitary thing, so I'm not part of any clubs or online communities. This is the first cycling forum I've ever posted on. I felt compelled to post this it because it's the second time I've encountered the situation and feel I handled it safely, but badly both times.

The only other problem I've come across on that shared path is encountering a pack of 20 runners taking up the whole width of the path coming towards me; but that might be a story for another thread...

[Tangled Metal]

I didn't think you were a newbie to commuting. However I'm not aware of many actually asking questions on riding etiquette. Most just assume they know it all. Like I do!

[ElectricFox]

The more I learn and the more I experience, the more I tend to doubt myself.

I think....

[Username]

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.

Not necessarily. The pedestrian could have been carrying a knife, or have great fighting skills, or built like a brick s***house. That will make him/her a lot less vulnerable. Not quite sure why peds are usually considered more vulnerable. I personally feel I can fight back much more effectively when I dont have a bike between my legs. Plus I'd be able to jump over walls etc.

[thirdcrank]

I think tatanab's point about not confusing the pedestrian is important and I'd add not frightening them, depending on their vulnerability, especially in a quiet location. If they are unaware of the rider approaching from behind, they might be concerned about your reason for stopping and there's no prescribed signal for "he's behind you." I'd not want to make too much of this but it has happened to me on a road without footways when I pulled into the nearside with a woman walking a dog in front of me, unaware of the car behind her, which had slowed to a crawl because of the narrow road.

The best of intentions can be misunderstood.

Stopping is still the only answer, IMO.

The KEEP LEFT rule is in s78 Highways Act 1835.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Wil ... section/78

[wjhall]

This sounds a bit like the Portway cycletrack in Bristol approaching Shirehampton, which is reasonable if you are the only cyclist but gets quite nervous in the rush hour with oncoming cyclists. The same applies if you come in along the pavement cycle track to Long Ashton in which case I do find myself wondering if using the road would have been simpler and safer. On the Portway, an 40 mph (+) dual carriageway, this thought is less likely to cross my mind.

The essential rule here is the same for any complications you see developing ahead of you: slow down, possibly even stop, so as to allow things to sort themselves out before you get to the difficulty, and here, keep in to the embankment side. In this case there are a number of things that the other two users can do to simplify their incident. The pedestrian can look back before moving out - always good advice on a shared path; the oncoming cyclist can slow down and ensure that the foot passenger has seen them before passing. The sensible option of the pedestrian here is to keep close to or move into the bank, away from the road. Leave them to act sensibly before you are involved.

Crossing into the nominal path of the other cyclist was definitely the wrong thing to do, your errors began in diagram B, where you set the conflict up.

Cyclists are usually the more vulnerable parties on these tracks: they are far more likely to wobble into the road than people on foot.

[tykeboy2003]

Though many cyclists fail to keep left on paths it is like the road best to have a convention.

Agreed.

I totally fail to see why anyone would do other than go to the left when encountering oncoming traffic.

This once happened to me and resulted in both me and the other cyclist coming to a complete stop and him abusing me for keeping to the left saying that it wasn't a road and the keep left rule didn't apply (there was no reason why either of us couldn't change our position).

[Ellieb]

We have had this discussion before I believe. My tuppenceworth is that if the pedestrian had been walking on the left then the other rider could have kept behind him whilst keeping left and there would not have been any conflict.... nor any danger of the pedestrian jumping into the path of the other guy.

[thirdcrank]

IMO, the only way to approach anything like this is for everybody to concentrate on their own responsibilities. In this case, that must be avoiding a crash. There's no way a rider in the OP's position can know with any certainty what the other two will do. Therefore, slowing right down or stopping is the only option.

Once we start analysing the law, HC, etc., we are looking forward to the aftermath of something going wrong, most obviously a crash. Bashing on because somebody else "should of" done this or that suddenly becomes exposed when they act differently.

[peetee]

My view is that the blue line cyclist should have given priority to both other users and the red line cyclist to the pedestrian. Blue line was riding on the right of the path so contrary to the rules of the highway which he should have followed given that he was approaching anther highway user (red line). Also if the pedestrian was concentrating at all his attention would be on red line and may try to avoid him. Red line has to assume that both of them avoiding him would bring them into conflict and potentially impede his progress.
In reality any collision would be down to impatience or inattention and you have to ride with the expectation of this. Assume everyone is an idiot, out to get you or both.