Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
thirdcrank
Posts: 27087
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby thirdcrank » 29 May 2018, 3:35pm

My only reason for referring to Cyclecraft was that I looked for alternative sources which would have some credibility at court. So-called Common Law jurisdictions tend to place importance on acknowledged public sources as well as legal precedents. That's why I also queried if there was anything in Cycleability training. It's officially approved so the courts should take it into account if it's presented in evidence.

JF is registered as an expert witness. This means that he is qualified to give evidence of opinion, rather than only evidence of fact. Whether that opinion suits anybody else is irrelevant. His evidence contributed to the acquittal on appeal in the Telford case. Incidentally, he could be called by either side, when it would be open to challenge.

To avoid losing sight of the point I was trying to make about the advice in the HC, I've been looking for guidance elsewhere. If anybody can point to anything useful, we'll all benefit.
=================================================================
PS: On the point about describing a shared-use farcility as a footway, in my post immediately preceding yours I chose my words carefully when I wrote:
"Segregated" in this context means that the pavement alongside the road has a white line down the middle dividing the cycle track from the footway.

mattsccm
Posts: 2348
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby mattsccm » 30 May 2018, 1:05pm

A good example of the fact that nowadays people have little sense of convention, rules or common sense. They a bloody selfish and full of a self entitlement.
The oncoming cyclist was wrong to be there. There may have been a reason.
Lack of law here doesn't remove lack of sense, convention or consideration. (well sadly it often does today)
Pedestrian was correct ie facing oncoming traffic and on that side. OP was correct until he decided to overtake with oncoming traffic. He should have slowed until all was clear. He couldn't know what the coming cyclist may have faced to put him on the wrong side of the road. If this was seen from hundreds of metres away then it should have been anticipated.
This sort of thing never happened. People knew the rules, be they published or not.
The status of the road is irrelevant. If we all do things correctly there is no conflict. To suggest that as this "road" has a different legal status and thus "rules" do not apply is just making excuses. In the UK vehicles pass right side to right side. That has to be the default other wise no one can make a judgement.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 10802
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby mjr » 30 May 2018, 2:22pm

thirdcrank wrote:My only reason for referring to Cyclecraft was that I looked for alternative sources which would have some credibility at court. So-called Common Law jurisdictions tend to place importance on acknowledged public sources as well as legal precedents. That's why I also queried if there was anything in Cycleability training. It's officially approved so the courts should take it into account if it's presented in evidence.

What's Cycleability training? Do you mean Bikeability?

The only thing on cycle track positioning in the National Standard for Cycle Training Level Two is "16.2 When using cycle infrastructure they should take up a position that makes them visible to other road users" (which is often junk but let's not go exploding the "invisible cyclist" myth again here). The Bikeability Delivery Guide repeats that word-for-word but then adds "Riding on the right edge of a cycle lane will make the trainee more visible" which maybe is true for on-road with-flow lanes only. Other than that, I assume the instructions about primary/secondary positioning on all roads apply.

There is some stuff in Level Three about overtaking other cyclists as if they are slow-moving motorists but nothing I can see about passing oncoming cyclists in a bidirectional lane or track, so I assume the instruction on positioning from earlier levels applies.

thirdcrank wrote:JF is registered as an expert witness. This means that he is qualified to give evidence of opinion, rather than only evidence of fact. Whether that opinion suits anybody else is irrelevant. His evidence contributed to the acquittal on appeal in the Telford case. Incidentally, he could be called by either side, when it would be open to challenge.

And if he strayed into his political opinions rather than his opinions on good practice, I trust they would be challenged by other expert witnesses - but hopefully, his qualification means he knows not to use the witness box as a soap box.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27087
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby thirdcrank » 30 May 2018, 9:30pm

Yes. Through a combination of poor memory and not bothering to check, as you worked out I meant Bikeability. :oops:

The point though, seems to be that it doesn't include anything specific to help answer the query raised by the OP. While I suspect that if two cyclists collided head-on through having differing views on keeping right or left, a civil court would find in favour of the one keeping left, I think that a cyclist passing a pedestrian on a shared-use path would be expected to slow down or stop. I can't imagine that I'm the first person to note that in E&W at least, "vehicular cyclist" is tautology in much the same way as equestrian horse rider. In this country, a pedal cycle is legally a vehicle. I would assume that in any compo claim following a collision between a pedestrian and a cyclist, the cyclist would be considered the driver of a vehicle and judged on that standard.

I can understand why many people feel the need for separate provision for cyclists. I find it hard to understand why anybody taking that view isn't totally opposed to a type of provision which simply moves cyclists off the carriageway into possible conflict with pedestrians and other riders and puts them in danger at every minor crossing including private entrances. It seems to me that accepting shoddy provision makes anything of a decent standard even less likely.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 10802
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby mjr » 31 May 2018, 10:00am

As ever, I agree with most of thirdcrank's post, except:
thirdcrank wrote:Yes. Through a combination of poor memory and not bothering to check, as you worked out I meant Bikeability. :oops:

The point though, seems to be that it doesn't include anything specific to help answer the query raised by the OP.

How specific do you want it to be? Should it repeat the generalised advice on positioning for each type of highway that we can use? In the absence of more specific advice overriding it, I feel it's pretty clear that the general keep-left applies.

thirdcrank wrote:I can't imagine that I'm the first person to note that in E&W at least, "vehicular cyclist" is tautology in much the same way as equestrian horse rider. In this country, a pedal cycle is legally a vehicle.

As I'm sure you know, the term "vehicular cyclist" means a cyclist who acts only in ways that OTHER vehicles may also act - in the extreme, vehicularists avoid all cycle-specific lanes, roads and movements and oppose the existence of them on the ground or in law. I think this is based on a flawed belief that the law should apply the same to all road users or possibly that motorists will somehow behave better around us if we only use the spaces they can (which seems unfair, as we cannot use motorways).

thirdcrank wrote:I can understand why many people feel the need for separate provision for cyclists. I find it hard to understand why anybody taking that view isn't totally opposed to a type of provision which simply moves cyclists off the carriageway into possible conflict with pedestrians and other riders and puts them in danger at every minor crossing including private entrances. It seems to me that accepting shoddy provision makes anything of a decent standard even less likely.

I agree but there are very few people now who welcome things like pavements-with-paint and I don't think they are involved in this discussion. I really don't understand why cyclists in Leeds are letting their councils get away with seems to be a parody of a superhighway.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27087
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby thirdcrank » 31 May 2018, 11:37am

mjr wrote: ... How specific do you want it to be? ...
Some of the contributors to this thread have looked for more rules for "shared use" than I believe there to be. In looking beyond the HC, I suppose I'm trying to prove a negative: ie there's not much more than "slow down and be prepared to stop."

As I'm sure you know, the term "vehicular cyclist" means a cyclist who acts only in ways that OTHER vehicles may also act - in the extreme, vehicularists avoid all cycle-specific lanes, roads and movements and oppose the existence of them on the ground or in law. I think this is based on a flawed belief that the law should apply the same to all road users or possibly that motorists will somehow behave better around us if we only use the spaces they can (which seems unfair, as we cannot use motorways).

It often appears to me as a form of name-calling.
... there are very few people now who welcome things like pavements-with-paint and I don't think they are involved in this discussion.
I might dub them farcilitators, had I not already coined the term highwaymen. (And yes, I think that's mine, although I can only guess at Pete Owens for "farcilities.") The main point is that such people provide the rubbish and wouldn't dream of sensible discussion about the results. The sad thing is that some cycle campaigners seem to see things like shared-use as a sort of stepping-stone or halfway house to the promised land. AFAIK, the bit I quoted from Cyclecraft is factually correct.

... I really don't understand why cyclists in Leeds are letting their councils get away with seems to be a parody of a superhighway.

I resigned from the role of CTC Right to Ride rep for Leeds a long time ago (December 1999) as I must have posted somewhere before. To give others a free run, I made a complete break and I've had no involvement since then. (Not totally correct: I represented the CTC at a futile public inquiry in June 2000.) Speaking in the most general terms, it takes more than a few cycle campaigners to swing Leeds City Council. I took them to the Local Government Omsbuddy.
Re the Superhighway in particular, I did attend a roadshow at a public library which was just across the road from where my mother was living. The poor chap doing the job came from NZ IIRC and knew nothing. The irony was that a part of the route passing within a few hundred yards of where we were talking included the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane, where cyclists had been badly let down by the antics of the highway authority and this poor chap was out of his depth, especially with me hissing through clenched teeth. :twisted: In short, Nothing to do wiv me, guv.

I don't claim much success in the time I was an active campaigner, but I like to believe I made them think.
==============================================================================================
Here's a thread started by a Leeds cycling campaigner from after I had quit, raising the issue of the highway authority ignoring consultation. :evil: Little changes.
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=83913

jgurney
Posts: 488
Joined: 10 May 2009, 8:34am

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby jgurney » 1 Jun 2018, 10:59pm

mjr wrote:As I'm sure you know, the term "vehicular cyclist" means a cyclist who acts only in ways that OTHER vehicles may also act - in the extreme, vehicularists avoid all cycle-specific lanes, roads and movements and oppose the existence of them on the ground or in law.


I thought it referred to cyclists who accept that cycles are vehicles, not toys or a kind of assisted pedestrians, and who accept that mingling with other traffic with realistically be part of everyday cycling. Someone can do that and still support well-designed cycle facilities.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 10802
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby mjr » 2 Jun 2018, 8:53am

jgurney wrote:
mjr wrote:As I'm sure you know, the term "vehicular cyclist" means a cyclist who acts only in ways that OTHER vehicles may also act - in the extreme, vehicularists avoid all cycle-specific lanes, roads and movements and oppose the existence of them on the ground or in law.


I thought it referred to cyclists who accept that cycles are vehicles, not toys or a kind of assisted pedestrians, and who accept that mingling with other traffic with realistically be part of everyday cycling. Someone can do that and still support well-designed cycle facilities.

Indeed they can. Vehicularism goes beyond that and is the inverse of the near-non-existant segregationism.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27087
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby thirdcrank » 2 Jun 2018, 10:10am

Back to behaviour on shared-use farcilities where you're an honorary pedestrian and generally an unwelcome one, accepted only on sufferance. And for the umpteenth time, where your right to use the carriageway is undermined.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 10802
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby mjr » 6 Jun 2018, 3:14pm

thirdcrank wrote:Back to behaviour on shared-use farcilities where you're an honorary pedestrian and generally an unwelcome one, accepted only on sufferance. And for the umpteenth time, where your right to use the carriageway is undermined.

While I share the contempt for the "shared-use farcilities" and push for rebuilds as decent standard cycleways, for the umpteenth time, our right to use the carriageway remains largely unaffected.

thirdcrank wrote:I resigned from the role of CTC Right to Ride rep for Leeds a long time ago (December 1999) as I must have posted somewhere before. To give others a free run, I made a complete break and I've had no involvement since then.

Exactly. You and others like you are letting the councils get away with it all, refusing to work under the leadership of those who came afterwards, like Ted Heath. I don't actually agree with Mandela that "In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility" because I feel that if one has expertise and time and is withholding them, then you're partly responsible for the underregulated government getting away with the mad stuff it does.

...Speaking in the most general terms, it takes more than a few cycle campaigners to swing Leeds City Council.

Indeed. It'll take a lot of campaigners and supporters! Having some refuse to help won't achieve that critical mass any sooner. Even worse is when they then stand on the sidelines apparently slinging dung at the campaigners who continue, suggesting that failed policies or tactics must not change and that we should still base efforts on theories that have increasing amounts of evidence against them.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

thirdcrank
Posts: 27087
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Shared use Path: Overtaking into head on traffic

Postby thirdcrank » 6 Jun 2018, 3:38pm

mjr wrote: ... for the umpteenth time, our right to use the carriageway remains largely unaffected. ...


That's a matter of interpretation

For the rest, I've explained my involvement in my usual detail on other threads. I was mistaken to get involved in cycle campaigning in Leeds and it's something I regret. I did try very hard but I largely failed.