Shared paths etiquette

[foxyrider]

In my usual stomping ground shared paths are rare in the urban context, much more common in rural situations with canal tow paths and disused rail lines providing many miles of shared paths. My experience therefore has generally been that its way ward kids/dogs and 'entitled' serious hikers that are the big issues despite bells and vocal warnings.

Currently though i'm enjoying the more urban routes around Brizzle which, for the most part, are a joy. The only pedestrians i've had any issue with have been earphoned runners/joggers who are clearly lost in their own world and have not heard my audible (usually bell) warning of my approach and 'students' who i'm guessing haven't been raised locally so lack the skills to share the paths. I give slower cyclists a ding too - its not telling anyone to get out of my way but a warning that i'm there and may want to pass when space allows. TBH the biggest problem i've had has been bikes being ridden at inappropriate speeds and this last week, headlights blinding me (and i'm guessing anyone else facing the same direction) which has resulted in some closer pedestrian passes than is ideal as i really haven't been able to see them until the last minute.

For what its worth, when i'm walking i usually walk on the right, if something distracts me, i tend to move to the right so that then takes me off the path not into any potential 'traffic', be it wheeled or shoe'd.

[axel_knutt]

I don't like shared use paths either as a cyclist or as a pedestrian. As a cyclist I like to be able to ride freely without people wandering into my path, and as a pedestrian I like to be able to dawdle around without being startled or hit by passing cyclists. The roads are the proper place for sticking to rules like keep to the left.

[mjr]

I don't like shared use paths either as a cyclist or as a pedestrian. As a cyclist I like to be able to ride freely without people wandering into my path, and as a pedestrian I like to be able to dawdle around without being startled or hit by passing cyclists. The roads are the proper place for sticking to rules like keep to the left.

Cycleways are roads too (so the keep-left rule applies, walkers keep right mostly) and the big difference is that people who wander into your path are very unlikely to kill you, unlike on the carriageway where they often have big sharp-cornered metal boxes around them. Personally, as a pedestrian, I don't mind walking on the right, as I usually have more width to spare on such a road - I really do not understand the attraction of staggering around like you're drunk.

[peetee]

I too am uneasy with the concept of shared paths. The average pedestrian is not behaving like a road user whose mind is on the job so sudden, unpredictable movements and potential conflict are never far away. I have lost count of how many people I have seen step into a road and then look.
Those who thought that removing cyclist from the road and putting them on pavements were truly ignorant of the speeds that many riders maintain as a matter of course - by all that is right and practical, I mean, not the street racers and rule breakers. For any single direction of travel a cyclist travelling at 20 mph will collide with a pedestrian at a closing speed greater that they would with a car travelling at 30mph. Also, both parties are vulnerable, unrestrained flesh and blood. I would be interested to know where riders stand with regard to the law. There are rather too many legal and practical gaps for cycling victims to fall in to when they are involved in a road traffic incident (I don't like the word 'accident'. Situations are rarely accidental). I suspect that the inconsistent nature of shared pathways only complicate matters to an altogether unfathomable level.

[PH]

Those who thought that removing cyclist from the road and putting them on pavements were truly ignorant of the speeds that many riders maintain as a matter of course - by all that is right and practical, I mean, not the street racers and rule breakers. For any single direction of travel a cyclist travelling at 20 mph will collide with a pedestrian at a closing speed greater that they would with a car travelling at 30mph.

So don't travel at 20 mph on a path if there's any chance of pedestrians about, which is probably most of the time. Problem solved, it is that simple.

[peetee]

Those who thought that removing cyclist from the road and putting them on pavements were truly ignorant of the speeds that many riders maintain as a matter of course - by all that is right and practical, I mean, not the street racers and rule breakers. For any single direction of travel a cyclist travelling at 20 mph will collide with a pedestrian at a closing speed greater that they would with a car travelling at 30mph.

So don't travel at 20 mph on a path if there's any chance of pedestrians about, which is probably most of the time. Problem solved, it is that simple.

So what do you suggest is a good speed for shared paths? What speed, for example will prevent you from harming an errant toddler or dog? Well below that which most cyclists regard as a reasonable pace to maintain adequate progress on a commute or distance ride. These shared use paths are often designed to fit in with existing infrastructure and little thought is given to the type of rider that wants/needs/has to use it.
I am not condoning reckless cycling, just being realistic. People's opinion of safe progress varies hugely regardless of how they travel and town planners haven't removed a conflict but only changed the scenario.

[PH]

So what do you suggest is a good speed for shared paths? What speed, for example will prevent you from harming an errant toddler or dog? Well below that which most cyclists regard as a reasonable pace to maintain adequate progress on a commute or distance ride.

When there's dogs or toddlers around a little more than walking pace seems appropriate, as a maximum I'd suggest twice the speed of the slowest user is a reasonable rule of thumb. Don't overdo the additional time that may take, there won't be many journeys where it's all on busy shared use path. I pretty much live on one of Derby's busiest paths, I use it several times a day, walking and cycling, twice each way already today, I've never considered it an inconvenience to share it. Some sections of it are very busy at certain time, school start and end time on one section, pre/post football matches on another, college lunchtimes on another, park run on a Sat morning... but with the exception of the football, when it isn't possible to ride against the flow, the difference over the 2.5 miles into town between my fastest and slowest time is unlikely to be more than a couple of minutes. For nine years it formed part of a five mile commute, not once did a busy path cause me to be late. if i really did need t travel somewhere at 20 mph, I wouldn't use it.

[mjr]

In general, a good speed for a shared path aka cycleway is 20mph BUT it depends how busy it is. On the rare bits with errant toddlers, it's going to be slower, not much above walking speed. On sections with no other traffic, no junctions and good visibility, you can go far faster.

You know what seems to make the biggest difference to my speed over the 5 miles of cycleway and 20mph carriageway into town? It's not what other users are around but it's the junctions. If I either don't have to give way or pick the best route through certain interchanges at a given time, it'll take over a minute off: much more than I can cut by using the nearby 40mph carriageway instead of the cycleway.

[ossie]

In general, a good speed for a shared path aka cycleway is 20mph BUT it depends how busy it is. On the rare bits with errant toddlers, it's going to be slower, not much above walking speed. On sections with no other traffic, no junctions and good visibility, you can go far faster.

Do you actually consistently reach 20 mph? Thats a speed a road cyclist 'giving it some' would be happy with...on a road,unless of course your route to town is downhill.

I'm not sure anyone would agree its a 'good speed' on a shared path...what's good about it other than you getting there one minute earlier. Obviously you covered yourself with your get out of jail clauses that followed but I doubt many on a shared path would even contemplate such speeds.

[mjr]

In general, a good speed for a shared path aka cycleway is 20mph BUT it depends how busy it is.

Do you actually consistently reach 20 mph?

I consistently exceed it at some point most rides. Yes, there's a slight downhill at some point in each direction. Moving average speed for the overall journey tends to be 10-12mph but that is mostly determined by the junctions, as mentioned earlier.

[PH]

In general, a good speed for a shared path aka cycleway is 20mph BUT it depends how busy it is. On the rare bits with errant toddlers, it's going to be slower, not much above walking speed. On sections with no other traffic, no junctions and good visibility, you can go far faster.

Do you actually consistently reach 20 mph? Thats a speed a road cyclist 'giving it some' would be happy with...on a road,unless of course your route to town is downhill.

It also struck me as a bit fanciful, so I looked at the Strava records of the path I mentioned above - 1.3 km, flat, wide, smooth, no junctions, sometimes busy, but frequently empty - Bearing in mind the nature of Strava will be biased to the sportier cyclist:
Number of attempts 42,000
Number of riders 4,800
Record 27 MPH
Number 20mph + 484

So some riders do maintain 20mph on a good path, almost exactly 10%, though there's no knowing if they frequently do that or if it's one time out of hundreds. I don't know what to conclude, it's more than I thought it would be, though it's clear that it isn't the speed most cyclists ride it at, even amongst Strava users. For the record. I'm not in the 10%, despite frequently having the path to myself in the early hours.

[reohn2]

In general, a good speed for a shared path aka cycleway is 20mph BUT it depends how busy it is. On the rare bits with errant toddlers, it's going to be slower, not much above walking speed. On sections with no other traffic, no junctions and good visibility, you can go far faster.

Do you actually consistently reach 20 mph? Thats a speed a road cyclist 'giving it some' would be happy with...on a road,unless of course your route to town is downhill.

It also struck me as a bit fanciful, so I looked at the Strava records of the path I mentioned above - 1.3 km, flat, wide, smooth, no junctions, sometimes busy, but frequently empty - Bearing in mind the nature of Strava will be biased to the sportier cyclist:
Number of attempts 42,000
Number of riders 4,800
Record 27 MPH
Number 20mph + 484

So some riders do maintain 20mph on a good path, almost exactly 10%, though there's no knowing if they frequently do that or if it's one time out of hundreds. I don't know what to conclude, it's more than I thought it would be, though it's clear that it isn't the speed most cyclists ride it at, even amongst Strava users. For the record. I'm not in the 10%, despite frequently having the path to myself in the early hours.

Are the 484,484 different riders?
Could not a large proportion be the same rider trying to beat his/her PB?

[Cyril Haearn]

Might be one rider, 484 times

I walked into town yesterday for a change, used the footway correctly throughout, it is further from motors than the cycleway
Not normal mind, I was going from A to B, many people are just out for a 'stroll without a goal'

[PH]

Are the 484,484 different riders?
Could not a large proportion be the same rider trying to beat his/her PB?

Different riders, you only get recorded on the leader board once with your fastest time.

there's no knowing if they frequently do that or if it's one time out of hundreds

[londonbikerider]

...
* People are more selfish and entitled these days. Cyclists in particular seem to contain a significant number who feel they should never be impeded from their 20mph by a mere pedestrian, especially a less-trained child or dog, both of which they feel should be locked up in a kennel until they're too old to dash about.

* The so-called shared paths are far too narrow and it's never clear who should go where or what behaviours are and are not legitimate. Pedestrians on an unshared path don't have to keep left, right or otherwise behave as though they were driving, so they don't do so when the path is "shared". Cyclists on such paths think they're still on a road and often fail to do any "sharing" behaviour.

In short, shared paths are not fit for purpose, as a shared road is. I feel far more safe and confident about what to do when on a road than when on a shred path. In fact, I avoid shared paths in favour of a road wherever possible.
...
Cugel

I agree on both the points you've raised.
My view is very simple on this matter: is up to everyone to share the space in a reasonable civilized manner, but this implies rules which somewhat defy the purpose of a "free path"