Shared paths etiquette

[casoja]

I'm a runner not a rider, and I use a lot of shared paths. Sorry everyone but I get really frustrated by so many riders passing me from behind without giving me any notice and without slowing.
I appreciate this might not go down well here but honestly, it's about 8 out of 10 riders that just whizz past very close without any thought to how it might be from my point of view!
I always run to one side of the paths and check behind but where they are too narrow for a runner and rider to comfortably share, all I ask is that riders give a little consideration.

[Paulatic]

I suspect you are speaking to the converted here. I doubt those you speak of frequent these forums.
We’ve all got voices or bells but so often negated with two little buds in runners ears.

[Cyril Haearn]

Do you go on the right or the left, how fast? Some runners are faster than I cycle

One big problem is groups of joggers/runners who do not single out

[mjr]

I'm a runner not a rider, and I use a lot of shared paths. Sorry everyone but I get really frustrated by so many riders passing me from behind without giving me any notice and without slowing.

They still shouldn't close-pass you but, if they're behind you, how do you know they didn't slow? If you'd checked behind, maybe they thought you'd seen them and no further warning was needed.

[Tangled Metal]

Ear buds are the scourge of cooperative path use. It should be banned. Time to write to the DM letters page about it.

Seriously, your experience isn't mine. I have plenty of experience the other way around. Do I hold it against them and post on a running site or walking site?

But that's not the issue, understanding others is the issue. Do you see things from the running side only or can you understand walkers and cyclists? I'm sorry but complaints based on different types of travel and the perceived conflicts rarely help with understanding.

For example did the OP mention what they consider good behaviour was? Two out of ten cyclists had good behaviour, what was that?

Positivity helps with many things. Negativity does not help.

This post has been rewritten a few times before I pressed submit button. The reason was because final read made me realise it was negative. I took your first post negatively and responded accordingly but I soon realized my post was doing what yours did. That would have been pointless.

I assume your post was was in part to highlight bad behaviour and part to gain improvement in any small way. You highlighted your experience of bad behaviour. You missed a trick by not suggesting improvements or articles suggesting safe use of mixed use paths.

[Spinners]

I suspect you are speaking to the converted here. I doubt those you speak of frequent these forums.
We’ve all got voices or bells but so often negated with two little buds in runners ears.

+1.

[PH]

I walk down a shared use path almost as often as I cycle on it - I share the OP's opinion, I've brought it up here before, it is an unpleasant experience, as unpleasant as being close passed by a motor while on a bike (Yes of course I know the potential consequences are not the same) What annoys me most is that the path I most often walk down has been widened and still riders pass too close... what's wrong with some people?

[Polisman]

Dogs and runners are very similar - you never know which way they're going to jump. I've had a few near misses with both. I heard an (apocryphal) story of a dog being cut near in half when it ran between the chain wheel and the rear wheel, throwing the rider some twenty feet.

Personally I'd like to see national cycle routes de-personed: pedestrians and bikes don't mix on roads and they certainly don't mix on cycle paths. If you're going to go to the expense of building a network of routes, it makes sense to have dedicated routes for cyclists and pedestrians. I would absolutely spot fine anyone with a dog not on a leash on a cycle path. Heaven knows how many unreported accidents they've caused. Same for walkers or runners with headphones on.

A simple solution could be a one metre wide pedestrian zone and a clear separation of bikes and people. It would cost the price of a white line. Save hundreds, if not thousands of accidents per year.

[reohn2]

I walk down a shared use path almost as often as I cycle on it - I share the OP's opinion, I've brought it up here before, it is an unpleasant experience, as unpleasant as being close passed by a motor while on a bike (Yes of course I know the potential consequences are not the same) What annoys me most is that the path I most often walk down has been widened and still riders pass too close... what's wrong with some people?

Quite simply,they've no respect or care for others around them,it's the me,myself,I,to the exclusion of all others element of society.

[Cugel]

Dogs and runners are very similar - you never know which way they're going to jump. I've had a few near misses with both. I heard an (apocryphal) story of a dog being cut near in half when it ran between the chain wheel and the rear wheel, throwing the rider some twenty feet.

Personally I'd like to see national cycle routes de-personed: pedestrians and bikes don't mix on roads and they certainly don't mix on cycle paths. If you're going to go to the expense of building a network of routes, it makes sense to have dedicated routes for cyclists and pedestrians. I would absolutely spot fine anyone with a dog not on a leash on a cycle path. Heaven knows how many unreported accidents they've caused. Same for walkers or runners with headphones on.

A simple solution could be a one metre wide pedestrian zone and a clear separation of bikes and people. It would cost the price of a white line. Save hundreds, if not thousands of accidents per year.

Yes, the mixing of pedestrians and cyclists seems more fraught than the mixing of cyclists and motorised traffic. There are several factors coming into play. Here are two ....

* 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.

******
There's been endless debate about the provision of cycling or shared infrastructure in these forums.

As Boardman recently noted, the white lines on the roads that are supoosedly "cycling infrastructure" are worse than useless. They seem to cause more "accidents" than they prevent, because they encourage pasing on the left in a gutter, where both pedestrians and car doors (and left turning cars) are a hazard; and because they positively encourage close passing.

The cost of providing enough real and dedicated cycling infrastructure, that actually goes to all the places a cyclist might want to go, is prohibitive, especially since there already is a fine infrastructure, called "the roads" that have long been designed and implemented to go everywhere a cyclist might want to go. There might be case for them in crowded cities; but there's a far better case for just reining in cars there; or banning them altogether. Cars do far more damage in cities than just knocking over the odd cyclist.

But imagine if the dedicated cycling infrastructure in cities that is fit for purpose were shared with all those pedestrians! Chaos would ensue, with far more collisions than on the roads between cyclists and cars albeit the collisions would tend to less lethal.

But meanwhile, I'd like to see cyclists banned from most so-called shared paths, as it's they and their fast pointy machinery that are the fundamental cause of problems there, not people, children or dogs. Take out the cyclists, no problems. And cyclists can go on the roads. Well, I do.

Cugel

[Tangled Metal]

A simple solution could be a one metre wide pedestrian zone and a clear separation of bikes and people. It would cost the price of a white line. Save hundreds, if not thousands of accidents per year.

That's been a common approach for mixed use paths. In the northeast of England there's loads of them. They really do not work. I've walked and cycled on them so many times and the white line is simply ignored. Often more by the pedestrians and runners. We're not talking about youths with no respect to others but everyone. Kids to OAPs. Walkers to joggers.

Without separation being designed in you will never separate cyclists and pedestrians. Separation also would mean entry points to the paths. If one user can physically enter the wrong path for them it'll happen and probably become the norm.

We simply have to learn to live with each other. A good start is to read the highway code.

[Spinners]

I'd like to see cyclists banned from most so-called shared paths, as it's they and their fast pointy machinery that are the fundamental cause of problems there, not people, children or dogs. Take out the cyclists, no problems. And cyclists can go on the roads. Well, I do.

Well that effectively would rule me out from cycling to work then. On my commute I use a mix of roads and shared-use paths. Remove the latter and I would have to use a dual-carriageway with a nasty spearpoint junction where traffic merging in have just left a motorway and still have that 70mph mentality. One of my clubmates was actually driven over by a HGV on such a spearpoint and, as expected, his injuries were (and continue to be) life-changing.

No thank you. I'll use the shared-use path.

[Spinners]

We simply have to learn to live with each other. A good start is to read the highway code.

Yes!

Better facilities would be nice but the above is so important.

[mjr]

* 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.

I agree many are too narrow, but it is clear in the highway code who should go where, although some designers are as ignorant as anyone else and undermine this with poor designs. Sharing does seem to be a lost art in most of the UK, although some places are better than others and anywhere may contain an idiot.

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.

Shared roads are not fit for purpose. There's a big design manual of heavy engineering measures to try to make them safer but no road yet built follows the current version in full!

It's up to you if you want to avoid cycleways (a type of road in law) but most wouldn't. Some would even stop cycling if all were removed.

The cost of providing enough real and dedicated cycling infrastructure, that actually goes to all the places a cyclist might want to go, is prohibitive, especially since there already is a fine infrastructure, called "the roads" that have long been designed and implemented to go everywhere a cyclist might want to go.

Prohibitive, but a fraction of motorway or railway spending with a higher benefit-cost ratio?

Sometimes, rehumanising all or part of existing roads will be the way to do it, but sometimes it will be adding parallel ones.

There might be case for them in crowded cities; but there's a far better case for just reining in cars there; or banning them altogether. Cars do far more damage in cities than just knocking over the odd cyclist.

That's backwards. There's more case for them where motorist speeds are high, whether on urban distributor routes or rural quasimotorways.

But imagine if the dedicated cycling infrastructure in cities that is fit for purpose were shared with all those pedestrians! Chaos would ensue, with far more collisions than on the roads between cyclists and cars albeit the collisions would tend to less lethal.

That's never happened anywhere there is dedicated cycling infrastructure.

But meanwhile, I'd like to see cyclists banned from most so-called shared paths, as it's they and their fast pointy machinery that are the fundamental cause of problems there,

The self-loathing of the road cyclist

[MikeF]

Take out the cyclists, no problems. And cyclists can go on the roads. Well, I do.

Cugel

The reason most people don't cycle on roads is because they're are (perceived as) dangerous. How many children cycle on roads?
Take out motor vehicles on the roads, no problems as you say.