People shouting 'left' 'right' etc on a cylce path whilst approaching from behind

[[XAP]Bob]

My view is you shouldn't be calling out at all,

It's a misnomer to believe that calling out is merely to inform other cyclists on the road/trail that you are coming, it is in fact to tell the other cyclist to 'hold their line' so as not to veer into you.

...and what happens when the road conditions mean that I am unable 'to hold my line' ?

Then you know that there is someone approaching and you might need to call back “pothole” or somesuch...

[Bonefishblues]

A non-issue if the overtaker has left sufficient room to cope with the unexpected, shirley?

[mjr]

One thing I find a bit annoying on the European cycleways is that all the locals cycle two abreast and take up the whole path, and go quite slowly.

Precisely why cycleways/cycling infra even on the continent is no substitute for a 3.5m wide carriageway that is given over to people on bikes only, those cycle lanes really aren't useful for mass cycling with people of hugely varying speeds, it should be designed to allow a parent and child to cycle side by side, or a couple of people chatting to each other or any other scenario that takes up a bit more space than a single rider.

The segregated cycle infra solution is a good idea, but actually it's nowhere near the ideal solution not just for keeping people on bikes safe but also enabling them in large numbers to transit from A-B in the most convenient manner, which is precisely what the powers that be do for motorists, and that is why many people won't swap over to cycling to get about when it's easier to get about by car.

This is still apparent in NL and why cycling numbers have stagnated for well over a decade, the slower cyclists are catered for, but the younger men who are generally getting about by car who could arguably be travelling faster on bike as per the majority of British cycle commuters aren't choosing to cycle. A recent study in NL showed that almost a quarter of all Dutch people who travel for work/utility would NEVER consider cycling as an option.

And what's the UK equivalent proportion?

Maybe it's that the last quarter takes three quarters of the effort. And Dutch cycleway geometry is, on average, far far better than the UK's. 3.5m is not rare there.

[Bmblbzzz]

Bells are bloody useless. So often am I told by some dozy so and so, (usually elderly ) that as I should ring my bell after I have. I quick example and an "I did" just gets a grunt. A nice polite " morning" is all it needs unless you are ignored. Then it's "excuse me please". Never needed anything else in 4 decades.

Bells are best used from a way back, loudly -- it helps to have a loud bell, many are inadequate -- so the walkers (or slower cyclists etc) can turn round and see you approaching, not yet near enough to be a hazard and already slowing down. Then let them chose which side they want to go (on a path -- on the road there are of course rules for this!).

And as Tigerbitten says, speak and thank.

[The utility cyclist]

One thing I find a bit annoying on the European cycleways is that all the locals cycle two abreast and take up the whole path, and go quite slowly.

Precisely why cycleways/cycling infra even on the continent is no substitute for a 3.5m wide carriageway that is given over to people on bikes only, those cycle lanes really aren't useful for mass cycling with people of hugely varying speeds, it should be designed to allow a parent and child to cycle side by side, or a couple of people chatting to each other or any other scenario that takes up a bit more space than a single rider.

The segregated cycle infra solution is a good idea, but actually it's nowhere near the ideal solution not just for keeping people on bikes safe but also enabling them in large numbers to transit from A-B in the most convenient manner, which is precisely what the powers that be do for motorists, and that is why many people won't swap over to cycling to get about when it's easier to get about by car.

This is still apparent in NL and why cycling numbers have stagnated for well over a decade, the slower cyclists are catered for, but the younger men who are generally getting about by car who could arguably be travelling faster on bike as per the majority of British cycle commuters aren't choosing to cycle. A recent study in NL showed that almost a quarter of all Dutch people who travel for work/utility would NEVER consider cycling as an option.

And what's the UK equivalent proportion?

Maybe it's that the last quarter takes three quarters of the effort. And Dutch cycleway geometry is, on average, far far better than the UK's. 3.5m is not rare there.

Sorry but that is patently untrue.
Far better to have a single lane of the carriageway going through towns/cities that meets desire lines rather than a narrower convoluted cycle lane that does not and restricts who can use it and only go t certain speeds. taking back the existing infra is massively cheaper and forces the hand of people in motors to change radically.
Also with far fewer conflict points it would be safer, you do realise that with segregated that introduces far more conflict points with motor roads, why do you think there are so many deaths at these junctures in the supposed safest cycling country in the world? 60 deaths annually at these conflict points is significant and again highlights one of the downsides to segregated lanes.

[The utility cyclist]

I can't help but to disagree with the Utility cyclist in one respect. Not to speak is plain rude. It gives no warning to those you are passing that you are there and being surprised isn't nice. Courtesy to the other person if nothing else.It's for their benefit as much as yours.
I don't disagree that the overtaker has responsibility for their actions but the world is full of idiots and they turn around when surprised. Often into you. Creeping up on them is not being clever, its missing a trick.
As to what to say, "left" gives nothing. "On your left" says everything.
Bells are bloody useless. So often am I told by some dozy so and so, (usually elderly ) that as I should ring my bell after I have. I quick example and an "I did" just gets a grunt. A nice polite " morning" is all it needs unless you are ignored. Then it's "excuse me please". Never needed anything else in 4 decades.

Why is it rude, I won't warn someone if it's not needed though I might say hello/greeting if we catch each others eyes, would you say hello/warn everyone on the footway as you're passing them on foot, no you wouldn't, you wouldn't do it in a car passing a cyclist either and there's no need to do it with other cyclists either on your journey. In any case you might pass a 100 people, would you give a greeting to everyone?

Please explain why it is deemed rude to not speak/greet someone you are simply going straight past and they've not had to deviate in any way and not felt fear of harm because you were doing what you should? if someone comes past me safely I expect nothing, if they don't say a greeting why is that rude, I don't know the person, if they say hello, I'll return the favour, but I'm not bothered one iota if it doesn't occur.

Seems to me there's too many who are bothered/find rude by the slightest things, christ when I mentioned tapping someone on the shoulder the other week. One of the few situations that you would need to speak to people is when there is no obvious safe passing spot for any distance ahead, simply asking people if you can get past and you've slowed down to their speed (so 2-3mph if need be) or in the tapping on shoulder scenario if the person is deaf/headphones in. Someone responded stating this was scary/startling or whatever descriptive they used, really, tapping someone on the shoulder gently and saying excuse me is scary it's an extreme example but one of the few times were interaction is required, otherwise, no, it's not and it's not rude if you don't say something.

[Cyril Haearn]

Best not to touch a stranger, they might be shocked and spontaneously lash out

[mjr]

[...] A recent study in NL showed that almost a quarter of all Dutch people who travel for work/utility would NEVER consider cycling as an option.

And what's the UK equivalent proportion?

Maybe it's that the last quarter takes three quarters of the effort. And Dutch cycleway geometry is, on average, far far better than the UK's. 3.5m is not rare there.

Sorry but that is patently untrue.

Got any data? The CROW manual for Dutch roads specifies 4m and certainly I've seen lots. Clicking around Streetview randomly finds 3+m easily: https://showmystreet.com/#uzkwf_2lxl7_2c.a_-e942 https://showmystreet.com/#uzm91_3dluz_1j.g_-hg42 (needs grass cut!) https://showmystreet.com/#vgmrb_3xop1_4x.a_-m842

No answer about what proportion of UKers won't cycle for work, then?

Far better to have a single lane of the carriageway going through towns/cities that meets desire lines rather than a narrower convoluted cycle lane that does not and restricts who can use it and only go t certain speeds. taking back the existing infra is massively cheaper and forces the hand of people in motors to change radically.

I agree. Some of the best cycle routes in the Netherlands have been created by reallocating short stretches of carriageway as cycleway, turning adjacent former rat runs into resident-only service roads - but that's politically difficult in the UK now where there is constant pressure to go the other way and convert cycleways into carriageways and open up new rat runs to disperse motorists and move exhaust and brake pollution away from the monitors on main roads. It's also a weak argument against direct, well-designed cycleways that are wide enough for the volume of users.

Also with far fewer conflict points it would be safer, you do realise that with segregated that introduces far more conflict points with motor roads,

No, because it's not true: if you put 30kph vehicles in a stream of 50, 70 or 80kph vehicles, then every point along that road becomes a potential conflict point as one vehicle catches another, plus it's one that the cyclists have poor visibility of and can't as easily avoid as one at a perpendicular crossroads.

why do you think there are so many deaths at these junctures in the supposed safest cycling country in the world?

60 deaths annually at these conflict points is significant and again highlights one of the downsides to segregated lanes.

Significant, but also lower than the GB total of about 70 deaths/year at junctions from far fewer cyclists!

[Bmblbzzz]

would you say hello/warn everyone on the footway as you're passing them on foot, no you wouldn't,

It's not a question of a greeting or warning to everyone, only to those who need to be alerted to your presence. If there's a large group ahead of you occupying the entire width of the pavement, walking slowly, I'll say "Excuse me" or similar. As you actually seem to acknowledge:

One of the few situations that you would need to speak to people is when there is no obvious safe passing spot for any distance ahead, simply asking people if you can get past and you've slowed down to their speed (so 2-3mph if need be)