Getting fed up with pedestrians and dogs on "shared" paths

[thirdcrank]

The HC "encourages" cyclists to use routes which have been provided for cyclists and there's a tendency for drivers to assume their use is compulsory - an attitude which assumes that a rider's right to use the carriageway is only a concession which is withdrawn with the provision of cycling facilities. Purely a guess on my part but I'll hazard that many of the people who moan about riders off-carriageway are the same people who moan about them on-carriageway and worse. And park all over footways "because there's nowhere else."

The legalities involved with the conversion of a footway to use as a cycle track have been widely discussed on here - often in the context of assertions that their use is compulsory - and it's disappointing when that's ignored.

On a broader point, it's rare that converted footways provide a decent route for cyclists and few experienced riders support them. IMO, when riders do use pavements - lawfully or unlawfully depending on designation - it's generally because they are frightened of bad driving.

[Mike_Ayling]

what do you expect", I replied "A little awareness"

IME when a group of pedestrians are blocking the path and talking, one will look up, see you coming, then carry on talking. Happens when I'm walking, as well as cycling.

Get anAirzound!

[Cyril Haearn]

what do you expect", I replied "A little awareness"

IME when a group of pedestrians are blocking the path and talking, one will look up, see you coming, then carry on talking. Happens when I'm walking, as well as cycling.

Get anAirzound!

What, to surprise and terrify them?
Could cause a heart attack
No no no

A loud horn is the thing to deal with mortons

[EMLON]

I must say I really like the shared paths.
I'm a middling rider anyway so not looking to ride fast, but the convivial atmosphere of the canals wins over sharing with cars any time.
On shared paths, I take the view that, as I am the fastest user, everybody else has the precedence: when I ride up to pedestrians I slow down and ring my bell, then wait for them to make space for me.

[Vantage]

Spot on! ^

[Cyril Haearn]

^^
Right again

[mjr]

A 'shared path' is a road. The presence or absence of motor vehicles does not in any way alter the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and cyclists towards each other.

I thought a lot of mixed use paths are footways that cycling has been allowed on. Not the right legal terms I know so please understand the meaning behind it.

Mainly the crap ones. The better conversions get a full rebuild to have proper crossings and widths and corner radii and so on.

Basically it's not a road which allows carriages but a footway for pedestrians which have a concession for cyclists. Certainly the ones near us are traditional footways for pedestrians originally. Then later they had pressure to provide cycle routes, due to becoming one of the original 5 cycling demonstration towns, so they gave those footways the legal concession for cycling use. Local bylaws or something.

It'll almost certainly be a conversion order under some Highways Act section - as thirdcrank wrote, it's already discussed on here somewhere - and from that point, it's a cycleway with a right of way on foot (which is generally true of all highways but not motorways and "special roads"). Local bylaws used to be used for the opposite effect, to ban cycling on footpaths which aren't covered by the Highways Act 1835's ban on roadside footways, but I don't know of any remaining in effect, having been abolished by successive Local Government Acts.

And anyway, the legal definition of "road" includes footways too: it's just a way that the public has legal access to. So even on footways, walkers should not be obstructing other faster walkers or allowing their dogs to!

[Tangled Metal]

Round here they're pedestrian footways that got conversion to allow cyclists to use them. Not n the other way around. I've never heard of cycle only routes that got a conversion to allow pedestrians. That to me sounds unlikely somehow but I stand to be be corrected.

[Jdsk]

On shared paths, I take the view that, as I am the fastest user, everybody else has the precedence: when I ride up to pedestrians I slow down and ring my bell, then wait for them to make space for me.

Sounds sensible to me.

Jonathan

[mjr]

Round here they're pedestrian footways that got conversion to allow cyclists to use them.

Yes, and from that point, they are no longer legally footways.

[thirdcrank]

Round here they're pedestrian footways that got conversion to allow cyclists to use them. Not n the other way around. I've never heard of cycle only routes that got a conversion to allow pedestrians. That to me sounds unlikely somehow but I stand to be be corrected.

The point you seem to miss entirely is that these changes are not concessions to cyclists, but rather are an imposition, de facto reducing the de jure rights of cyclists to use the carriageway.

Highway authorities don't create these things to promote cycling, but rather to get riders out of the road and pay lip-service to nationally imposed cycling policies.

[jgurney]

if you don't like sharing paths ride somewhere else ... like roads

A 'shared path' is a road. The presence or absence of motor vehicles does not in any way alter the rights and responsibilities of pedestrians and cyclists towards each other.

I thought a lot of mixed use paths are footways that cycling has been allowed on. Basically it's not a road which allows carriages but a footway

A footway is by definition part of a road, but the OP seemed to be referring to roads without motor traffic, not to shared use paths forming parts of roads (i.e. alongside carriageways).