Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

General cycling advice ( NOT technical ! )
Post Reply
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by gaz »

Spen wrote: 23 Jan 2022, 10:11amThese maps are by no means definitive, despite being produced by the council.
Of course the National Street Gazetteer has it recorded as a footpath :? . NSG is about as definitive as you can get from public sources but is also not without errors and does not include any permissive rights..
NSG.png
In this case the OP has contacted the Highway Authority and been advised as follows:-
Image

Who holds the position of official ajudicator in the game of cycletrack status Top Trumps? :mrgreen:
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
deeferdonk
Posts: 166
Joined: 11 May 2019, 2:50pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by deeferdonk »

Has made me think. The new highway code clarifies that cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use paths. At the minute I would say pedestrians usually give way to me when paths aren't that wide, in that I tinkle my bell on approach, they stand to the side, hopefully with any canine colleagues under control, I breeze past and give (and usually, receive) verbal thanks/greetings. Should I be stopping and letting them walk past me?
De Sisti
Posts: 1507
Joined: 17 Jun 2007, 6:03pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by De Sisti »

deeferdonk wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 6:16pm Has made me think. The new highway code clarifies that cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use paths. At the minute I would say pedestrians usually give way to me when paths aren't that wide, in that I tinkle my bell on approach, they stand to the side, hopefully with any canine colleagues under control, I breeze past and give (and usually, receive) verbal thanks/greetings. Should I be stopping and letting them walk past me?
Yes. Why not?
DaveReading
Posts: 746
Joined: 24 Feb 2019, 5:37pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by DaveReading »

deeferdonk wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 6:16pm Has made me think. The new highway code clarifies that cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use paths. At the minute I would say pedestrians usually give way to me when paths aren't that wide, in that I tinkle my bell on approach, they stand to the side, hopefully with any canine colleagues under control, I breeze past and give (and usually, receive) verbal thanks/greetings. Should I be stopping and letting them walk past me?
You don't occupy any more width when you're moving than when you're stopped. By all means slow down if you aren't already cycling at a sensible speed, but why stop?
nirakaro
Posts: 1578
Joined: 22 Dec 2007, 2:01am

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by nirakaro »

De Sisti wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 6:28pm
deeferdonk wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 6:16pm Has made me think. The new highway code clarifies that cyclists should give way to pedestrians on shared use paths. At the minute I would say pedestrians usually give way to me when paths aren't that wide, in that I tinkle my bell on approach, they stand to the side, hopefully with any canine colleagues under control, I breeze past and give (and usually, receive) verbal thanks/greetings. Should I be stopping and letting them walk past me?
Yes. Why not?
If the path is really too narrow to ride past them comfortably, then yes; but I can't recall seeing a shared use path where that's the case.
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 4963
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Cowsham »

Jdsk wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 8:56am
Tangled Metal wrote: 17 Jan 2022, 7:17amRants on a forum are always one sided.
But the whole discussion doesn't need to be. If we choose to try and reach consensus we might occasionally achieve it.

For example in this thread:

1 It can be difficult to find the status and permissions of somewhere you'd like to cycle.

2 There are some experts who can tell us where to look. (Thanks.)

3 It's sensible to wind down confrontations of this type rather than escalating them.

Jonathan
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c3/e7/e0 ... 582d1e.gif
I am here. Where are you?
simonhill
Posts: 5226
Joined: 13 Jan 2007, 11:28am
Location: Essex

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by simonhill »

On giving way on a shared path, I'm usually ringing my bell because they are walking 3 or 4 abreast often with a dog as well.

It is a shared path, so I think we should share sensibly. All I need is a narrow slot, enough to get safely by.

I normally get greeted well if I approach carefully and am often thanked, which leads me to think that not all passing cyclists are so careful
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 4963
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Cowsham »

simonhill wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 9:03pm On giving way on a shared path, I'm usually ringing my bell because they are walking 3 or 4 abreast often with a dog as well.

It is a shared path, so I think we should share sensibly. All I need is a narrow slot, enough to get safely by.

I normally get greeted well if I approach carefully and am often thanked, which leads me to think that not all passing cyclists are so careful
On Sunday I met a couple walking along a shared footpath and was prepared to move onto the grass verge with my mtb but again they walked over onto the verge to let me pass on the tar. I always give a friendly wave and a "Thank you " when the walker moves to let me pass since I know they have priority.
I am here. Where are you?
deeferdonk
Posts: 166
Joined: 11 May 2019, 2:50pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by deeferdonk »

simonhill wrote: 24 Jan 2022, 9:03pm On giving way on a shared path, I'm usually ringing my bell because they are walking 3 or 4 abreast often with a dog as well.

It is a shared path, so I think we should share sensibly. All I need is a narrow slot, enough to get safely by.

I normally get greeted well if I approach carefully and am often thanked, which leads me to think that not all passing cyclists are so careful
i think this is more the situation i was thinking. I think of it as pedestrians are giving way to me, as they have to take action to allow me to pass, but only because they are taking up the whole path, walking down the centre, having their dog off a lead etc. Maybe i should think of it as that they taking action to share the path.

i do approach carefully especially if there are dogs or little children who could dart out, and am often thanked. Although on some of the shared trails i ride on there is the habit of people jumping out of their skin when i cycle slowly up behind them and ask politely if i can pass, after a preliminary tinkle on approach. "i thought i heard a bell" is the usual statement.
User avatar
Cowsham
Posts: 4963
Joined: 4 Nov 2019, 1:33pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Cowsham »

deeferdonk wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 9:51am
i do approach carefully especially if there are dogs or little children who could dart out, and am often thanked. Although on some of the shared trails i ride on there is the habit of people jumping out of their skin when i cycle slowly up behind them and ask politely if i can pass, after a preliminary tinkle on approach. "i thought i heard a bell" is the usual statement.
Yes I find the same and will use the bell when approaching from behind if they don't hear me cos my bike is so quiet but I wouldn't ting the bell if walkers can see me approach cos that would be suggesting to them that they give way to me when really I should give way to them. If approaching from behind and tinged bell is heard I don't assume they should move, instead I'll move around them or get off and walk behind them until space to pass is available.

None of that should need to be said, it should be just good manners and common sense.
I am here. Where are you?
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Tangled Metal »

Just one question. On the road cars should give 1.5m gap to cyclists but when the cyclist is not the more vulnerable user they only need "a narrow slot, enough to get safely by".

What constitutes a narrow slot for the cyclist and the pedestrian POV?

On the road it seems 1.5m gap to one side for cars, the slower cyclist as the greater danger possibly needs less gap but what is reasonable for cyclist and what is reasonable for the pedestrian?

My point is the more vulnerable often sees the slot allocated to them by faster users as insufficient. Close passes to cyclists don't seem so to drivers. Similarly close passes to pedestrians don't seem so by cyclists.

As with cars / bike interactions I've also experienced both sides of the cyclist / pedestrian interaction. So this I have experienced and I have learnt that there is no such thing as an acceptable narrow slot for any user. Space is needed and lower speed too.

PS I would rate runners with cyclists in their passing of pedestrians. A 7 year old son nearly being knocked into a canal by a runner at the beginning of first lockdown really convinced me of that. I nearly graffitied the signs telling cyclists to take care of pedestrians to that effect when they appeared by the canal back then. I'm not into vandalism but imho it would have been in the public interest and justified.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Jdsk »

Tangled Metal wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 10:54amOn the road cars should give 1.5m gap to cyclists but when the cyclist is not the more vulnerable user they only need "a narrow slot, enough to get safely by".
Where's that quoted from, please?

Thanks

Jonathan
Bonefishblues
Posts: 11010
Joined: 7 Jul 2014, 9:45pm
Location: Near Bicester Oxon

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Bonefishblues »

Jdsk wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 11:16am
Tangled Metal wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 10:54amOn the road cars should give 1.5m gap to cyclists but when the cyclist is not the more vulnerable user they only need "a narrow slot, enough to get safely by".
Where's that quoted from, please?

Thanks

Jonathan
Because dull, I searched on that phrase.

Top result - a toaster review in Which magazine, which brightened up a dull day :D
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Tangled Metal »

Jdsk wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 11:16am
Tangled Metal wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 10:54amOn the road cars should give 1.5m gap to cyclists but when the cyclist is not the more vulnerable user they only need "a narrow slot, enough to get safely by".
Where's that quoted from, please?

Thanks

Jonathan
Simonhill upthread.

Must point out that I'm not criticising what he said as being wrong just not ideal. I reckon cyclists and pedestrians need more space than the bigger or faster mode of transport seem to think.

The years of cyclists campaigning for a better gap perhaps the increase in mixed use, cycle and pedestrian routes will result in pedestrians campaigning for a bigger gap from cyclists and runners.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Cyclist-hater refuses to move and says its illegal to cycle on this path??? (PICS INSIDE)

Post by Jdsk »

Tangled Metal wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 4:13pm
Jdsk wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 11:16am
Tangled Metal wrote: 25 Jan 2022, 10:54amOn the road cars should give 1.5m gap to cyclists but when the cyclist is not the more vulnerable user they only need "a narrow slot, enough to get safely by".
Where's that quoted from, please?
Simonhill upthread.
Thanks

Jonathan
Post Reply