Cycling UK Forum

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 . .

I can echo this - in my experience, most (just about "all") encounters with pedestrians or cyclists are quite civil with both the pedestrians/cyclists and I being polite and considerate.

The way I understand the OP is that this was not a case of priority/giving way between different parties on their way but of the other parties purposefully obstructing the OP from making his way even after the OP made his presence and purpose known. That's a different kettle of fish in my reckoning and was intended to precipitate either a confrontation or an overt act of undeserved deference.

There is path through my local park that most definitely had a no cycling sign painted on the tarmac when I was young but this has now all but faded to nothing. Cyclist including myself often use this path as it avoids a busy-ish road. It's very wide with grass on one side so no real danger to walkers from reasonable cyclists. The council has always been very quiet about it.
I suspect the no cycling was originally to stop kids careering round and causing a nuisance rather than to stop folk getting across to town on their bikes. So the authorities are probably taking the attitude of let sleeping dogs lie until there is a problem. This being because as soon as they raise the issue lots of unhbothered walkers will suddenly become bothered and a big to-do will ensue.

So what happened to the careering kids? Perhaps now grown up and riding road bikes at speed on the paths instead? Or replaced but by kids into other things? Curious why a problem once is no longer a problem unless it wasn't a problem back then or still a problem now.

Tangled Metal wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 6:41am So what happened to the careering kids? Perhaps now grown up and riding road bikes at speed on the paths instead? Or replaced but by kids into other things? Curious why a problem once is no longer a problem unless it wasn't a problem back then or still a problem now.

Social change, how we behave, comes to mind as the most likely reason why what was once a problem no longer is. The thing about the ‘good old days’ is that some of them actually weren’t better than ‘today’.

Re the narrow slot, I would point out that was only part of the sentence. It read . All I need is a narrow slot, enough to get safely by.

I accept that slot is probably the wrong word, but it is heavily clarified by the safely by bit.

It was also in the context of people moving out of my way. If they leave enough space for me to comfortably pass and they are happy with the gap, should I stop and say, sorry that is not enough space, I want my nn metres.

I would add that on these shared paths , I rarely exceed 15kph and slow down when approaching any hazard.

simonhill wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 9:08am It was also in the context of people moving out of my way. If they leave enough space for me to comfortably pass and they are happy with the gap, should I stop and say, sorry that is not enough space, I want my nn metres.

No, if they're happy not to have 2m (walkers or horse riders) or 1.5m (cyclists), and you're happy with the gap, proceed with caution IMO. I think all people are saying is not to bully past walkers like bad drivers do past cyclists.

The passing distances above apply to us too, but the reality of narrow roads dictates that sometimes the choice with oncoming traffic will be between breaking the passing distance rule and breaking the excessive-reversing rule to reach a passing place. I suggest the passing distance rule will almost always be the one to break carefully.

Another couple of things about being near other people on narrow paths are social distancing, which may peter out/ eventually be deemed unnecessary, and lone women. In the latter case, avoiding communication which may be interpreted as threatening, isn't conducive to straightforward passing.

thirdcrank wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 11:07am Another couple of things about being near other people on narrow paths are social distancing, which may peter out/ eventually be deemed unnecessary, and lone women. In the latter case, avoiding communication which may be interpreted as threatening, isn't conducive to straightforward passing.

I used to shout:
"Get out of my ******* way!" but then after #metoo I switched to
"Hello-ow! <get a bit closer ... > Excuse me ... - hi, could I please squeeze past? "

Hopefully the latter covers off most issues : -)

I only missed out four words in front of what I quoted. I was not having a go just using the phrase to make a wider point about perceptions of space between more and less vulnerable users of any mixed user route.

I have no doubt your use of the word slot doesn't mean you fail to give enough space. I reckon I've read enough reasonable posts from you on space between user types to make that assumption.

As many on here are, I use many methods of travel for fun, work and other. Whilst it is way to easy to just look from the present or most frequent travel types POV. It is still Incumbent on people to consider how things are for the more vulnerable user of mixed routes. Space feels more Incumbent on the faster, more dangerous transport type to give more than they think to the more vulnerable.

Sorry TM, I probably over reacted to my "slot" being reposted a few times.

mattheus wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 12:26pm

thirdcrank wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 11:07am Another couple of things about being near other people on narrow paths are social distancing, which may peter out/ eventually be deemed unnecessary, and lone women. In the latter case, avoiding communication which may be interpreted as threatening, isn't conducive to straightforward passing.

I used to shout:
"Get out of my ******* way!" but then after #metoo I switched to
"Hello-ow! <get a bit closer ... > Excuse me ... - hi, could I please squeeze past? "

Hopefully the latter covers off most issues : -)

Unfortunately, anything more than strictly necessary may be interpretted as threatening or creepy to a lone woman, especially if there are not other people around. Most women have had far too many experiences of men who approach legitimately, say something, and then stop and try to talk, becoming increasingly persistent, giving unwanted attention, even grabbing or following them. A lone woman, even if she isn't afraid for herself will be wary of any encounters because of this. Recent publicity of violence against women may make them more wary than they would previously have been.

Giving a lone woman a wide pass, even going off the path / on the side, and staying well away is better than saying anything. If saying something is necessary, a simple "excuse me" is enough; more is not needed, and may not be wanted.

Violence against women isn't really, in my opinion, something to joke about.

To me this is why a bell is useful. Ring the bell, no words necessary. I can't understand why some are so anti-bell (another thread, I know).

I often give a thank you after I've passed, but sometimes, especially with lone women, just raise my hand in thanks once I am past.

Apart from anything else, it's not normal to carry a bell on foot. Actually, I presume anybody who is worried about their personal safety will "have eyes in the back of their head" so it's not so much about giving a warning of your presence but being non-threatening. Crossing to the other side is easy, traffic permitting, but on the narrow ginnels we have round here, there's no other side to cross to.

(Thanks to Vorpal for the clarification.)

Tangled Metal wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 6:41am So what happened to the careering kids? Perhaps now grown up and riding road bikes at speed on the paths instead? Or replaced but by kids into other things? Curious why a problem once is no longer a problem unless it wasn't a problem back then or still a problem now.

Oh the kids are still about especially as there is now a skateboard park there, Attitudes are less Edwardian now so there is more tolerance & probably a recognition that its better to have them cycle that way than round on the road. It would be nice to officialise it but we don't want to wake the sleeping dogs.

simonhill wrote: ↑26 Jan 2022, 3:41pm To me this is why a bell is useful. Ring the bell, no words necessary. I can't understand why some are so anti-bell (another thread, I know).

Yes, bells are good for this (but not always sufficient, what with iPods etc etc ... )

I didn't mention that as my main bikes are currently bell-free! But you're right, they are useful.