Off the road - which side of the track?

[offroader]

Do you mean that on seeing a cyclist coming, oncoming pedestrians going the other way moved to their right? That is exactly what they should do - pedestrians are supposed to walk on the right.

Supposed to walk on the right is correct but when they are currently on the left or (most commonly) dead center moving right into the path of oncoming traffic seems perverse

Another personal favourite is when two pedestrians walking side by side both move to the opposite side of the path leaving two pedestrians walking side by side

[tykeboy2003]

After an incident today, certainly not the first but definitely the most disturbing, I'm wondering which of the track people generally ride on when off road?

I've always followed local traffic laws even off road. So in the UK I keep left as I think most people are hopefully familiar with such a precedent

Today's incident (on the Upton House to Holes bay track just before the bridge for anyone in Bournemouth)

I'm approaching a blind 90 left on the left side of a 6-7ft wide gravel track going fairly slowly as I've had previous close encounters at that spot (Plus it's quite a busy track with many other riders, walkers, joggers, families etc so a Strava segment seems wholly inappropriate even though, predictably, there is one)
As I turn at the apex a rider appears from the other direction at about mach 12 clipping the apex on my side. I brake sharply and take avoiding action ending up maybe 6" into the brambles. The other rider skids 10 or 15 ft across gravel then grass before collecting a solid metal fence pretty hard
Obviously I stopped to check he was ok as the clang of him vs fence was pretty awful. As I enquired if he was ok I was met with a bleeping bleepload of abuse about my bleeping positioning and what the bleeping bleep am I, a bleeping moron?
Knowing that previous crashes haven't exactly brought out my best attitude I had a couple more attempts at ascertaining his condition but got nothing more than abuse back. Eventually I just rode off leaving him to it. From the gesticulations it seemed most of his appendages were functional

So what, if anything, could I have done differently?
Was I on the wrong side of the track as he implied? Is there even a wrong side of an off road track?

Totally with you on this, keep left. The only other thing I'd say is that approaching a blind left-hand corner, I might go to the outside of the bend allowing better visibility. However, he clearly wasn't doing that either....

[nosmarbaj]

What I used to find frequently when riding through the New Forest was the habit of walkers, heading towards you and spread across the wide gravel road, to notice you, see you move to one side (always the left, I might add) then chose to move to the very same side to block your way.
Strangely it seems to be a local phenomena

Do you mean that on seeing a cyclist coming, oncoming pedestrians going the other way moved to their right? That is exactly what they should do - pedestrians are supposed to walk on the right.

On a mixed-use path, I'd suggest pedestrians have priority and a cyclist's best strategy on approaching ped(s) who aren't already on one side or the other is to cycle in the centre of the path, slow right down, wait for the peds to move over, and then cycle slowly by on whichever side they have cleared, thanking them as you pass.
Gets more complicated if another cyclist is approaching from opposite direction, but you can always just stop for a few moments while things sort themselves out.

[ChrisButch]

My best example of the confusions arising from apparent uncertainty about this was a straight translation of a familiar situation when walking on crowded pavements. It was decades ago on an early Sustrans off-road route (former railway), when traffic-free bike paths were still a rarity. I was proceeding in an orderly fashion on a straight track, when another cyclist approached from the opposite direction. Being a well brought up Englishman, I automatically moved leftwards to pass him. He, at the same time, deviated rightwards by a similar degree. So I moved further left. He moved further right... we ended up (fortunately at low speed) in a confused heap off the side of the track. The reaction of both of us was laughter, happily. But when we talked about it it turned out he never rode on the road, and it simply didn't occur to him that similar rules might apply.
I suspect quite a lot of the incidents arise with occasional cyclists with similar histories. It's the absence of a reflex reaction to move left which counts.

[Mike Sales]

It seems to me that to have an agreed side of the track to ride is obviously a good idea. It saves confusion, negotiation and accidents. The same reasons as those which make left side cycling and driving universal on the road,(or right abroad).
It is obviously a good idea to have the same convention on cycle paths as on the road. It cuts confusion too.
I seem to remember reading that the first white line down the centre of the road was painted by a Texan woman. I imagine she thought it would help drivers, and the idea has been widely adopted!

[ChrisP100]

It seems to me that to have an agreed side of the track to ride is obviously a good idea. It saves confusion, negotiation and accidents. The same reasons as those which make left side cycling and driving universal on the road,(or right abroad).
It is obviously a good idea to have the same convention on cycle paths as on the road. It cuts confusion too.
I seem to remember reading that the first white line down the centre of the road was painted by a Texan woman. I imagine she thought it would help drivers, and the idea has been widely adopted!

There is a section of shared pedestrian/cycle/motor vehicle space at the end of a street just after a level crossing on my morning commute route which causes no end of confusion with cyclists.

I always position myself over to the left unless I'm blocked by pedestrians, but it seems others just take up any old position, and when they set off don't hold their line. Like this morning for instance, I was positioned on the left waiting for the barrier and a cyclist pulled up opposite me, and another one alongside them in the middle of the crossing.

When the barrier lifted, the one opposite moved slightly right so I could pass on the left, but the one in the middle cut diagonally across both of us forcing me to brake. To make matters worse I was then undertaken by a cyclist from behind who then cut across to the right hand side nearly colliding with a cyclist coming the other way.

Absolute madness.

[jamm13dodger]

I ride on the left but sound my bell when approaching a bend or turn I suspect someone else might be on the wrong (IMO) side off.

[Norman H]

It seems to me that to have an agreed side of the track to ride is obviously a good idea. It saves confusion, negotiation and accidents. The same reasons as those which make left side cycling and driving universal on the road,(or right abroad).
It is obviously a good idea to have the same convention on cycle paths as on the road. It cuts confusion too.
I seem to remember reading that the first white line down the centre of the road was painted by a Texan woman. I imagine she thought it would help drivers, and the idea has been widely adopted!

To be effective any collision avoidance rules should be designed to remove confusion over how to proceed when potential conflicts arise. The avoidance of collision at sea rules (COLREGS) are a model example in this respect. They're quite extensive in detail but a couple of key features would translate well to shared path use. Briefly they are: 

            1, Priority doesn't absolve you from the responsibility to avoid a collision if it's possible for you to do so.
            2,  Any avoiding manoeuvres should be obvious and made in good time.

As you and others have pointed out, keep left and overtake on the right, as per the rules of the road, should work well on cycle paths where the path is wide enough to accommodate it. Would It not also be much safer for everybody, and eliminate a lot of conflict and confusion, if pedestrians followed the same conventions on shared use paths?

[ChrisButch]

, keep left and overtake on the right, as per the rules of the road, should work well on cycle paths where the path is wide enough to accommodate it. Would It not also be much safer for everybody, and eliminate a lot of conflict and confusion, if pedestrians followed the same conventions on shared use paths?

Indeed it would. But cultural acceptance by pedestrians hard-wired to rule-free progress on pavements or footpaths is another matter.
Something similar with 'occasional' cyclists on paths who never ride on the road. Some act as if they are pedestrians on wheels; some as if they're drivers without an engine. Unfortunately you can't tell which is which until the knowledge is no longer useful.

[peetee]

What I used to find frequently when riding through the New Forest was the habit of walkers, heading towards you and spread across the wide gravel road, to notice you, see you move to one side (always the left, I might add) then chose to move to the very same side to block your way.
Strangely it seems to be a local phenomena

Do you mean that on seeing a cyclist coming, oncoming pedestrians going the other way moved to their right? That is exactly what they should do - pedestrians are supposed to walk on the right.

Except when it is unsafe to do so. For example, when on a road with a right-hand bend where they are hidden from the view of the approaching drivers by vegetation or roadside fixtures.
I would argue that wilfully moving yourself into the path of a solo cyclist who has changed their position to avoid conflict and there is ample opportunity to take a safe position on 75% of the remaining track is also ‘unsafe’.

[thirdcrank]

IMO the most important thing is to be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear. This is so with brass knobs on if the conduct of those coming the other way is unpredictable. And in some cases, that unpredictability applies when you can see them at a distance

[Nearholmer]

Yep.

And it’s not as if human beings can’t get this right.

I live in Milton Keynes, where we have hundreds of miles of shared-use paths of all sorts, ranging from wide, smooth routes with clear visibility to twisty, bumpy things with a plethora of blind corners, and is it mayhem/carnage?

No, for the vast majority of the time it works fine, with conflicts and accidents being very rare indeed, despite a goodly mix of walkers, dogs, people on bikes, people on e-scooters (yes, even those!), and the odd horse.

There are odd incidents, but what I found interesting was that when the local rag-newspaper tried to provoke a big argument about these things on its Facebook page, the general response wasn’t all the mister and misses angrys that they clearly wanted, but a sort-of “What’s the big issue?”.

Bad stuff does happen on shared use paths, but it’s very much the exception rather than the rule.

[ChrisP100]

, keep left and overtake on the right, as per the rules of the road, should work well on cycle paths where the path is wide enough to accommodate it. Would It not also be much safer for everybody, and eliminate a lot of conflict and confusion, if pedestrians followed the same conventions on shared use paths?

Indeed it would. But cultural acceptance by pedestrians hard-wired to rule-free progress on pavements or footpaths is another matter.
Something similar with 'occasional' cyclists on paths who never ride on the road. Some act as if they are pedestrians on wheels; some as if they're drivers without an engine. Unfortunately you can't tell which is which until the knowledge is no longer useful.

Pedestrians wearing headphones are quite possibly the most unpredictable beings in the known universe. Especially when approached from behind.

[wjhall]

People on foot may move right on seeing an oncoming cyclist both because of the practice of walking on the right on English roads, and because they see it as clearing the space to your right for you to overtake in, as if you had come up behind them. Although when people become aware of a cyclist coming up behind on the left, they may move right so that the cyclist does not need to deviate...

The essential rule on shared paths is to slow down until you see what the other users are going to do, and move slowly until you have passed them. Keeping left until you see what they are doing is also a good idea. Shared paths are never wide enough to go speeding past any other user on the assumption that they work like two way roads.

[mjr]

Shared paths are never wide enough to go speeding past any other user on the assumption that they work like two way roads.

Oh I think it's often safe to go pretty fast on the 9m wide section of NCN1 in Lynn when the walkers are over to one side.