Off the road - which side of the track?

[philsknees]

I have few issues from adopting a keep left approach for oncoming cyclists, though do try to position myself visibly when approaching blind corners. When encountering pedestrians I always brake to a crawl, making no assumptions as to what they'll do.
I've only had one bad experience from this approach - climbing slowly and heavily laden, up the Glen Ogle section of NCR7 on a miserably wet day, I saw a group of 30+ early teenage cyclists in the distance, spread across the track moving downhill towards me at a fair lick. As they came closer I moved well to the left only to see the head of the pack swing belatedly to their right, heading straight for me, followed by a few of the rest, though most of those following were chatting amongst themselves, remaining spread across the whole width of the track, clearly unaware of my presence.
With a deeply flooded and rocky ditch and rockface immediately to my left (where I was in danger of ending up, even if I'd stopped), I moved quickly over to the right, but was forced into taking avoiding action off the track and brought to a stop by hub-deep mud which saved me from a serious drop, as the group cycled merrily past. The few who were paying attention to where they were going gave me puzzled looks but 70% were oblivious to what had happened. About 20 metres behind followed the two "responsible adults" chatting away in what I took to be Dutch, who just ignored me!
Seems they'd hired a batch of bikes but forgotten to remind the kids that we ride/drive on the left in the UK. I must have been the first oncoming cyclist they'd met. It took a good half hour to get the mud off my wheels and drivetrain before I could move on.....

[thirdcrank]

I have few issues from adopting a keep left approach for oncoming cyclists, though do try to position myself visibly when approaching blind corners. When encountering pedestrians I always brake to a crawl, making no assumptions as to what they'll do.
I've only had one bad experience from this approach - climbing slowly and heavily laden, up the Glen Ogle section of NCR7 on a miserably wet day, I saw a group of 30+ early teenage cyclists in the distance, spread across the track moving downhill towards me at a fair lick. As they came closer I moved well to the left only to see the head of the pack swing belatedly to their right, heading straight for me, followed by a few of the rest, though most of those following were chatting amongst themselves, remaining spread across the whole width of the track, clearly unaware of my presence.
With a deeply flooded and rocky ditch and rockface immediately to my left (where I was in danger of ending up, even if I'd stopped), I moved quickly over to the right, but was forced into taking avoiding action off the track and brought to a stop by hub-deep mud which saved me from a serious drop, as the group cycled merrily past. The few who were paying attention to where they were going gave me puzzled looks but 70% were oblivious to what had happened. About 20 metres behind followed the two "responsible adults" chatting away in what I took to be Dutch, who just ignored me!
Seems they'd hired a batch of bikes but forgotten to remind the kids that we ride/drive on the left in the UK. I must have been the first oncoming cyclist they'd met. It took a good half hour to get the mud off my wheels and drivetrain before I could move on.....

I can't see how any of that is a reason for not having a rule. Your meticulous explanation of what seemed to happen might be summarised as others largely following the wrong rule in ignorance. Conventions like using the correct side of the road save a lot of time.

[wjhall]

Shared paths are never wide enough to go speeding past ... ...

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

Which sounds like the exsection that proves the rule.

[mjr]

Shared paths are never wide enough to go speeding past ... ...

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

Which sounds like the exsection that proves the rule.

No, just the easiest disproof of "never"

[mattsccm]

Surely:
a) you always expect something to go wrong and ride so as to be able to stop.
b)as a possible/likely road user you would continue road rules unless signposted otherwise.
c) a well bred pedestrian will walk facing oncoming traffic and thus towards you on your side of the road. They would, , on the road, move further to their right/your left thus allowing you to pull out to pass.
d) you would expect those user groups who don't have rules of use to have no pattern whatsoever . See a) above.
e) you naturally expect a good proportion of other cyclists to ignore all conventions. Just like the rest of life.
f) it's no big deal really.

[Wixxy]

Just want to add that on the bi-directional segregated paths you will at some point be riding / walking on the right not left.

[Audax67]

There was a time when every road was what we'd call a track today. The rule of the road evolved back then, from the necessity to avoid collisions. Saying that it doesn't apply on tracks is to ignore why it ever existed.

[thirdcrank]

Just want to add that on the bi-directional segregated paths you will at some point be riding / walking on the right not left.

To be thread-to-needle, if I have understood you correctly, that's two discrete highways running next to each other. ie one's some form of footpath depending on circumstances and the other is a cycle track

[mjr]

Just want to add that on the bi-directional segregated paths you will at some point be riding / walking on the right not left.

To be thread-to-needle, if I have understood you correctly, that's two discrete highways running next to each other. ie one's some form of footpath depending on circumstances and the other is a cycle track

More often two ways within a highway, surely? A footway with a cycleway next to it. Not that it makes much practical difference.

Two way segregated should be banned where the footway is less than 2m or cycleway is less than 3. Passing users will too often cross the divide on narrower.

[thirdcrank]

I understood the thread to be about off-road tracks, which I believed to be about just that. I thought the post I commented on was about something else.

[mjr]

I understood the thread to be about off-road tracks, which I believed to be about just that. I thought the post I commented on was about something else.

But if you're going to be legalistic and start posting about "highways" then "off-road tracks" don't exist because the track is a road in law and the law requiring cyclists to keep left within the cycleable part applies.

[thirdcrank]

I wish now I had kept my neb out. I was trying to head off a "legalistic" red herring, not to trigger another

[Wixxy]

Just want to add that on the bi-directional segregated paths you will at some point be riding / walking on the right not left.

To be thread-to-needle, if I have understood you correctly, that's two discrete highways running next to each other. ie one's some form of footpath depending on circumstances and the other is a cycle track
[/quote]

More often two ways within a highway, surely? A footway with a cycleway next to it. Not that it makes much practical difference.

Two way segregated should be banned where the footway is less than 2m or cycleway is less than 3. Passing users will too often cross the divide on narrower.
[/quote]

I was meaning narrow footways and paths where two cycle going in opposite directions are forced over the white line on the pedestrian side to pass. All paths in my opinion should be unsegregated if they must exist and a simple keep left employed.

[Bmblbzzz]

Surely:
a) you always expect something to go wrong and ride so as to be able to stop.

Too pessimistic. There is a significant difference between being prepared for things to go wrong and expecting them to.

...
e) you naturally expect a good proportion of other cyclists to ignore all conventions. Just like the rest of life.
f) it's no big deal really.

Yep.