Wrong-side riding on psychlepaths

[AndyK]

.. I always tell them what I think of them.

I find it really annoying.

I've been pondering this reaction for two days and it bothers me. This is as polite as I can make it:

If you (or I) get told off by a BMW driver who has to steer round us a bit... and finds cyclists really annoying, we call them names, slag all drivers off on the forum and possibly report a few individuals to the police.

How is it acceptable for you to "tell them what you think of them" but unacceptable to be on the receiving end of similar advice?

 

I'm with others above - the more slow people there are meandering around on our roads and paths, the better. IMHO

We're talking about people who ride on the wrong side of the cycle path. I will abuse them as much as I would abuse a driver driving on the wrong side of the road.

[Domestique]

Part of the problem is a shit cycle path, if it is the same path I am thinking of. Really minimum width, no space for error, even unintentional.
Yep there are some idiots around but what the council are providing is hardly helping the situation.

[gordon taylor]

.. I always tell them what I think of them.

I find it really annoying.

I've been pondering this reaction for two days and it bothers me. This is as polite as I can make it:

If you (or I) get told off by a BMW driver who has to steer round us a bit... and finds cyclists really annoying, we call them names, slag all drivers off on the forum and possibly report a few individuals to the police.

How is it acceptable for you to "tell them what you think of them" but unacceptable to be on the receiving end of similar advice?

 

I'm with others above - the more slow people there are meandering around on our roads and paths, the better. IMHO

We're talking about people who ride on the wrong side of the cycle path. I will abuse them as much as I would abuse a driver driving on the wrong side of the road.

You're making up the rules (in the same way as drivers make stuff up about compulsory cycle paths and two abreast stuff.)
AFAICS in the Highway Code there's no requirement for a cyclist to keep left on a cycle path.

[Tigerbiten]

I tend to stay on the left, unless the state of the cycle track forces me to swop sides.
Then again I always ready to swop sides as need be if the other cyclist is sticking to my left.

But then again most cyclist get out of my way as I'm riding a recumbent trike.
So I'm bigger than they are ......... 
Might is right ............. 

Its corners I've got to be carefulll of.
Being around 1 meter wide, means I cannot dodge into the enge if I meet someone on the wrong side.

Kids on small bike I'm alway of.
And I also think the recumbent is a lot less frightening to peds as it comes past.
Just because I'm passing at knee height, not head height.

[Freya]

That's about the same rate as the USA - four times the road deaths casualties (42,000 pa) and four times the population.

Yes, but nowhere near as many cars.

[ian]

...
We're talking about people who ride on the wrong side of the cycle path. I will abuse them as much as I would abuse a driver driving on the wrong side of the road.

Except there isn't a wrong side of a cycle path, because it isn't a road.

I'm with Gordy. I'm happy to see people cycling, and well, if I occasionally have to slow down on a path for another cyclist, it's not that much of a problem. I just had to grind to a halt for an absent-minded woman and her three dogs floating in the middle of the path. Yeah, I could have yelled at her, got all angry. But I didn't. Instead I said hello and we swapped the usual comments on the rain (which had just decided to fall), and off I went again. Yes, she was blocking the path, and yes, it would have been nice if she had corralled her mutts as I approached.

The I got stuck behind a family heading home. Parents on bikes, kid on the back. Yes, they were all over the path. I just slowed down for a bit, waiting until it was clear and passed. Again, we swapped a few pleasantries about the rain, I dinged my bell on request for the kid and off I went. I didn't feel the need to pull them over and educate them on my perceived version of cycle path etiquette.

[Cudzoziemiec]

That's about the same rate as the USA - four times the road deaths casualties (42,000 pa) and four times the population.

Yes, but nowhere near as many cars.

But more motorbikes and animals - the vehicles which are supposed to be the most "dangerous" (ie most often involved in RTAs). However, from what I've seen of the USA (admittedly not much) I can't believe there is anything like the same chaos on the roads there as there is in India. Having said that... I do remember cyclists riding on the wrong side of the road routinely in Hawaii (but not in California) and some parts of India have more orderly traffic than others. I've been told that Bombay is one of the most orderly and Bangalore one of the worst - certainly it's much crazier than places I've been in Tamil Nadu, but then they were smaller.

[mattc]

You're making up the rules (in the same way as drivers make stuff up about compulsory cycle paths and two abreast stuff.)
AFAICS in the Highway Code there's no requirement for a cyclist to keep left on a cycle path.

If they took out the "drive on the left" bit from the Highway Code*, would you start driving on the right?


*To save trees, bandwidth, civil service wages, whatever.

[Jaded]

When walking on pavements in Towns there's an informal, unwritten negotiation that goes on all the time. Normally it results in everyone getting on with ease. Occasionally there is a "Let's Dance" moment and very occasionally there is a collision.

There are no rules for pavements and there are strict rules for roads. Cycle paths fall in the chasm between those two areas and suffer because of it.

[teethgrinder]

You're making up the rules (in the same way as drivers make stuff up about compulsory cycle paths and two abreast stuff.)
AFAICS in the Highway Code there's no requirement for a cyclist to keep left on a cycle path.

If they took out the "drive on the left" bit from the Highway Code*, would you start driving on the right?


*To save trees, bandwidth, civil service wages, whatever.

I'd play safe and stay in the middle.

When walking on pavements in Towns there's an informal, unwritten negotiation that goes on all the time. Normally it results in everyone getting on with ease. Occasionally there is a "Let's Dance" moment and very occasionally there is a collision.

There are no rules for pavements and there are strict rules for roads. Cycle paths fall in the chasm between those two areas and suffer because of it.

Cycle paths are sometimes marked up as roads, with white lines in the middle and "Give Way" markings at junctions.

Agree with ian and Gordy though. I try to stick to the rules, but if others don't then I do as ian does. Getting angry won't do anyone any good, nor will it stop it happening.
I do sometimes wonder if some pedestrians are fed up with cyclists passing them too close and too fast, so "take primary". Pedestrians often seem aprehnsive when they see me coming towards them on my bike, until they see that I've slowed right down and obviously avoiding them.

[AndyK]

...
We're talking about people who ride on the wrong side of the cycle path. I will abuse them as much as I would abuse a driver driving on the wrong side of the road.

Except there isn't a wrong side of a cycle path, because it isn't a road.

I'm with Gordy. I'm happy to see people cycling, and well, if I occasionally have to slow down on a path for another cyclist, it's not that much of a problem. I just had to grind to a halt for an absent-minded woman and her three dogs floating in the middle of the path. Yeah, I could have yelled at her, got all angry. But I didn't. Instead I said hello and we swapped the usual comments on the rain (which had just decided to fall), and off I went again. Yes, she was blocking the path, and yes, it would have been nice if she had corralled her mutts as I approached.

The I got stuck behind a family heading home. Parents on bikes, kid on the back. Yes, they were all over the path. I just slowed down for a bit, waiting until it was clear and passed. Again, we swapped a few pleasantries about the rain, I dinged my bell on request for the kid and off I went. I didn't feel the need to pull them over and educate them on my perceived version of cycle path etiquette.

Are you people being deliberately obtuse? On a two-way cycle path you keep left. If you don't, and by doing so you endanger me and mine, you will get a faceful of abuse from me. Thinking 'I can ride on whatever side I like because it isn't a road' is the same pig-ignorant thinking that believes running red lights is ok.

[Biggsy]

Someone riding on the wrong side of a cycle/shared path is not dangerous if you've got a clue.  At worst it's inconvenient if you have to switch or stop.  I don't expect paths to be completely convenient anyway.

[teethgrinder]

I regularly run red lights on toucan crossings as a cyclist on a cyclepath. Almost certainly at least once when I shop at my local Sainsburys.

But not when I'm on the road, cos it's illegal then.

[Martin]

I for one quite like the whole idea of not keeping to one side or another; makes it more of what it was intended as

it's a shared path not a road; with dogs peds children inexperienced riders etc. If you don't like it and want to hammer down one side the road is that way ->

[MSeries]

Are you people being deliberately obtuse? On a two-way cycle path you keep left.

No requirement to do so. As Gordy says it's a made up rule.

[gordon taylor]

Are you people being deliberately obtuse? On a two-way cycle path you keep left. If you don't, and by doing so you endanger me and mine, you will get a faceful of abuse from me.

I can't think of any time in my life, in any context whatsoever,  that I've considered that the delivery of a faceful of abuse is an appropriate response to another human being.

Oh well.

[MSeries]

Thinking 'I can ride on whatever side I like because it isn't a road' is the same pig-ignorant thinking that believes running red lights is ok.

No it's not.There are rules regarding red lights.

[AndyK]

I for one quite like the whole idea of not keeping to one side or another; makes it more of what it was intended as

it's a shared path not a road; with dogs peds children inexperienced riders etc. If you don't like it and want to hammer down one side the road is that way ->

The OP did not mention shared paths, they mentioned cycle paths. Pay careful attention to the following photograph. Footpath to the left, road to the right, cycle path in the middle. This is NOT a shared path. If you come towards me on the wrong side I will call you what you are: a stupid c**t who should not be on a bike.

[Freya]

IIRC I seem to recall research that showed the accident rate was higher on Milton Keynes' cycle paths than it was on the roads. Surely the point is: It is safer if people consistently pass each other on the 'correct' side. This isn't to justify hammering down a path and treating it like a road, but if two peds meet each other face to face there is a short period of 'after you Claude'. If that happens on a bike the consequences can be very nasty. I just don't understand why people think there is a benefit to not behaving consistently.

[Crumbling Nick]

You're making up the rules (in the same way as drivers make stuff up about compulsory cycle paths and two abreast stuff.)
AFAICS in the Highway Code there's no requirement for a cyclist to keep left on a cycle path.

If they took out the "drive on the left" bit from the Highway Code*, would you start driving on the right?


*To save trees, bandwidth, civil service wages, whatever.

The problem with this debate is closely associated with the uncomfortable fact that there is not AFAICT a paragraph in the Highway Code that states you "MUST" drive on the left, which might give a reference to relevant statute law. If I have my facts right, much of the left vs. right stuff is from common law, with enforcement in areas of potential conflict left to traffic signs (Road Traffic Act territory). The issue came up a while ago, when Sweden swapped sides & there were debates about the costs & legislative requirements for a similar move in UK.

[Crumbling Nick]

...
We're talking about people who ride on the wrong side of the cycle path. I will abuse them as much as I would abuse a driver driving on the wrong side of the road.

Except there isn't a wrong side of a cycle path, because it isn't a road.

There is a problem with the use of the word "road".

The law (someone knowledgeable may fill in details of relevant bits) is concerned with (The Queen's) Highway, which includes footpaths, bridleways, an assortment of other public rights of way (e.g. B.O.A.T.s, R.U.P.P.s), and what we call "roads", which may be subdivided into areas from which some categories of user are prohibited, e.g. nearly all vehicles are prohibited from footways aka pavements, whereas use of the carriageway is generally unrestricted.

The legal basis for "the wrong side" is obscure enough. However the extent to which various laws apply to different parts of the Highway is even less obvious, and would need a legal expert to explain.

But I don't think the law uses the word "road" in the context of this topic. And "right" & "wrong" can only make sense in the context of the legal framework govening usage of the "roads".

Can someone please tell me what the law says about "cycle paths"? Do they exist, other than as bridleways, or some equivalent?

[PH]

There are no laws but there is a DfT code of conduct which advises cyclists to stay left of paths;
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688

I had an off on a cycle path that would have been avoided if we'd both stayed left, even at slow speeds (I'd almost stopped) it resulted in some loss of skin and a buggered brake lever.  I'm not for shouting at anyone, I will ask people to please stay left in passing, though if I'm in a hurry I'll be on the road.

[bikey-mikey]

There are no laws but there is a DfT code of conduct which advises cyclists to stay left of paths;
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dft.gov.uk/consultations/archive/2004/ltnwc/annexdcodeofconductnoticefor1688

Read annex D - it says that if you are going to go at 18 mph or more you should ride on the roads

There are some shared use paths around Bristol where at one point the bike diagrams are painted on the left and the peds pics are on the right, when going west, however a bit further on the twonks have reversed the sides, so at somewhere in between these painted signs, you and the cyclist coming the other way are both doing what the last painted image said - and thus approaching on the SAME bit of the path.

I imagine one chap paints part of the path, and another paints another bit, and of course they choose sides at random every time they get out the brushes.....

[Martin]

I for one quite like the whole idea of not keeping to one side or another; makes it more of what it was intended as

it's a shared path not a road; with dogs peds children inexperienced riders etc. If you don't like it and want to hammer down one side the road is that way ->

The OP did not mention shared paths, they mentioned cycle paths. Pay careful attention to the following photograph. Footpath to the left, road to the right, cycle path in the middle. This is NOT a shared path. If you come towards me on the wrong side I will call you what you are: a stupid c**t who should not be on a bike.

actually I don't much like the idea of riding on the L on that pathetic narrow little lane against both riders to my R and oncoming traffic; I get quite a few riders coming towards me on the "wrong" side (even though it is intended to be one way only) on Wandsworth Bridge and I also overtake slower riders on the L hand side.

[Kim]

Again, I'm compelled to point out the edge-case of British Waterways advice to cyclists on towpaths, which is to always pass pedestrians on the water side.  It makes good sense for cyclist/pedestrian interactions, but I've no idea how commonly known it is, and of course it doesn't help for bike/bike.  I suspect that the ones who are canal boat users (and therefore more likely to be exposed to British Waterways literature) are more likely to be aware of it than 'normal' cyclists, and the ratio is going to vary a lot depending on what bit of path you consider.

In practice, there's either lots of room - in which case defaulting to the left usually works - or riders make an arbitrary decision about who deviates from the singletrack based on relative speed, politeness, bar width, load, off-road capability of the bike and so on.  Most of the time this works surprisingly well.  More so than on off-road paths where there isn't a straight choice between snagging on a hedge/fence or falling in a canal.