Shared Footpaths, walkers & cyclists

[raleighnut]

On a shared use path cyclists should always give way/more room to more vulnerable users, we expect it on the roads.
Sounds like you have just come across a couple of pillocks, ignore em.

 

[matiz]

The path near me has a painted white line up the middle and each side clearly marked for cyclists and pedestrians,it works well most of the time occasionally you get large groupsof holidaymakers spread out on
both sides but a tinkle of the bell and a thankyou sorts it out,but theres a local couple who use the path he walks the on the pedestrian side and his wife with her pushchair plus a five year old walk up the cycle lane ,if you use your bell he tells her not to move,then he turns round and screams at you to ask nicely or they are not moving,I've tried pointing out they are in the wrong lane,and using a bell isn't rude but its pointless he's a real moron,his wife started to apolagise last time I encountered them and he went mad at her,I only got past after telling him there was no way I was apologising for using my bell ,then I had to win a staring contest, and he does this in front of his young daughter,Its only a matter of time before some angry cyclist comes to blows with him.

 

[steveindenmark]

Yes I agree with that. Can we just push them in for being Pratts then ?

 

[Brandane]

Yes I agree with that. Can we just push them in for being Pratts then ?

Yes; it would be a much better society if only pratts could be used to line the bottom of canals instead of stolen bikes .

 

[mjr]

On a shared use path cyclists should always give way/more room to more vulnerable users, we expect it on the roads.
Sounds like you have just come across a couple of pillocks, ignore em.

Most of what gets called "shared use path" isn't - or at least not any more than any other highway. That's a fib that politicians and friends perpetuate to get things built because it's not them that suffers the consequences of the mismatch between the words and the reality. Most often, they're cycle tracks or bridleways with a right of way on foot - yes, cyclists should yield to more vulnerable users, but other users should not obstruct the way unnecessarily, same as on other highways (think of the abuse you'd get from motorists if you walk four abreast across a carriageway - cyclists are relatively polite by comparison!)... but the one in this example is a towpath - I think any canal-related traffic reigns supreme (are there still horse-drawns?) and everyone else is a guest and should behave cautiously.

 

[raleighnut]

Most of what gets called "shared use path" isn't - or at least not any more than any other highway. That's a fib that politicians and friends perpetuate to get things built because it's not them that suffers the consequences of the mismatch between the words and the reality. Most often, they're cycle tracks or bridleways with a right of way on foot - yes, cyclists should yield to more vulnerable users, but other users should not obstruct the way unnecessarily, same as on other highways (think of the abuse you'd get from motorists if you walk four abreast across a carriageway - cyclists are relatively polite by comparison!)... but the one in this example is a towpath - I think any canal-related traffic reigns supreme (are there still horse-drawns?) and everyone else is a guest and should behave cautiously.

It used to be illegal to cycle on the Towpath.

 

[MichaelW2]

Nobhead cyclists I think we all agree.
But, there needs to be some kind of code of usage for shared use paths.
I find that small groups of pedestrians act like cyclist don't exist and are surprised by their presence. Even the passing of one cyclist does not clue them in to the presence of other cyclists. The reaction may be , block the path or scatter in all directions.

Even if one member of a group clearly sees a cyclist, they do not communicate this to others and the group is taken by surprise.

Can we draw up a code of use with no more than 7 guideline? Over to you, panel.

 

[mjr]

But, there needs to be some kind of code of usage for shared use paths.

http://highwaycode.info/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 and the following few sections. HTH HAND

 

[MichaelW2]

http://highwaycode.info/rules-pedestrians-1-to-35 and the following few sections. HTH HAND

That isn't much help, it just says that facilities may be shared and you should take care.

 

[steveindenmark]

Nobhead cyclists I think we all agree.
But, there needs to be some kind of code of usage for shared use paths.
I find that small groups of pedestrians act like cyclist don't exist and are surprised by their presence. Even the passing of one cyclist does not clue them in to the presence of other cyclists. The reaction may be , block the path or scatter in all directions.

Even if one member of a group clearly sees a cyclist, they do not communicate this to others and the group is taken by surprise.

Can we draw up a code of use with no more than 7 guideline? Over to you, panel.

I have been using shared footpaths in Denmark for 13 years with no problems at all and I ride every day. I share it with horses, runners, walkers, prams and mopeds.

You dont need a code, we dont have one.

Rule number 1. Be considerate to everyone else on the footpath. Slow down. Its a footpath not a race track.

It works in Denmark so it should work in the UK.

 

[mjr]

That isn't much help, it just says that facilities may be shared and you should take care.

Seems quite specific to me. For example: "If there is no pavement, keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and
be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light
keep close to the side of the road.
It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend."

Carriageways aren't the only roads. Most cycle tracks have no pavement/footway - even when it's needed, sadly.

 

[mjr]

Rule number 1. Be considerate to everyone else on the footpath. Slow down. Its a footpath not a race track.

It works in Denmark so it should work in the UK.

So either Denmark builds routes wider so overtaking is easier or no-one in Denmark ever wants to cycle anywhere in a predictable time?

 

[mjr]

Did it? Under British Waterways (1962 - 2012) it was permissible with a permit, which could be obtained for free from any BW office or downloaded from the internet.

In practice, I cycled into the city along the towpath sometimes (it was the shortest non-A-road route from my village) and was never asked for a permit and never heard of anyone who was. I always assumed the permit requirement was just so they could stop whoever they liked for any other reason.

 

[raleighnut]

Did it? Under British Waterways (1962 - 2012) it was permissible with a permit, which could be obtained for free from any BW office or downloaded from the internet. A couple of years before it was abolished BW got rid of the requirement for a permit and the Canals & Rivers Trust (which replaced BW) positively encourages cycling on towpaths.

In some urban areas there were restrictions on canalside footpaths - but these were not necessarily towpaths as such.

I was certainly told by policemen to 'get off and walk' when cycling along towpaths on Leicester canals in the early 70s and fishermen could be very nasty (probably cos they weren't catching any fish)
Good link from that website though.
https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/cycling/our-towpath-code

 

[wheresthetorch]

Can we draw up a code of use with no more than 7 guideline? Over to you, panel.

So you come up with an idea, then hand over to everyone else to do the work. You must be in a managerial job!!