I said Cycle Path not Psycopath!

[karl101]

So, anyway, on my route home from work there's a short winding cycle path trough a wooded area. The path is shared half and half with pedestrians, going uphill the pedestrians are to the right. The first right turn is sharp and has bad sight-lines, so naturally I keep to the right to avoid the inevitable footpad who likes to dice with danger.

Today, coming up the path on the right, as usual, I was about 2 meters beyond the corner and I see a cyclist coming towards me. So I stay on the right giving him plenty of room to pass on my left. But instead I find my way blocked by this aggressive high minded idiot who proceeds to lecture me about how I should be on the right, he was pointing his arms and everything. I couldn't be bothered arguing, it's been a long day. So I let him rant for a bit and called him a k***head upon departure.

Things I wish I'd said:
1. The is a cycle path not a road.
2. Common sense also works.
3. You are causing an obstruction, I can have you arrested for that (not sure if that is true).
4. You are riding a bicycle, not a driving a car.
5. You didn't see that pedestrian did you?

On a cycle path I have always applied the same 'rules' as when walking on a footpath. Its not about keeping left or right, but using common sense when passing.

Karl

 

[flecc]

You can feel content Karl, you were the sensible one, he the one displaying "road rage". It's not worth wasting words on some people, just let them show their stupidity.

 

[Shroppielass]

I'll just refer you to my signature...

 

[mike killay]

Not too sure, but I think that Cycletracks are highways and you should follow the rule of the road, ie keep left.
I must say that on the Swansea Bay Cycle Track, I sometimes get cyclists coming towards me, who despite having plenty of room on their side, decide to pass me on my left hand side, Very confusing!
Equally so, cycling along a path in Belgium, I was enjoying the view and cycling in the middle of what until then had been a deserted track. I heard a bell behind me and instinctively moved to the left, causing no end of a ruckus with the 5 racers behind me.

 

[Davanti]

On a cycle path I have always applied the same 'rules' as when walking on a footpath. Its not about keeping left or right, but using common sense when passing.

Karl

I think keeping to the left would be more acceptable to most road/path users (but what is k***head ?)

 

[karl101]

Not too sure, but I think that Cycletracks are highways and you should follow the rule of the road, ie keep left.

Hello Mike
I am going to disagree with you. Partly.

I consider a cycletrack to be a way that is quite wide, say 3 meters wide. A cyclepath on the otherhand is about 1.5 meters wide or less, the width of a pavement. A cyclepath could be said to be a footpath set to be used as a cyclepath by the local council. I don't believe that cyclepaths are covered by the highway code.

For this reason on a cyclepath, especially one shared with randomly placed pedestrians, a more flexible approach has to be used, common sense and an eye for safety.

Karl.

PS. I have not been to Belgium
PPS. I have been spending too much time goolging this tonight

 

[HD462]

Our council mark cycleways differently on different parts of our sea front. In this first photo you'll see they use red tarmac for the cycle area, and it's also signed as being on the left (doesn't stop pedestrians walking on the wrong bit mind you, so you still have to go round them onto the pedestrian area.

On this second photo the surface is all the same, and they don't designate a certain part for cyclists, you're just mixed together with pedestrians. But it's quite wide, and doesn't cause a problem if you take care passing.

 

[GaRRy]

Our council mark cycleways differently on different parts of our sea front. In this first photo you'll see they use red tarmac for the cycle area, and it's also signed as being on the left (doesn't stop pedestrians walking on the wrong bit mind you, so you still have to go round them onto the pedestrian area.



On this second photo the surface is all the same, and they don't designate a certain part for cyclists, you're just mixed together with pedestrians. But it's quite wide, and doesn't cause a problem if you take care passing.

Seem to remember seeing some where (Highway code?) that these signs are advisory and as such means neither pedestrians or cyclists MUST obey them and there is no offence caused by not obeying them. Pretty certain it also stated that cyclists should always give way / make room for pedestrians.

 

[Davanti]

Isn't this a warning of low-flying cyclists?

 

[Hugh]

'Pretty certain it also stated that cyclists should always give way / make room for pedestrians.'

Yes - the old nautical rule of steam giving way to sail (you wish!). It's a safer principle though, as a pedestrian (however halfwitted) is likely to come off worse in an argument with a bike.

Re previous question about k***; doors have them ;-)

 

[Davanti]

.

Re previous question about k***; doors have them ;-)

Oh! Of course "Khandles" ... as in four candles.

 

[timidtom]

Isn't this a warning of low-flying cyclists?

That's why the walkers are carrying an umbrella?

 

[Mussels]

If cyclists don't keep left it can cause confusion and on a busy route make a journey longer. I can't imagine berating someone for not passing on the left though let alone getting worked up about it.

 

[HD462]

Seem to remember seeing some where (Highway code?) that these signs are advisory and as such means neither pedestrians or cyclists MUST obey them and there is no offence caused by not obeying them. Pretty certain it also stated that cyclists should always give way / make room for pedestrians.

I think that's the whole point, it's advising people which part of the path to use to bring some order. Doesn't always work, best to ring your bell, slow down, and give pedestrians a wide berth, while covering your brakes in case you need to stop. Especially in windy locations like ours, as people won't always hear what's around them with the wind blowing around their ears.

 

[Axcess Electric Bikes]

Had a look at the Highway code and found 2 codes that should be of interest. code 62 which is about cycle paths and code 66 (in particular the last part) which says "be considerate of other road users, particularly blind and partially sighted pedestrians." see the following website for those rules : Rules for cyclists (59-82) : Directgov - Travel and transport

Luke the mechanic
Axcess Electric Bikes

 

[flecc]

No mention of keeping to the left in those Luke, just asking for tolerance and care basically.

It's a pity though that it starts with such nonsense as including rules on the wearing of cycle helmets and certain article of clothing, There are no such rules and never have been, and this sort of thing calls into question the credibility of the whole entry.

 

[GaRRy]

No mention of keeping to the left in those Luke, just asking for tolerance and care basically.

It's a pity though that it starts with such nonsense as including rules on the wearing of cycle helmets and certain article of clothing, There are no such rules and never have been, and this sort of thing calls into question the credibility of the whole entry.

The trouble is that while that "nonsense" is not compulsory when it comes to settling issues in court it is used to decide the outcome (e.g. if car hits you and your not wearing it then that is held against you even if car is at fault in other words you will be apportioned some of the blame). This is true for large sections of Highway code, unless it mentions a specific section of road traffic act or other law. The highway code is a list of what is considered best practice and advice rather than just the letter of the law.

 

[flecc]

That's fine GaRRy, but something that isn't a rule shouldn't be stated to be, it's deliberately misleading. Such a statement is definitively nonsense.

What is wrong with the word advisable, you have after all said it's advice?

 

[GaRRy]

What is wrong with the word advisable, you have after all said it's advice?

Nothing fully agree but as I said only issue is that in court it is not used as advice but gospel when deciding outcomes.

 

[flecc]

Only in the event of a head injury, not a blanket application of blame for the accident as you said but only in respect of that kind of injury liability.

That isn't the issue I raised though, that was only about the implication that advice was a rule.