Unsegregated shared use paths

adskis

I am not sure where this question should be directed.
On the many unsegregated shared use paths around, are there rules on priority for different modes of transport? (e.g. cyclist and pedestrian/jogger) The path I was on runs through fields and is nowhere near a road. It is signed as a shared use path with the blue circle sign of a cyclist and pedestrian.
I was involved in a 'discussion' recently with another path user on this subject. I would have thought that everybody should keep left, as on the road, but I was told during my 'discussion' that cyclists should keep left and pedestrians/joggers should keep right. This doesn't make much sense to me as then both parties are trying to keep to the same side and therefore approaching each other head on.
What are the actual rules or guidelines on this subject?
Thanks in advance for your replies.

asprilla

Well, if a pedestrian was walking on the road and there was no footpath then I would expect them to keep right so that they can see the traffic coming towards them. I suspect they are applying the same logic and I can't really fault them.

rick_chasey

90% sure peds have priority over bikes on shared used paths.

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

90% sure peds have priority over bikes on shared used paths.

Yeah, and they're a sod to scrape out of your mudguards.

cyclingprop

SimonAH wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

90% sure peds have priority over bikes on shared used paths.

Yeah, and they're a sod to scrape out of your mudguards.

Pah, mudguards.

bails87

There are no rules on which side to ride on. I'm also pretty sure that cyclists are bottom of the pile in terms of priority.

northstar

It makes sense to just stick to the left, though a lot of people whether they be walkers, joggers or cyclists have trouble with this concept sometimes.

roger_merriman

Slow and chose which ever side seems wise at the time, at least areas like Bushy Park seem to work like that.

asprilla

northstar wrote:

It makes sense to just stick to the left, though a lot of people whether they be walkers, joggers or cyclists have trouble with this concept sometimes.

Not really. If they stay on the left then they can't see you approaching behind them.

northstar

They don't need to see you, after all it's up to the overtakee to do it safely (wishful thinking in some cases I know)

asprilla

northstar wrote:

They don't need to see you, after all it's up to the overtakee to do it safely (wishful thinking in some cases I know)

For their own safety it's preferable that they are given the opportunity. As I mentioned earlier, it's what pedestrians should do when sharing the road with traffic so I don't see how sharing a footpath with traffic is any different.

EKE_38BPM

northstar wrote:

They don't need to see you, after all it's up to the overtaker to do it safely (wishful thinking in some cases I know)

FTFY

northstar

No need.

thistle_

Asprilla wrote:

Not really. If they stay on the left then they can't see you approaching behind them.

Don't know if it still does, but I'm pretty sure the Highway Code says to walk on the right on a road for this very reason. I also remember it was something my driving instructor told me - as if it was a question on the theory test (although I don't think it it/was).
I don't think there's anything in there for shared use paths, but (unfortunately IMO) pedestrians have priority over cyclists anyway.

asprilla

I thought it was in the HC as well but wasn't sure so I didn't mention it.

Initialised

Yes, it is in the highway code and should apply to shared use paths. Adding "Walk on the right, ride on the left" to new sign age as the C2C and NCN could work as well as the "Stand on the right" signs work on the Tube's escalators.

daviesee

Initialised wrote:

Yes, it is in the highway code and should apply to shared use paths. Adding "Walk on the right, ride on the left" to new sign age as the C2C and NCN could work as well as the "Stand on the right" signs work on the Tube's escalators.

Just for clarity.
That means that a cyclist and pedestrian heading in opposite directions will meet head on.
Who gives way?
I imagine the cyclist but as these things are not clear there is always that suffle moment.

Even more confusing - What happens if a cyclist meets another cyclist and a ped coming form the other direction?
Both sides of the path are blocked and the ped has right of way. Head on cyclist collision

SimonAH

And head on ped collision of course! Road littered with broken smartphone

adskis

Thanks for your replies guys.

So basically, peds/joggers can do whatever they like and have priority at all times and the onus is on me to pass them all safely.

That about right?

rick_chasey

Yup.

Kieran_Burns

Bridleways are different. The rule is basically "Keep Left" Pedestrian, horse rider or cyclist, you stay left unless overtaking.

Videos of me on bridleways will inevitably have me bellowing "LEFT!!! KEEP LEFT!" at some point

wgwarburton

Adskis wrote:

Thanks for your replies guys.

So basically, peds/joggers can do whatever they like and have priority at all times and the onus is on me to pass them all safely.

That about right?

That's right... and "pass them all safely" should generally be interpreted as ensuring that they feel safe- it just causes friction when people are startled by "fast moving" cyclists...

Shared use paths are less use than chocolate teapots (edible!) if you're using your bike for transport (ie getting from A to B quickly, not just pottering along with your brood).

Much of the problem with current "cycling infrastructure" is that it is intended for leisure and recreational use (if that), not for actually helping people get from one place to another.

Cheers,
W.

gtvlusso

On Shared use paths, I consider cyclists as the lowest form of life.....Everything else has priority. I don't race or cycle with any aggression on shared paths.

As for me, I stick to the left no matter what the segregation says.....seems to have worked so far!