Bikes and Cars vs Bikes and Pedestrians

I think you've hit a nail squarely on the head here. As I tootled along a tow path this morning in the gorgeous spring sunshine, in no particular hurry, I had zero difficulty slowing to a crawl as I passed dog walkers and push chair pushers etc, who responded amicably to my vocal pleasantries warning of my approach.

Yet I could well imaging how they might feel had I been instead on a mission of speed, slicing past them leaving their hearts in their mouth as I shot by lest I lose precious momentum - and yet I see other cyclists do this. It's unacceptable.

Planners and cyclists alike need to distinguish between the different modes of cycling.

I think it mostly works automatically.  So consider the current situation in the UK: people don't feel comfortable walking in the road. (Most people wouldn't feel comfortable there even on bikes! ) And they "know it's not their space".  So despite the awful provision for them in terms of pavements they mostly stick to them. The system is self-reinforcing. (Equally - I wouldn't feel at all comfy on my bike on a motorway so I don't need the law to keep me off it.)

In e.g. The Netherlands, where you have a cycle path you've almost always got a clearly demarked pedestrian path too.  So there's a "forgiving" curb / kerb WINGMIRROR and a slight height difference and normally a different coloured surface - not just a line of paint!  People legally have a "right of way" on the cycle path but they have their "own" space, they don't have to listen out for cycle bells or worry about a bike suddenly passing them, so they tend to stick to that.  Equally cyclists have no need to inconvenience themselves by riding around pedestrians, they've their own space.  So people stick to the convention.

I believe in the countryside, for longer paths between towns and villages they just build a cycle path.  No separate footpath is normally needed.  That's because there aren't many cyclists and there are even fewer pedestrians.  So it's no trouble for the cyclists to pass the rare pedestrian they encounter.

I'm less clear about dogs but I believe it's legal to walk your dog using your bike.  I think you have to have a special attachment to the bike though.  I'm not entirely convinced by that idea myself.

brooksby wrote:

But yes, I think that many if not most shared-use areas and paths are indeed a bit cr@p and those little blue signs have only been put up so the box has been ticked while spending a minimal amount out of the council's transport budget.

There are a few shared use paths on my route from home to school, every single one of which is simply a roadside footway that has been there for decades with a series of blue shared use signs added.

Essentially, just explicit permission to "ride on the footpath". 

Without exception they are way too narrow to accommodate even a reasonable number of pedestrians and cyclists, and in places there is a driveway literally every 20 metres. 

But ... I guess the council gets to claim they have made cycling safer as a result. 

Interestingly, the Government design guidance for Cycle Infrastructure Design is anti-shared use except in sparse usage areas.

In fact the design guidance is good - it just carries no weight with local councils

Which made me wonder - if there is Government guidance which gives clear guidelines of good and bad design, are councils negligent for ignoring it?

By way of contrast, I see no problem with bikes and pedestrians sharing this space.

Yes and that is "luxury" in UK terms, but... Possibly a "trivial" example and I don't know where this is and it may be leading out into the countryside (so "recreational") but...  Equally it could be urban, it could be the only logical route avoiding a busy road, there might be a school part way along meaning it's extremely busy at times during the day etc.  Also this one looks like it has an unsealed surface and I don't see street lighting.

So I'm all for some recreational paths but if likely to be at all busy or if it's really a "route" for cyclists then it needs appropriate quality. So more mod-cons than for "recreational use" and some separation - as per my crude modification below.  Note lighting too and dotted line showing this is a two-way cycle path.

The Netherlands seems to have it right - they certainly have recreational paths with unsealed surfaces and in the countryside they have good-quality paths - which outside of villages are primarily cycle paths (because not so many people walking a few kilometers between towns - so they can be "guests" on a cycle path).  Anywhere that there will be many cyclists and more pedestrians each gets their own space.