Cyclists - your experiences on the road

[AM9]

On a shared use cycle path the priority is for pedestrians. Ringing a bell does not give you priority and can be intimidating to those with sensory disabilities.

However, on a shared-use space, all users are supposed to keep to the left, overtaking to the right, and certainly not persisting in walking four abreast or wandering. I say that as more of a pedestrian than a cyclist.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I thought the highway code advised walking on the right in the UK, that would make sense on shared paths too I think

I walk on/by shared paths, I use the grass away from the path if possible, unless it is soaking wet or covered by deep snow

 

[matt_world2004]

However, on a shared-use space, all users are supposed to keep to the left, overtaking to the right, and certainly not persisting in walking four abreast or wandering. I say that as more of a pedestrian than a cyclist.

Only for organised walks according to the highway code and when walking on the road.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a shared use cycle path the priority is for pedestrians. Ringing a bell does not give you priority and can be intimidating to those with sensory disabilities.

Not always the case. On the MK Redways the "Redway Code" dictates that they should be treated as traffic free country lanes, which means neither type of user should obstruct the full width, and the use of a bell well in advance is the correct way to alert someone of your presence.

A lot of people misunderstand priority. Priority does not mean that causing an obstruction is acceptable, nor does it mean the user who doesn't have priority should not alert those who do that they are causing an unnecessary obstruction. For example, pedestrians have priority on a zebra crossing - other users have to stop to allow them to cross - but it doesn't mean they can set up a picnic table and have their lunch - that would be causing an obstruction, and obstructing rights of way without allowing others to pass is never acceptable unless you have arranged a formal closure.

 

[matt_world2004]

Not always the case. On the MK Redways the "Redway Code" dictates that they should be treated as traffic free country lanes, which means neither type of user should obstruct the full width, and the use of a bell well in advance is the correct way to alert someone of your presence.

A lot of people misunderstand priority. Priority does not mean that causing an obstruction is acceptable, nor does it mean the user who doesn't have priority should not alert those who do that they are causing an unnecessary obstruction. For example, pedestrians have priority on a zebra crossing - other users have to stop to allow them to cross - but it doesn't mean they can set up a picnic table and have their lunch - that would be causing an obstruction, and obstructing rights of way without allowing others to pass is never acceptable unless you have arranged a formal closure.

Walking in a particular direction is not causing a obstruction. It just means the cyclist has to slow down to an appropriate speed and there are several circumstances where walking two abreast is required (such as providing assistance to a disabled person)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought the highway code advised walking on the right in the UK, that would make sense on shared paths too I think

I walk on/by shared paths, I use the grass away from the path if possible, unless it is soaking wet or covered by deep snow

The MK Redway Code advises cycle on the left, walk on the right.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Feb 2021 ==

Walking in a particular direction is not causing a obstruction. It just means the cyclist has to slow down to an appropriate speed and there are several circumstances where walking two abreast is required (such as providing assistance to a disabled person)

I am afraid that is not true. Like on the road where drivers of slow vehicles should be aware of faster users behind them and pull over periodically to allow queues to pass (per the Highway Code), the same applies to shared use paths.

There is another way to put it, too - "being considerate to others". There should be no need for a rule for people to know that not letting someone past who wishes to walk or cycle faster and has let you know politely, either with "excuse me, please" or a bell well in advance, is just downright objectionable.

 

[matt_world2004]

The MK Redway Code advises cycle on the left, walk on the right.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Feb 2021 ==



I am afraid that is not true. Like on the road where drivers of slow vehicles should be aware of faster users behind them and pull over periodically to allow queues to pass (per the Highway Code), the same applies to shared use paths.

There is another way to put it, too - "being considerate to others". There should be no need for a rule for people to know that not letting someone past who wishes to walk or cycle faster and has let you know politely, either with "excuse me, please" or a bell well in advance, is just downright objectionable.

Can you please find that in the highway code about shared use paths please I've looked in the cycle section and pedestrian section.

So how does say a blind user know where the bell is coming from?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can you please find that in the highway code about shared use paths please I've looked in the cycle section and pedestrian section.

It is basic human consideration, and how road use generally is instructed. Shared use paths are microcosms of a road (that is how the MK Redway Code effectively puts it).

So how does say a blind user know where the bell is coming from?

Humans have directional hearing, and you tend to find blind people have much better hearing due to greater reliance on it. Also blind people will tend to be carrying a cane or similar, so the cyclist can use their eyes to determine if they should be taking a different approach with that person, such as approaching very slowly.

 

[matt_world2004]

It is basic human consideration, and how road use generally is instructed. Shared use paths are microcosms of a road (that is how the MK Redway Code effectively puts it).

So not in the highway code then or in any piece of road traffic legislation.

Walking at walking speed on a path designed for walking is not causing an obstruction.

The only obligation a user using a shared path is to comply with the law , anything else is just a moral judgement

It is against the law to use an audible warning (like a bell or horn) to signify anything other than your presence.

 

[py_megapixel]

Shared use paths are a terrible idea in my opinion except where traffic of one mode or the other is very low - how much extra does it really cost to paint a dividing line down the middle and have pedestrians on the left, bikes on the right or vice-versa?

They travel at very different speeds and therefore, in my opinion, don't mix.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So not in the highway code then or in any piece of road traffic legislation.

Walking at walking speed on a path designed for walking is not causing an obstruction.

Obstructing those who are legitimate users of a piece of infrastructure who wish to go faster (be that walking, running or cycling) when you have no good reason to cause such an obstruction is just objectionable practice. It's not hard to quickly step aside when you hear a cycle bell if it's safe to do so, nor is it hard not to walk in groups taking the full width of the infrastructure (or if you do, take a quick glance backwards occasionally to see if that might cause a problem for others). It's just basic consideration to do so on any piece of shared use infrastructure, and it's in line with the Highway Code as applied to road vehicles - slow vehicles should pull over periodically to avoid a queue building.

Regardless of the wording of the rules, the use of shared-use infrastructure requires basic consideration for others from all parties to allow everyone to continue as they need to. I love that old Honda advert - "aren't we all just trying to get somewhere?"

 

[matt_world2004]

Obstructing those who are legitimate users of a piece of infrastructure who wish to go faster (be that walking, running or cycling) when you have no good reason to cause such an obstruction is just objectionable practice. It's not hard to quickly step aside when you hear a cycle bell if it's safe to do so. It's just basic consideration to do so on any piece of shared use infrastructure, and it's in line with the Highway Code as applied to road vehicles - slow vehicles should pull over periodically to avoid a queue building.

Thats not obstruction, the highway code is pretty clear how to handle slow moving traffic, when there isnt an ability to overtake and that is to slow down and overtake when it is safe to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thats not obstruction, the highway code is pretty clear how to handle slow moving traffic, when there isnt an ability to overtake and that is to slow down and overtake when it is safe to do so.

It may not be legally obstruction, but it is absolutely inconsiderate. I'm not interested in arguing technicalities of law. It's simply that if you know your actions are causing someone else unnecessary inconvenience but for you taking a tiny, minor action yourself to avoid that, you should do it. So if you're walking along and there's a cyclist behind and you can, just let them past. It's, you know, being a nice person. Same if you're taking a "Sunday drive" going well below the limit (as you are entitled to do) and you see a queue forming, pull over and admire the view for a bit and let them past.

The best way to handle these situations is to think how you'd feel if you were the other road/path user and act accordingly.

 

[matt_world2004]

It may not be legally obstruction, but it is absolutely inconsiderate. I'm not interested in arguing technicalities of law. It's simply that if you know your actions are causing someone else unnecessary inconvenience but for you taking a tiny, minor action yourself to avoid that, you should do it. So if you're walking along and there's a cyclist behind and you can, just let them past. It's, you know, being a nice person.

Deliberately blocking someones path so they cant overtake is obstruction but continuing to walk at the speed and direction without slowing down isn't. The cyclist has already broken the law by using an audible warning to tell someone to move to the side. there is no obligation to follow that instruction.

If the cyclist wants to overtake the pedestrian safely and there isnt a wide enough gap to do it, they need to get off their bike walk the bike past the pedestrian and then get back on their bike. Close passes /bell ringing is intimidating and threatening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Shared use paths are a terrible idea in my opinion except where traffic of one mode or the other is very low - how much extra does it really cost to paint a dividing line down the middle and have pedestrians on the left, bikes on the right or vice-versa?

They travel at very different speeds and therefore, in my opinion, don't mix.

I find the Redways work just fine - I think there's a key difference between shared paths that are wide enough (the minimum spec for a Redway is 2 metres wide) and where someone has just painted a bike symbol on a narrow pavement and shouldn't have done. The one thing I'd change about them is to paint a road-like dotted line down them - not because of anything to do with pedestrians, but to ingrain in cyclists' minds that it's a road, as quite a lot of them don't keep left for some reason I've never really understood, and that causes annoyance when you have to work out which side to pass oncoming cyclists when cycling yourself.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Feb 2021 ==

Deliberately blocking someones path so they cant overtake is obstruction but continuing to walk at the speed and direction without slowing down isn't. The cyclist has already broken the law by using an audible warning to tell someone to move to the side. there is no obligation to follow that instruction.

Once again, I don't care whether it's legally obstruction or not. It's basic consideration to allow others to pass if they want to proceed faster than you.

Let's completely ignore cyclists for a minute, as I get the feeling you're anti-cyclist. Whether the person is riding a bike, walking or running is irrelevant to this matter of basic consideration, but let's just take bikes out of it so prejudices can be removed, and just talk about two pedestrians.

We are walking down a conventional foot-only pavement which is just over one person wide. You're having a pleasant Sunday walk, I'm about to miss my train and need to walk quickly so I don't. I approach behind you and politely say "excuse me, please?" There is room for you to step aside for half a second and let me past. What do you do?

 

[radamfi]

Deliberately blocking someones path so they cant overtake is obstruction but continuing to walk at the speed and direction without slowing down isn't. The cyclist has already broken the law by using an audible warning to tell someone to move to the side. there is no obligation to follow that instruction.

If the cyclist wants to overtake the pedestrian safely and there isnt a wide enough gap to do it, they need to get off their bike walk the bike past the pedestrian and then get back on their bike. Close passes /bell ringing is intimidating and threatening.

I don't see how that encourages people to cycle. Indeed, it may push people towards using their car in future.

 

[duncombec]

Some cycle lanes where I live are barely a foot wide (probably slight hyperbole - I haven't actually knelt in the gutter and measured one, you'll be surprised to learn(!) - but they are very narrow) and you end up going over drainage gratings and people's discarded litter; also people park in them. I could keep swerving around but I often just give up and go in the same lane as motor vehicles.

I don't believe there's any issue with doing this in the eyes of actual road rules - as there would be if I was to cycle on a public footpath or a motorway, for example - but I know some car drivers don't like it.

I think this is more a preference than an actual issue in the eyes of road use rules. Some local authorities seem to think bicycles are only as wide as the wheels, and forget about the handlebars. There are numerous off-road cycle lanes around here with obstacles deliberately placed on them to stop use by quadbikers, motorcyclists etc. All well and good if you could actually get your bike through the gaps when dismounting, but some of them are impossible!

Sadly that's not unusual. The one I remember is from Gravesend to Rochester where they've nicely resurfaced the main lane but not the cycle lane!

Is the car dealership still using the cycle lane as an extension to its forecourt? And that's before you reach the bit closer to Gravesend where the houses are lower than the road, the cycle lane is a shared facility on the pavement, leading to a series of about 25 hump-back bridges... I choose the road!

I tend to avoid shared-use paths whenever possible now. Even with a loud and clear bell, people ignore cyclists. I would also like to see more cyclists with bells attached to their bikes and using them, to be fair.

The problem there of course is the traffic. There are very few drivers in my experience in Herefordshire who actually leave 1.5m of space between themselves and cyclists, and the amount of times I've nearly been knocked off my bike...Or indeed, the amount of close calls I've seen between cars/lorries/etc overtaking me in a dangerous spot and nearly causing a head-on collision with other traffic...

All new-purchase bikes now have to be fitted with a bell, I seem to recall, but there is no requirement to retrofit. Having bought a new bike twice in the last two years (let's just say I own two of them but only have possession of one), I'm really not sure how I managed 15 year relying on a polite "excuse me" if people didn't hear me coming. You do have to give people enough warning though, to allow for dithering - it's amazing how many people can decide whether or not to cross a road in front of a car coming at 30mph, but can't decide whether to go left or right when faced with a cyclist wheezing uphill at less than 3mph...

Edit: I forgot my reply to the second part. I believe guidance says car drivers should overtake other road users with the same caution they would another vehicle, rather than a fixed 1.5m width. Some drivers come close enough that you can almost feel their wing mirrors, others prefer a distance of "in the field on the other side of the road" before they will even pull out.

On a shared use cycle path the priority is for pedestrians. Ringing a bell does not give you priority and can be intimidating to those with sensory disabilities.

As others have said, there is no specified priority, so the usual guidance of keeping left, overtake on right, use common sense, and "do unto others" applies. The chances of coming across someone with aural sensory disabilities is really quite unlikely.

However, on a shared-use space, all users are supposed to keep to the left, overtaking to the right, and certainly not persisting in walking four abreast or wandering. I say that as more of a pedestrian than a cyclist.

Yep - basically, pay attention to other "road" users. As the German Highway code says, "constant caution and mutual consideration".

So how does say a blind user know where the bell is coming from?

Humans have directional hearing, and you tend to find blind people have much better hearing due to greater reliance on it. Also blind people will tend to be carrying a cane or similar, so the cyclist can use their eyes to determine if they should be taking a different approach with that person, such as approaching very slowly.

In the very rare occasion that a cyclist comes across a blind person, one hopes that the blind person is easily identifiable (e.g. white stick, dark glasses) and the cyclist takes appropriate action.

Last weekend, I found myself in the dubious position of having to overtake a horse on a single carriageway country lane. Knowing I shouldn't use my bell, I remained a respectful distance away until I would have been able to overtake slowly and with great caution (the rider was trying to keep left, but also to avoid the sizeable potholes and chippings thrown up from recent frost/ice). As it happened, the rider heard me ride as I cycled through some damp leaves and immediately pulled into the next passing place to allow me to pass. We exchanged pleasant good mornings, thank yous and continued on our way. So very different to the following car driver, who was so obsessed with trying to get past me a few minutes later that he failed to notice the car coming the other way when I pulled into a passing place and ended up with egg on his face. I even held my hand up in the "stop" sign to warn him that I wasn't only stopping to let him past (although would have allowed him to pull away first) - the approaching driver then slowed down to tell me that she saw my hand signal from two dozen car lengths away!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the cyclist wants to overtake the pedestrian safely and there isnt a wide enough gap to do it, they need to get off their bike walk the bike past the pedestrian and then get back on their bike. Close passes /bell ringing is intimidating and threatening.

That is absolutely ridiculous, I'm afraid. There is no need for them to do that at all. The simple answer is that the pedestrian steps to one side for about half a second, the cyclist passes, they both continue happily with their day, nobody has lost anything.

It's also a false scenario. A pedestrian pushing a bicycle takes up about 1-2 feet more width than a cyclist, therefore if there's not room to cycle past there is definitely not room to push a bike past.

 

[matt_world2004]

I find the Redways work just fine - I think there's a key difference between shared paths that are wide enough (the minimum spec for a Redway is 2 metres wide) and where someone has just painted a bike symbol on a narrow pavement and shouldn't have done. The one thing I'd change about them is to paint a road-like dotted line down them - not because of anything to do with pedestrians, but to ingrain in cyclists' minds that it's a road, as quite a lot of them don't keep left for some reason I've never really understood, and that causes annoyance when you have to work out which side to pass oncoming cyclists when cycling yourself.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Feb 2021 ==



Once again, I don't care whether it's legally obstruction or not. It's basic consideration to allow others to pass if they want to proceed faster than you.

Let's completely ignore cyclists for a minute, as I get the feeling you're anti-cyclist. Whether the person is riding a bike, walking or running is irrelevant to this matter of basic consideration, but let's just take bikes out of it so prejudices can be removed, and just talk about two pedestrians

We are walking down a conventional foot-only pavement which is just over one person wide. You're having a pleasant Sunday walk, I'm about to miss my train and need to walk quickly so I don't. I approach behind you and politely say "excuse me, please?" There is room for you to step aside for half a second and let me past. What do you do?

Someone passing someone at walking speed is different from someone passing someone at cycling speed. Do you not understand that.

Lets take cycling out of the equation for a minute. Lets say you are walking having a pleasant sunday walk and someone is repeatedly blowing a horn or other audible device to get pedestrians to move out of their way while they are jogging, is that not intimidating in any way?

 

[duncombec]

Deliberately blocking someones path so they cant overtake is obstruction but continuing to walk at the speed and direction without slowing down isn't. The cyclist has already broken the law by using an audible warning to tell someone to move to the side. there is no obligation to follow that instruction.

If the cyclist wants to overtake the pedestrian safely and there isnt a wide enough gap to do it, they need to get off their bike walk the bike past the pedestrian and then get back on their bike. Close passes /bell ringing is intimidating and threatening.

Garbage.

Bells are now mandated on new bikes precisely for the reason of providing an audible warning. I have some vague recollection that bikes for use on the road may not even be allowed to be sold without one.

Are you seriously suggesting there is a mandate to have something that is at the same time illegal?

Whilst there are some cyclists who will use a bell in a threatening "get out of my way manner", there are also car drivers who rev their engines when pedestrians use crossings (or use their horn to object to the sedate pace of a funeral procession...). A polite "ding" is no different to passing someone as your mobile phone rings.

 

[matt_world2004]

That is absolutely ridiculous, I'm afraid. There is no need for them to do that at all. The simple answer is that the pedestrian steps to one side for about half a second, the cyclist passes, they both continue happily with their day, nobody has lost anything.

It's also a false scenario. A pedestrian pushing a bicycle takes up about 1-2 feet more width than a cyclist, therefore if there's not room to cycle past there is definitely not room to push a bike past.

Your actions, as a vehicle user, cannot force another legitimate user to change speed and direction and yet passing someone closely at a speed greater than walking pace is intimidating.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Feb 2021 ==

Garbage.

Bells are now mandated on new bikes precisely for the reason of providing an audible warning. I have some vague recollection that bikes for use on the road may not even be allowed to be sold without one.

Are you seriously suggesting there is a mandate to have something that is at the same time illegal?

Whilst there are some cyclists who will use a bell in a threatening "get out of my way manner", there are also car drivers who rev their engines when pedestrians use crossings (or use their horn to object to the sedate pace of a funeral procession...). A polite "ding" is no different to passing someone as your mobile phone rings.

An audible warning of your presence nothing else it cannot be used to tell someone to move to the side. An example of using your bell safely and illegally is approaching an blind spot and signalling that you are there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Someone passing someone at walking speed is different from someone passing someone at cycling speed. Do you not understand that.

What do you mean by "cycling speed"? If I need to pass someone closely on a shared-use path, or I think that person might act unpredictably (e.g. they're a small child or a dog), I cycle at a much slower speed while I pass them. Just like if I'm driving and need to overtake someone riding a horse I do so very slowly so as not to scare the horse, I don't belt past at 60mph 6 inches off their side.

Cyclists who close-pass pedestrians on shared-use paths at say 30mph are inconsiderate, yes, but that isn't how most cyclists on the Redways act. (Maybe because people in MK grew up with shared-use paths we just know better how to use them than others? It's certainly true of roundabout discipline).

Lets take cycling out of the equation for a minute. Lets say you are walking having a pleasant sunday walk and someone is repeatedly blowing a horn or other audible device to get pedestrians to move out of their way while they are jogging, is that not intimidating in any way?

It's certainly manners to move aside to allow a runner to pass on a path/pavement if they approach and politely say "excuse me, please" as they do. An air horn would be more aggressive, but a bicycle bell is the equivalent of a polite request, not an air-horn.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Feb 2021 ==

An audible warning of your presence nothing else it cannot be used to tell someone to move to the side. An example of using your bell safely and illegally is approaching an blind spot and signalling that you are there.

So let's say you are warned of the presence of a cyclist behind you, and you can see that there's no room for them to pass you, it's just rude to keep them languishing behind as you slowly walk along when you could briefly step aside with no significant impact on your walk.

It's not an instruction to move aside, it's to make you aware of their presence. To move aside when you know you're impeding someone else's progress unnecessarily is just being a polite, considerate human being.

 

[matt_world2004]

What do you mean by "cycling speed"? If I need to pass someone closely on a shared-use path, or I think that person might act unpredictably (e.g. they're a small child or a dog), I cycle at a much slower speed while I pass them. Just like if I'm driving and need to overtake someone riding a horse I do so very slowly so as not to scare the horse, I don't belt past at 60mph 6 inches off their side.

Cyclists who close-pass pedestrians on shared-use paths at say 30mph are inconsiderate, yes, but that isn't how most cyclists on the Redways act. (Maybe because people in MK grew up with shared-use paths we just know better how to use them than others? It's certainly true of roundabout discipline).



It's certainly manners to move aside to allow a runner to pass on a path/pavement if they approach and politely say "excuse me, please" as they do. An air horn would be more aggressive, but a bicycle bell is the equivalent of a polite request, not an air-horn.

Cycling speed is a speed above walking pace required to maintain balance on a two wheeled bicycle it is above walking speed.

 

[duncombec]

An audible warning of your presence nothing else it cannot be used to tell someone to move to the side. An example of using your bell safely and illegally is approaching an blind spot and signalling that you are there.

Saying "excuse me" cannot force someone to move to the side either, even when out walking. But not doing so would be an act of utter beligerence.

I presume you mean safely and _legally_? It is also unnecessary if you take appropriate caution.

I think it is clear that you have an issue with cyclists, and are merely changing your arguments to fit your own construction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cycling speed is a speed above walking pace required to maintain balance on a two wheeled bicycle it is above walking speed.

Have you ever ridden a bicycle? Or do you just walk exceptionally slowly?

 

[matt_world2004]

What do you mean by "cycling speed"? If I need to pass someone closely on a shared-use path, or I think that person might act unpredictably (e.g. they're a small child or a dog), I cycle at a much slower speed whi

So let's say you are warned of the presence of a cyclist behind you, and you can see that there's no room for them to pass you, it's just rude to keep them languishing behind as you slowly walk along when you could briefly step aside with no significant impact on your w

Intimidating another highway user maintaining a steady speed to change speed or direction is against the law.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Intimidating another highway user maintaining a steady speed to change speed or direction is against the law.

Ringing a bicycle bell is not an act of intimidation. It is a friendly sound intended to indicate presence and is intended to be as such. Once someone becomes aware of that presence, it then comes down to them being a reasonable person in deciding how to act on that. A reasonable person doesn't carry on walking knowing they will keep the cyclist behind them for a long period of time. The cyclist, as another reasonable person, would also see that if, for example, there's a wider bit coming up shortly, that they should hang back and pass then.

(I've long thought that, like Metrolink trams, cars could do with having two different horn sounds, a friendly "toot-toot" used to indicate simple presence e.g. at a hump backed bridge or blind corner, and a more aggressive "beeeeep" as at present intended to indicate that someone has made a serious error and that if that error isn't corrected then someone is going to end up seriously hurt - with more quiet electric vehicles in use this would be even more useful).

 

[matt_world2004]

Ringing a bicycle bell is not an act of intimidation. It is a friendly sound and is intended to be as such.

(I've long thought that, like Metrolink trams, cars could do with having two different horn sounds, a friendly "toot-toot" used to indicate simple presence e.g. at a hump backed bridge or blind corner, and a more aggressive "beeeeep" as at present intended to indicate that someone has made a serious error and that if that error isn't corrected then someone is going to end up seriously hurt).

So if you were cycling and a car user repeatedly tooted their horn to get you to slow down or stop so they could pass you would that be intimidating or threatening.

Cyclists for their own safety generally want to keep to the middle of a road lane , to discourage close passes and cycling to the extreme left of a road near the gutter can be dangerous.

 

[duncombec]

I have some vague recollection that bikes for use on the road may not even be allowed to be sold without one.

There's probably some strange piece of forum etiquette I'm breaking by replying to my own post!

Section 4(3) of the Pedal Bicycles (Safety) regulation 2010 requires

Supply of assembled bicycles​

4.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a person must not supply a bicycle unless the requirements of paragraphs (3) to (12) of this regulation are satisfied.

[...]

(3) The bicycle must be fitted with a bell which is of a category intended for use on bicycles.

So please... explain how the apparently serious suggestion that it is a legal requirement for a bicycle to be sold with something it is apparently illegal to use?

 

[Non Multi]

If the cyclist wants to overtake the pedestrian safely and there isnt a wide enough gap to do it, they need to get off their bike walk the bike past the pedestrian and then get back on their bike. Close passes /bell ringing is intimidating and threatening.

Shared paths are usually 2m wide anyway. That's why you ring when you're still far away. What's not good is passing without sounding a bell/horn when approaching (which is commonplace).

Respectful riding involves overtaking at reduced speed (as when passing horses), but shared paths are really for slower riders. Slowing to approach gives those on foot time to move to one side to let you pass. It also makes it easy to stop if they're ignoring your presence.