I find that a minority, when hearing that, instinctively take a step left before realizing that they need to move to the right.
I find that a minority, when hearing that, instinctively take a step left before realizing that they need to move to the right.
I’ve seen this only once or twice, so I think it’s exceptionally rare. My hypothesis is that it relates to which leg they happen to standing on, at the time that they hear your call: if they’re on their left, making their next step farther to the right is perfectly natural and fluid. But if they’re already on their right leg, the startle response might lead them to undo their step, meaning they now step to the left.
But in any case, the distance that you call out to another trail user should be enough so that even if they make a mistake, there is sufficient time to avoid a close shave. If this means riding slower as you approach, then that’s what is necessary.
Around me, the trails are marked according to the state guidelines for pedestrians, which is to walk on the left, against traffic, so they can see oncoming cyclists. But even when they choose not to, that doesn’t excuse a lack of caution when riding nearby pedestrians. In the end, everyone just wants to get where they’re going, without externalized risks, safely.
Your trails have you walk on the left? That is crazy.
Yep! Though other jurisdictions in California might have everyone on the right. It’s not consistent at all, but basically every trail will have pavement markings or signs at the entrances to announce what the policy is.
The idea with walking on left is to give pedestrians a fighting chance, when all other traffic is right-hand traffic. If a pedestrian is walking on right and is struck from behind, they stand no chance whatsoever to avoid serious injury. This advice only applies to pedestrians because humans only walk at 5 km/h.
And to be abundant clear, it’s never a pedestrian’s job to dodge negligent traffic. But if the worse comes to be, it’s a final opportunity to save their own skin, when every other procedural safety layer has failed them. It’s a safety net, not a support beam.
WTH kind of “trails” do you have over there? I thought we were talking about like trails in the woods/mountains, maybe a gravel road at best…?
To defend the comment, I’m including paved trails designed for non-car traffic. So there is a 3+ m wide paved trail for large parts.
This appears to be a cultural/language thing (I’m not from the Anglosphere), I just didn’t have any concept of a “paved trail”, it immediately seemed like an oxymoron to me.
What would you call a paved surface that is dedicated to non-car traffic?
Pavement? Path? Footpath? Biking path?
In my language we use the literal translation of “road” also for paved surfaces not meant for cars. We use “walking-road” to emphasise the fact when it’s in a place where it might be confused for a car-road. We also have “bike-roads” that are paved/marked like a road but dedicated for bikes only.
I think I just immediately associated “trail” with “hiking trail” or “bike trail” which I associate with more rugged terrain and not paved paths.
Footpath
I did say “pavement markings or signs”, and this was meant to cover both types: here in California, a “trail” can refer to anything from a minimally-improved dirt route through the forest no wider than a person, to an asphalt-paved multi-use facility with smaller versions of the familiar traffic control signs.
In the context of OP’s question, I didn’t specifically discuss narrow, single-track trails because there’s no possibility of a bicyclist squeezing past a pedestrian without it being a very obvious negotiation of space.
But there are plenty of regional trails which reuse the alignment of an old fire road or railroad. So the prospect of riding a bicycle on dirt in a 3-meter wide dirt corridor is not unheard of. So to come across a pedestrian is also not abnormal. If the weather is good, all walks [no pun intended] of life will make their way to enjoy the outdoors here.
Regional recreation areas will post their trail rules at the trailhead, and periodically along the trails. Some rules are obvious, like not littering. Others are not: horses sometimes get priority over both cyclists and pedestrians, because in areas with lots of horse riding, the horses could get spooked and bolt.
This appears to be a cultural/language thing (I’m not from the Anglosphere), I just didn’t have any concept of a “paved trail”, it immediately seemed like an oxymoron to me.
I’ve come across trails with priority markings, but in my country most trails don’t really have any kind of marked “trail head” at all (apart from the ones very near major cities) like you commonly have in the US.
Ah, I see. American English seems to use trail for almost any path that isn’t meant for vehicular traffic. Note that some historic routes through the West were inconsistently named in the 1800s, so the Oregon Trail was indeed through unpaved wilderness, but the Mormon Road was also unimproved.
On ped only trails or bike-ped trails, I feel like blocking the path is rude. You have others using the trail and the speed differential is a lot lower.
My comment was about bodily safety. In terms of trail utilization, I agree that unduly preventing the use of the trail is rude. But there’s huge daylight between things that are rude and things that are liable to injure people.
Pedestrians should not deny the trail to bicyclists that can safely pass. Even if there are lots of cyclists, at least a column must be kept available for pedestrians.
Ultimately, if such a trail is so heavily congested – and there is one such trail near me – then the municipality bears the responsibility to accommodate users. If this means closing nearby streets to open up more recreational walking facilities elsewhere to shift the demand away from the trail, that’s fine. If that means removing auto lanes on parallel roads to shift bicycle commuters off the trail, that works too. I’m all-in on reconfiguring taxpayer-owned spaces to serve people, rather than as car sewers or car storage.