For cyclists, the rules of the road do not apply to shared use paths

With both local and national government driving for greener forms of transport, leaner members of the electorate and cleaner cities, investment in cycle and shared use paths has seen a substantial increase in recent years.

Projects like the City of Edinburgh Council’s Active Travel Investment Programme (ATINP) aim to deliver 52 miles of protected cycle routes across Edinburgh. At an anticipated cost of approximately £118 million, building cycle specific infrastructure is a big civic spend.

But with the advent of more cycle paths and shared use paths comes the potential for conflict.

Thomas Mitchell is a Partner with Cycle Law Scotland (Picture: David Ho & Sandie Knudsen)

There is conflict on the roads between different road users; pedestrians and cars don’t mix well. If a cyclist and a lorry collide, the cyclist will always come off worse.

Moving cyclists and pedestrians away from the roads and onto these new cycle superhighways and shared use thoroughfares can also present problems when users come into conflict with each other.

Such conflicts are illustrated perfectly in the recent case of Nigel Dick v. Joseph Merrick [2024] CSOH 39. The case involved two cyclists who collided with each other at a junction where National Cycle Route 75 meets National Cycle Route 7, between Linwood and Johnstone in Renfrewshire.

Nigel Dick’s account was that he was turning right from NCR 75 towards NCR 7. He was riding at around 12-15mph. As he emerged onto NCR 7, he was confronted with Joseph Merrick, who had been riding on NCR 7.

Cycle Law logo

Merrick had overtaken another cyclist and then veered left into Dick, causing the collision. Merrick’s version of events differed. He was riding on NCR 7 at around 20mph and had just completed an overtake on another cyclist well before the junction. Dick emerged from the junction and collided with him.

Expert witness testimony was heard from a cycling safety consultant and a collision investigator. The cycling safety consultant was of the view that the speed both Dick and Merrick were travelling at was above what he considered to be a safe threshold. The collision investigator confirmed that the collision likely happened when Dick was almost fully on the NCR 7.

The question to be determined by the Court was one of liability. Who was at fault for causing the incident? The issue discussed was whether this NCR was a cycle path or a road. If a road, then applying the Highway Code rules would be appropriate and Dick would have been under a duty to give way to Merrick at the junction of NCR 75 and NCR 7.

Both cyclists had approached at excessive speed and failed to look out for one another. The only outcome the Court could reach was to find each cyclist equally to blame. This case underlines an important precedent set in Scotland where the rules of the road do not apply to cycle paths and perhaps by extension, shared use paths too.

Instead, a common-sense approach of looking out for each other and riding with due care for others applies. The question still prevails: “Whose right of way is it anyway?”

Thomas Mitchell is a Partner with Cycle Law Scotland