wishful

Warleigh Weir is a renowned swimming spot, 100m from the canal and 2000m further on from Dundas. Whilst there take a look at Claverton pumping station Enjoy!

So cyclists do pay for towpath maintenance. As do plumbers, the clergy, flat-earthists and a dwindling proportion of high net-worth individuals.

You are wrong, again. Watch the video, it's perfectly clear.

From the link, obviously.

It's a shame you don't share the sentiment...https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/our-towpath-code Pleased to see you have no issues with the remainder of my earlier post. At last!

So we still have folks wishing cyclists harm. How dreary. It's simple; every tow path user should show respect and consideration for other users. Cycling on the tow path is here to stay. Walkers should step to one side when a cyclist approaches. Cyclists pay for tow path maintenance. Folk should not post on here wishing harm to others.

I can't recall anyone stipulating that bikes must be kept separate from cars. In certain situations it would be preferable, but in many others it is entirely unnecessary. However, if dedicated cycle paths are provided they must be of adequate quality otherwise they will not be used. Another option (of which there are many, some better than others) is called a road diet, whereby the perceived width of the road is adjusted. See link below https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/uH3lJEaeUtaJC3s9ODeyYGMw9Z1If4E2LJnkXsO7ffHwhweL0iDx9hXV0dpJv0yCyk1sDT-OdYAoaYB_j9u_5aRQrcFh0Z6WhtOeIMk32qDLJ2p2lN5Q8jtAF8LKxs_81oe7OPfv This would have the psychological effect of re-prioritising traffic, reducing traffic collisions and can be achieved without land purchase or heavy construction activities and above all is cheap to create.

JP, The data is said to be negatively skewed, which is to be expected given the nature of the survey and it is clear to me that each data range is not cumulative. Have a look at this https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/458432/how-people-travel-cycling.pdf which shows, half way down on LHS, that 35% of population of England (53 million) of ages 5+ cycle at least annually. Extrapolating this across the population of the UK (64 million) indicates a total in excess of 22 million who cycle at least annually. Then add in the younger kids who cycle. Why is this figure so hard to believe? Here's a radical suggestion * (not one to which I subscribe and which I write with a degree of irony). Get some old paint and mark out a line little wider than a shoe along the worst bits of the towpath, really tight up to the hedge where all the rubbish, broken glass and mouldy dog turds lie. Chasten those walkers that dare to stray outside this line, perhaps aided by the use of garroting wires. We can call this a dedicated walking path! Encourage all pedestrians on the walking path to wear hi-viz, a helmet, lights and a cow-bell around their necks. Then we can blame any walker that is struck down and injured by a careless cyclist when outside the walking path. To pay for this magnificent infrastructure we can charge walkers to use the walking path. Problem solved! * (These are all topics raised by others on this thread alone, modified to suit the above senario) No, actually I still think it better to treat all towpath users with consideration and respect.

Precisely. And with this weight of numbers even the non-cyclist should begin to recognise its validity as a means of transport.

The former, see post 205.

No, it is perfectly clear as it stands. I mentioned towpaths, at the risk of stating the obvious, because you will find at the top of the page reference to canalworld. What reliable evidence have you of your fanciful assertion that most of those 20 million have rarely ever seen a canal? I look forward to seeing this...

Imagine if that had been a pedestrian, a child maybe. Or even a downed cyclist. Would you still have hit him/her?

Don't be ridiculous. The meaning is perfectly clear and your suggested inclusion is wholly redundant.

Estimates for under 18's who cycle are 5.5 million Estimates for over 18's are below The British Social Attitudes (ATT 0305) survey of adults over the age of 18 suggests that in 2014: 4% cycled every day, or nearly every day (about 2 million people of 18+) 5% cycled 2/5 days a week (about 2.5 million people of 18+) 6% cycled once a week (about 3 million people of 18+) 7% cycled less, but at least once a month (about 3.5 million people of 18+) 12% cycled less often than that (about 6 million people of 18+) So yes, tens of millions. Next! You are on a hiding to nothing trying to convince over 20 million people that they are deluding themselves in thinking that cycling is not a valid form of transport, has the though even crossed your mind that you might be in the wrong on this one? I'm sure they are not as well hidden as the anti-cycling bigots. And I'm glad you agree with me that all towpath users should be treated equally, with consideration and respect.

No, the problem is (towpath) users not showing consideration or respect for other users. The same can be said for highway users. As it is not possible for cyclists to exceed the speed limit in the UK, save for London's Royal Parks, the commonly used term "speeding", meaning one who is exceeding the speed limits, does not and cannot apply to cyclists. If cyclists choose to use the road instead of inadequate or inappropriate cycle paths then that is their prerogative; no licence is required to do so (unlike motor vehicle users whose licence and therefore ability to use the road can be removed). As has been clearly shown, many cycle facilities are woeful. Choosing not to use the cycle facility does not diminish their entitlement to use the road nor reduce the standard of care required by other roads user to avoid killing them. Tens of millions of cyclists do not share your view that cycling is not a valid means of transport on roads or towpaths. I think the odds are stacked against you on that one. Your assertion that "transport" equates to "as fast as possible" is nonsensical. As I have said before, let's treat all towpath users with consideration and respect.