Guardian Article "Cyclopaths on the Tow Paths"

[Alan de Enfield]

Extracts - full article https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/27/on-roads-cyclists-are-vulnerable-but-on-towpaths-theyre-the-menace

 

 

On roads, cyclists are vulnerable – but on towpaths they're the menace

The use of Britain’s narrow canal towpaths as cycling commuter routes is not sustainable. It’s time to ban bikes at peak timesA tipping point has been reached, the volume of cyclists exceeding the capacity of paths built during the industrial revolution for horses to slowly tow boats laden with goods. The issue now requires political intervention, a recognition that using canals as key cycling commuter routes is not sustainable.

Many of the UK’s towpaths are narrow and cannot be widened; separating cyclists from pedestrians is not possible. Proposals such as speed gates and painting 3D “sleeping policemen” on the towpath, infrastructure modifications borrowed from roads, are not long term solutions.

Nor is distributing leaflets enforcing cycling etiquette which, although well meaning, offers no evidence that it will influence mass behaviour. The Canal & River Trust’s messaging that cyclists should give way to pedestrians as the more vulnerable party is only selectively obeyed.

Prohibiting cycling on canals during peak times should be trialled and enforced with on-the-spot fines. The move would be easily policed, as the structure of canals means cyclists cannot avoid checkpoints. Fines should be invested directly into fundraising alternative, safe cycling routes on the road network.

Fundamentally, canals need to be reclaimed as places of contemplation – greenways that are quickly accessible to huge tracts of the UK’s urban population. Not long ago canals served a purpose for cyclists, a traffic-free route through cities still in thrall to the internal combustion engine. But the rise in numbers and demands of a cleaner city mean their purpose for cycling has been outgrown. Their value needs to be reappraised.

These ancient routes, a retreat from the frantic hubbub of the streets above, are too important to sacrifice.

 

[BilgePump]

51 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Many of the UK’s towpaths are narrow and cannot be widened; separating cyclists from pedestrians is not possible. Proposals such as speed gates and painting 3D “sleeping policemen” on the towpath, infrastructure modifications borrowed from roads, are not long term solutions.

Nor is distributing leaflets enforcing cycling etiquette which, although well meaning, offers no evidence that it will influence mass behaviour. The Canal & River Trust’s messaging that cyclists should give way to pedestrians as the more vulnerable party is only selectively obeyed.

Prohibiting cycling on canals during peak times should be trialled and enforced with on-the-spot fines. The move would be easily policed, as the structure of canals means cyclists cannot avoid checkpoints. Fines should be invested directly into fundraising alternative, safe cycling routes on the road network.

Fundamentally, canals need to be reclaimed as places of contemplation – greenways that are quickly accessible to huge tracts of the UK’s urban population. Not long ago canals served a purpose for cyclists, a traffic-free route through cities still in thrall to the internal combustion engine. But the rise in numbers and demands of a cleaner city mean their purpose for cycling has been outgrown. Their value needs to be reappraised.

These ancient routes, a retreat from the frantic hubbub of the streets above, are too important to sacrifice.

 

It's not cyclists who are the menace; it's only the moronic, self entiled, idiots on a bike who ruin it for everyone. I pay to cruise the cut on my boat, the fun of cycling to it occasionally comes for free. Which non-boating, non-cycling, non canal appreciating journo activist has got a bee in their bonnet now?

[Athy]

If there is such a problem - which I hear that, on some city towpaths, there is - then fines are fine and dandy, but currently applying them is surely unenforceable. Perhaps some of the 20,000 extra rozzers promised by the Government will take up position on the towpaths and hand out penalties.

[Chewbacka]

28 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

It's not cyclists who are the menace; it's only the moronic, self entiled, idiots on a bike who ruin it for everyone. I pay to cruise the cut on my boat, the fun of cycling to it occasionally comes for free. Which non-boating, non-cycling, non canal appreciating journo activist has got a bee in their bonnet now?

Probably the one who is fed up with cyclists coming towards them at speed ringing their bell for you to get out of their way.

[BilgePump]

11 minutes ago, BilgePump said:

Not long ago canals served a purpose for cyclists, a traffic-free route through cities still in thrall to the internal combustion engine

The writer seems to be making a case to justify their own choice of route. It is nonsense and Last time I looked, this morning, Manchester was still in thrall to ICE vehicles. Cycling across it, I woudn't bother with the towpaths. The non-road centre is a chaotic but functioning mass of cyclists, skateboarders and pedestrians. Of course, if you cycle in on one canal and out on another, you never need to leave the towpath. The towpath anywhere on the network can be fantastic for having a long ride out on a sunny day. If I want to go to Manchester, I'll cycle the towapth. It beats the main road hands down for safety and spotting the occasional Moorhen coming out of the reeds. Why do journalists with a city centric idea think that their viewpojnt should be applicable across a network that mile for mile is primarily rural? One moron who removed his brakes killed a lady in London; did they ban bikes in the city? Of course not. This article should be about holding idiot bikers to account, but instead it's demonising the decent ones. The author writes

 

Over the previous months, racing along the narrow waterside path had felt increasingly incompatible with other users. Swerving past mothers with prams or cutting up small dogs trotting languidly by the water made me feel ashamed. My desire to reach the office on time was patently causing misery to others.

 

Then may I humbly suggest that the author was cycling like an idiot and it is not the fault of the rest of the world. We don't need laws to regulate it!

[Chewbacka]

Just now, BilgePump said:

The writer seems to be making a case to justify their own choice of route. It is nonsense and Last time I looked, this morning, Manchester was still in thrall to ICE vehicles. Cycling across it, I woudn't bother with the towpaths. The non-road centre is a chaotic but functioning mass of cyclists, skateboarders and pedestrians. Of course, if you cycle in on one canal and out on another, you never need to leave the towpath. The towpath anywhere on the network can be fantastic for having a long ride out on a sunny day. If I want to go to Manchester, I'll cycle the towapth. It beats the main road hands down for safety and spotting the occasional Moorhen coming out of the reeds. Why do journalists with a city centric idea think that their viewpojnt should be applicable across a network that mile for mile is primarily rural? One moron who removed his brakes killed a lady in London; did they ban bikes in the city? Of course not. This article should be about holding idiot bikers to account, but instead it's demonising the decent ones. The author writes

 

Over the previous months, racing along the narrow waterside path had felt increasingly incompatible with other users. Swerving past mothers with prams or cutting up small dogs trotting languidly by the water made me feel ashamed. My desire to reach the office on time was patently causing misery to others.

 

Then may I humbly suggest that the author was cycling like an idiot and it is not the fault of the rest of the world. We don't need laws to regulate it!

Yes we do or they will continue to be “cycling like an idiot”.   That said, we have laws about zebra crossings and traffic lights which too many cyclists ignore.

[BilgePump]

8 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Probably the one who is fed up with cyclists coming towards them at speed ringing their bell for you to get out of their way.

And that sounds like an idiot cyclist. Cyclist gives way to pedestrian every time if in any doubt. If I'm cycling, the bell from behind is pointless. We all just jump. I just slow down, shout out hello and ask if it's possible to pass on their left or right so they don't step to one side at an unfortunate moment.

 

12 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

Yes we do or they will continue to be “cycling like an idiot”.   That said, we have laws about zebra crossings and traffic lights which too many cyclists ignore.

The article was written sounding like the ex-addict, kind of 'I was a towpath flyer but now I need to protect others from the dangers!'

 

Are you very pro lots of laws and regulations and the expense that entails or just not a fan of cyclists?

[Nightwatch]

If, after I have calmed after suddenly realising the ringing in my ears is an impatient cyclist trying to get past, I accidentally get in the way if I'm quick enough. Then apologise profusely and step aside, by this time, said cyclist has slowed to a passable speed safe for both tow path users. Me and (s)he.

Our little dogs occasionally have the same effect. If they are startled by a quick moving cyclist they will follow then at equal speed and tell them off in no uncertain terms. They haven't as yet, angle nipped any cyclist. There's still time.

Edited July 27, 2019 by Nightwatch

[GUMPY]

Great article, the morons that use the towpath to commute at speed need slowing down. Due to my size if I get hit by an inconsiderate cyclist its 50/50 who will come off worse. So far score is 2-0 to me and one of those ended up in the cut

I do like the term Cyclopath 

Edited July 27, 2019 by Loddon

[BilgePump]

On a towpath, a cyclist should be down to no more than walking speed before passing, unless say someone has stopped to let them past, and everyone is quite clear about things, Holding cyclists to account for their actions is perfectly correct but banning them from the towpath isn't the answer. It is one of the few places that offers gentle cycling for mixed ages along good stretches.

[BilgePump]

For a bit of balance, I have been hit by a cyclist on the towpath. Was pushing my own bike through Woodley tunnel, with its light flashing. MAMIL on expensive bike comes ploughing through in the darkness. Bit of a tangled mess. His other half comes through at a much more sedate pace and bollocked him in the darkness. Quite surreal. Nobody hurt. But this is the kind of person who would pay any licence, any insurance to cycle like an idiot. In the same way that lots would choose to ignore any licence requirement or towpath ban. The scumbags at both ends will ignore all the rules and make the decent people suffer.

[Slim]

9 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

If, after I have calmed after suddenly realising the ringing in my ears is an impatient cyclist trying to get past, I accidentally get in the way if I'm quick enough. Then apologise profusely and step aside, by this time, said cyclist has slowed to a passable speed safe for both tow path users. Me and (s)he.

Our little dogs occasionally have the same effect. If they are startled by a quick moving cyclist they will follow then at equal speed and tell them off in no uncertain terms. They haven't as yet, angle nipped any cyclist. There's still time.

Last week a a cyclist went past me on the towpath uttering words along the lines of'get out of the way'. It made me aware that I can't remember when I last heard a bell being rung. Since then I've made a point of ĺooking as to how many bikes are so equipped. Answer ' very few. Is it still a requirement that a bike has an audible warning device? My car would fail an MOT if it didn't have one.

[Nightwatch]

Slim, I think they must have a bell or summat else when sold new. Thereafter, I've no idea. The human has an excellent communication device. Voice! Works for me. I don't always connect a bell sound to a bike on the tow path.

[Jerra]

11 minutes ago, Nightwatch said:

Slim, I think they must have a bell or summat else when sold new. Thereafter, I've no idea. The human has an excellent communication device. Voice! Works for me. I don't always connect a bell sound to a bike on the tow path.

I think once they have been sold there is no compulsion to have an "audible means of warning of approach".   Being a bit "mutt and geof" I rarely hear the little ting tin g of modern bells as opposed to the great clangers that were around when I was a kid.

[rrt2]

There is no legal requirement for a cyclist to have a audible warning device.

It is however a requirement if you are riding a time trial under the road time trials councils rules.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

Unsure I should reply. These threads seem to soon degenerate in to all cyclists/pedestrians/swans/boats/fisherpersons should be banned/licensed/have number plates. I do cycle towpaths and other legal mixed pedestrian/bike routes on a regular basis. I've replaced the cheapo bells that bikes usually have installed with a more traditional "tring-tring" bell. I'll ring this a long way back to get walkers attention. Too close and people just jump. Even so, not everyone hears. They can be hard of hearing, in a little world of their own, in a phone trance, have earbuds in. The bell can be masked by wind, traffic and other noise. I'll be slowing down and not pass till I know they know I'm there and are happy for me to pass. Extra caution if dogs, or small children are in the mix. Unfortunately, there are always going to be idiots who'll go to fast and I don't know what the answer is. A lot of towpaths have been upgraded with money specifically to make cycling easier. The funding providers would have a thing or two to say about any ban, or restriction. I suspect people getting sued, or prosecuted over injuries caused might have an effect. I don't think mixed cycle and pedestrian routes, like towpaths work. The disparity in speed and kinetic energy between the two are too high. Similar to bikes and motor vehicles sharing roads, with the difference that this time the push biker isn't the vulnerable one. They are a cheap way of getting cycle routes, but make it less pleasant to walk. The best approach is dedicated cycling lanes, but this takes more money and effort.

 

One final thought. If bikers using towpaths had to buy a license to do so, do people think that the unpleasant speed merchants amongst them would feel more entitled to go as fast as they can, or less?

 

Jen

Edited July 27, 2019 by Jen-in-Wellies

[Guest]

Nowt against cyclists in general, done a fair bit myself. There are few knob heads though, and I know I am going to get mowed down one day on the towpath, as my hearing is shot. My wife has saved me a couple of times this summer alone. 
I saw a pair of nasty barstewards last week on bikes.  An elderly guy was walking his orderly dog along towpath and these two pieces of c*ap appear at high speed on extraordinary push bikes and shout "get out of the f---- you  pri*k!" I noticed the guys's arm was broken and in a cast. We asked him if he was OK, but he said it was just water off a duck's back, and it happens a lot. 
Trouble is we remember the few nasty ones, and forget the majority of decent ones. 

2 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Unsure I should reply. These threads seem to soon degenerate in to all cyclists/pedestrians/swans/boats/fisherpersons should be banned/licensed/have number plates. I do cycle towpaths and other legal mixed pedestrian/bike routes on a regular basis. I've replaced the cheapo bells that bikes usually have installed with a more traditional "tring-tring" bell. I'll ring this a long way back to get walkers attention. Too close and people just jump. Even so, not everyone hears. They can be hard of hearing, in a little world of their own, in a phone trance, have earbuds in. The bell can be masked by wind, traffic and other noise. I'll be slowing down and not pass till I know they know I'm there and are happy for me to pass. Extra caution if dogs, or small children are in the mix. Unfortunately, there are always going to be idiots who'll go to fast and I don't know what the answer is. A lot of towpaths have been upgraded with money specifically to make cycling easier. The funding providers would have a thing or two to say about any ban, or restriction. I suspect people getting sued, or prosecuted over injuries caused might have an effect. I don't think mixed cycle and pedestrian routes, like towpaths work. The disparity in speed and kinetic energy between the two are two high. Similar to bikes and motor vehicles sharing roads, with the difference that this time the push biker isn't the vulnerable one. They are a cheap way of getting cycle routes, but make it less pleasant to walk. The best approach is dedicated cycling lanes, but this takes more money and effort.

 

One final thought. If bikers using towpaths had to buy a license to do so, do people think that the unpleasant speed merchants amongst them would feel more entitled to go as fast as they can, or less?

 

Jen

More, they would really think they owned it then.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

5 minutes ago, catweasel said:

More, they would really think they owned it then.

Yup. Rhetorical question really. I suspect that towpath tarmac upgrades have a similar effect.

Jen

[Jerra]

2 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Yup. Rhetorical question really. I suspect that towpath tarmac upgrades have a similar effect.

Jen

I can't help but feel calling something a cycle track or cycle way makes some cyclists think it is for them alone.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

I have two traffic free cycle routes in to the city centre from where I moor. One is the towpath. Narrow, muddy and shared with walkers and fishermen. The other is a route along the river bank. Wide, with either a solid, or well drained grit surface, but a mile or so longer as it follows the meanders. I'll use the river side route for preference as it works much better as a mixed user path. The road routes are designed around cars. Dual carriageways, or four lane single carriageways. Scary on a bike in rush hour. This is a city where drivers are generally used to and give space to cyclists. Even so, I'll string together off road routes to reach my destination as much as possible. If/when more suitable cycle routes become available that cover the same area as towpaths I agree with the article that the tow path should go back to walkers and other users. Maybe even people towing boats with horses!

 

Jen

[Guest]

Love this on the Monty:

 

[Jen-in-Wellies]

26 minutes ago, catweasel said:

Love this on the Monty:

 

Surprised CaRT haven't rebranded it with a stick on blue sinking tyre logo over the Shropshire Union Railways & Canal Company name.

 

Jen ?

[Jerra]

3 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Surprised CaRT haven't rebranded it with a stick on blue sinking tyre logo over the Shropshire Union Railways & Canal Company name.

 

Jen ?

We should be so lucky.    

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

Unsure I should reply. These threads seem to soon degenerate in to all cyclists/pedestrians/swans/boats/fisherpersons should be banned/licensed/have number plates. I do cycle towpaths and other legal mixed pedestrian/bike routes on a regular basis. I've replaced the cheapo bells that bikes usually have installed with a more traditional "tring-tring" bell. I'll ring this a long way back to get walkers attention. Too close and people just jump. Even so, not everyone hears. They can be hard of hearing, in a little world of their own, in a phone trance, have earbuds in. The bell can be masked by wind, traffic and other noise. I'll be slowing down and not pass till I know they know I'm there and are happy for me to pass. Extra caution if dogs, or small children are in the mix. Unfortunately, there are always going to be idiots who'll go to fast and I don't know what the answer is. A lot of towpaths have been upgraded with money specifically to make cycling easier. The funding providers would have a thing or two to say about any ban, or restriction. I suspect people getting sued, or prosecuted over injuries caused might have an effect. I don't think mixed cycle and pedestrian routes, like towpaths work. The disparity in speed and kinetic energy between the two are too high. Similar to bikes and motor vehicles sharing roads, with the difference that this time the push biker isn't the vulnerable one. They are a cheap way of getting cycle routes, but make it less pleasant to walk. The best approach is dedicated cycling lanes, but this takes more money and effort.

 

One final thought. If bikers using towpaths had to buy a license to do so, do people think that the unpleasant speed merchants amongst them would feel more entitled to go as fast as they can, or less?

 

Jen

From experience the bell issue is a bit of a red herring. If you ring a bell when approaching walkers with their backs to you the attitude is often along the lines of,"You expect us to get out of the way just because you've rung your bell"(I don't, it was just to let you know I'm here, much like sounding the boat horn on a blind corner) whereas if you come up behind a group of walkers without any bell ringing the attitude is,"What, haven't got a bell or anything?" so you'll be damned either way. My current approach is to come up behind without any bell ringing, get off, walk past them, get back on and continue, but even for that innocuous approach I've still had people complain that I didn't ring the bell (that I have fitted) but it really isn't worth the effort.

 

I think you do touch on the real issue and that is the shared space idea. It is crap on the general footpaths since it changes from one moment to the next and why would I want to ride on the footway and stop at every road entering the main road when, if I ride on the roadway I can continue unhampered? Having ridden in The Netherlands they have the system properly sorted whereby pedestrians,cyclists and motor traffic are all kept separate, we just try to do it on the cheap. And before anyone tells me,"Why should cycleways be made for cyclists, they don't pay Excise Duty", pedestrians also don't pay Excise Duty but most places seem to give them a footpath to walk on.

[Jen-in-Wellies]

3 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

The Netherlands they have the system properly sorted whereby pedestrians,cyclists and motor traffic are all kept separate, we just try to do it on the cheap.

Agreed. The Dutch have got it sorted. The UK approach is more ticky box. Much of the on-road cycle lanes are pointless, sometimes actively dangerous.