Guardian Article "Cyclopaths on the Tow Paths"

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

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.

Comparing Holland to the UK is a bit pointless for IMO a couple of reasons.  The first being because the land over there is so flat cycling has been a way of life for many (majority?) probably since the invention of the bike.  in the UK there are probably more cyclists now than at any time in my life.

 

Secondly because it hasn't been part of our culture can you really see a way of finding enough space in the congested areas to make cycle ways.

 

The cycle ways incarlisle were among some of the first in the country and when I was young were still cycle ways, because cycling fell out of fashion and cars increased they are now parking for the houses beside them.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 minute ago, Jerra said:

Comparing Holland to the UK is a bit pointless for IMO a couple of reasons.  The first being because the land over there is so flat cycling has been a way of life for many (majority?) probably since the invention of the bike.  in the UK there are probably more cyclists now than at any time in my life.

 

Secondly because it hasn't been part of our culture can you really see a way of finding enough space in the congested areas to make cycle ways.

 

The cycle ways incarlisle were among some of the first in the country and when I was young were still cycle ways, because cycling fell out of fashion and cars increased they are now parking for the houses beside them.

I would suggest that, at one time, it was part of our culture, when seeing factories emptying out in the late 1950's, early 1960's it was cycles that a lot of the workers were using. Because we all now bow down the the great god, The Motor Car, nowadays everything else has to give way to it, even though urban road speeds are getting progressively slower (Central London is down to about 7 miles per hour, you could jog and do that). Why bother to have a car capable of 120+mph if all that you are travelling at is 7mph?

[zenataomm]

Every law we have, whatever it is only exists because idiots have to be governed.

Stupid people are dangerous to others around them and have to have restrictions placed upon them because it's only penalties that effect them personally that sink in. 

 

3 hours ago, catweasel said:

Trouble is we remember the few nasty ones, and forget the majority of decent ones. 

Of course we do!  

It's only 0.13% of our population that ignore our laws to the extent they are caught and put in prison.  They certainly spoil the lives of their victims.  And thank goodness we do something about them.

 

If you are ever stopped in your car for a light out and are daft enough to respond with something along the lines of ...

"Bulb not working? Really? You've got nothing better to do than stop me because …"

Then count yourself very lucky if The Rozzers merely point out that any infringement of the law will be addressed.  So if we need to legislate against a group of people whose behaviour is frequently identified as unacceptable to others then so be it. 

 

Edited July 27, 2019 by zenataomm
I had to go turn my bike around!

[Wanderer Vagabond]

2 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

Every law we have, whatever it is only exists because idiots have to be governed.

Stupid people are dangerous to others around them and have to have restrictions placed upon them because it's only penalties that effect them personally sink in. 

 

Of course we do!  

It's only 0.13% of our population that ignore our laws to the extent they are caught and put in prison.  They certainly spoil the lives of their victims.  And thank goodness we do something about them.

 

If you are ever stopped in your car for a light out and are daft enough to respond with something along the lines of ...

"Bulb not working? Really? You've got nothing better to do than stop me because …"

Then count yourself very lucky if The Rozzers merely point out that any infringement of the law will be addressed.  So if we need to legislate against a group of people whose behaviour is frequently identified as unacceptable to others then so be it. 

 

I think you have over-expectations of regulation. What you will find in real life is that conforming to rules is directly proportionate to what the chances are of being caught. No-one who breaks any laws, from riding without lights to murder gives much consideration to the penalties because it is not their intention to be caught. How many people hurtling up the motorway at 80mph are thinking to themselves,"This is going to cost me 50% of my weekly salary and 3 penalty points" compared to those who are thinking,"I need to get to my destination by x o'clock". If however there was a 100% chance of being caught, everyone would be driving no faster than 70mph.

[Neil2]

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Comparing Holland to the UK is a bit pointless for IMO a couple of reasons.  The first being because the land over there is so flat cycling has been a way of life for many (majority?) probably since the invention of the bike.  in the UK there are probably more cyclists now than at any time in my life.

 

Secondly because it hasn't been part of our culture can you really see a way of finding enough space in the congested areas to make cycle ways.

 

The cycle ways incarlisle were among some of the first in the country and when I was young were still cycle ways, because cycling fell out of fashion and cars increased they are now parking for the houses beside them.

It's often assumed that because of their geography the Dutch have been a cycle friendly nation for much longer than they have.  In fact the cycling culture we all recognise didn't start until the 1970's, until then they were just as much in love with the car as most western countries.  Public outrage at the number of car related road deaths, the oil crisis of 1973 and strong government came together to create the transport revolution many of us yearn for in this country.

 

Cycling most definitely has been part of British life for a very long time and for that reason the cyclist and motorist have hitherto shared the roads quite happily - when I was young every motorist would have been a cyclist at some point before owning a car.  It's only in recent times that we have reached the stage that Holland reached in the 1970's, but to adopt their approach ie segregating motor traffic from cyclists, is now much more difficult/expensive and the political will/strength to carry it out is pretty much non existent.  

[zenataomm]

1 hour ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I think you have over-expectations of regulation. What you will find in real life is that conforming to rules is directly proportionate to what the chances are of being caught. No-one who breaks any laws, from riding without lights to murder gives much consideration to the penalties because it is not their intention to be caught. How many people hurtling up the motorway at 80mph are thinking to themselves,"This is going to cost me 50% of my weekly salary and 3 penalty points" compared to those who are thinking,"I need to get to my destination by x o'clock". If however there was a 100% chance of being caught, everyone would be driving no faster than 70mph.

Which will still give better returns due to their actually being legislation.  As happened with the young 'erbert who expected to get away with killing a woman crossing in front of him because she stepped out.  He wasn't thinking "I won't get caught". He was probably thinking something along the lines of "Her fault she's texting not my responsibility and/or bikes have no MOT so it doesn't matter I've removed one of the brakes"

He's an idiot and now his case has highlighted to his kind they're are not impervious to the law.

[zenataomm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnPUe80oBZw

[Wanderer Vagabond]

8 hours ago, zenataomm said:

Which will still give better returns due to their actually being legislation.  As happened with the young 'erbert who expected to get away with killing a woman crossing in front of him because she stepped out.  He wasn't thinking "I won't get caught". He was probably thinking something along the lines of "Her fault she's texting not my responsibility and/or bikes have no MOT so it doesn't matter I've removed one of the brakes"

He's an idiot and now his case has highlighted to his kind they're are not impervious to the law.

But it still wont make any difference at all to their behaviour (those who ride like idiots, will ride like idiots).  This belief that stiff punishments make any difference to people's behaviour is badly misplaced; what makes a difference to people's behaviour is getting caught or the likelihood of getting caught, nothing else.

[Jerra]

10 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I would suggest that, at one time, it was part of our culture, when seeing factories emptying out in the late 1950's, early 1960's it was cycles that a lot of the workers were using.

 

I was born in the 40s and remember the 50s & 60s well, I certainly see more bikes today than I did then.

 

Because we all now bow down the the great god, The Motor Car, nowadays everything else has to give way to it, even though urban road speeds are getting progressively slower (Central London is down to about 7 miles per hour, you could jog and do that). Why bother to have a car capable of 120+mph if all that you are travelling at is 7mph?

That may be the case in London and a few comparatively small urban areas of the UK but not the majority of the UK.   However I would agree why have a car capable of more than say 80 when the maximum speed limit anywhere is 70 mph.

[Jerra]

10 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

I think you have over-expectations of regulation. What you will find in real life is that conforming to rules is directly proportionate to what the chances are of being caught. No-one who breaks any laws, from riding without lights to murder gives much consideration to the penalties because it is not their intention to be caught. How many people hurtling up the motorway at 80mph are thinking to themselves,"This is going to cost me 50% of my weekly salary and 3 penalty points" compared to those who are thinking,"I need to get to my destination by x o'clock". If however there was a 100% chance of being caught, everyone would be driving no faster than 70mph.

I once saw a car with a notice in the back saying "Sorry if I am slow but I have used up all my penalty points" so clearly they were thinking of the penalty.  

[furnessvale]

30 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

But it still wont make any difference at all to their behaviour (those who ride like idiots, will ride like idiots).  This belief that stiff punishments make any difference to people's behaviour is badly misplaced; what makes a difference to people's behaviour is getting caught or the likelihood of getting caught, nothing else.

I'm surprised that, as a former PC, you think like that.  Certainly the surety of getting caught is a major factor but I have dealt with many a criminal who wasn't bothered about that, because he knew the punishment would be so lenient.

 

It needs a combination of the two, getting caught AND an effective punishment.

 

George

[roland elsdon]

I was slowly doing the car shuffle back to the boat yesterday, slowly because it was pouring and because i was on the towpath.

i met a mid 20s year old lady on her touring bike covered in mud ( she had just fallen off)

i stopped and asked if she was ok. She said yes and did i know any way other than the tow path ( its a cycleway there) of getting to her destination.

i had a think having ridden round there many times and concluded no. It was the a 38 ( suicide) or the towpath.

i presume the cyclist haters would prefer her to be hit by a truck or drive a car ( she had done 60 odd kms that day) than ride down the towpath.

 

last sundays shuffle home was 115 kms by small roads , the drive back was 80 on main roads. That says why cyclists short cut on towpaths in their legal attempt to make a journey. Personally i hate riding on towpaths because of the hassle, but sometimes better than on the road where every second driver is looking at the phone on their lap.

 

 i will never forget the look on one of my staffs face when she  heard the impact as her phone call to her partner in the car resulted in his death. She realised later that she had killed him with that call, as it was a single vehicle incident.

 

 

[Wanderer Vagabond]

35 minutes ago, furnessvale said:

I'm surprised that, as a former PC, you think like that.  Certainly the surety of getting caught is a major factor but I have dealt with many a criminal who wasn't bothered about that, because he knew the punishment would be so lenient.

 

It needs a combination of the two, getting caught AND an effective punishment.

 

George

The getting caught is by far the major factor, if not the only factor. If you ever read the book,"Policing Freedom" by John Alderson he makes the case for how little the deterrent value of the actual punishment really is. Back in the late 1700', early1800's theft carried a Capital Sentence and the sentence was carried out by publicly hanging the offender. The event attracted crowds of people watching, and in those days large crowds would usually attract pickpockets who usually made quite a good day's work out of it, deterrence value of capital punishment? zero. If capital punishment isn't going to deter people (it still fails to deter drug smugglers in Singapore) then what 'effective' punishment were you looking at?

 

The criminal you refer to wasn't bothered by the punishment, not because it was so lenient, but because a spell in prison (if that was the likely outcome) wasn't going to inconvenience him since he probably had little else to worry about. He'd meet up with his friends, board and lodgings for a few months/years, no stress of life outside and, these days, a plentiful supply of drugs, why is he going to be bothered?

 

The point I'm making is that more legislation isn't the solution to anything if there is no correlating increase in enforcement, and the canal towpath is a difficult place to increase any enforcement. Do we all want CCTV cameras every 100 metres? Do we have enough enforcement officers of any sort to spend their time wandering along towpaths? As a case in point I was moored in Leigh a couple of weeks or so ago, opposite The Waterside pub. At about 4pm some oik came blasting along the towpath on a motorbike and, unlike those who give us anecdotes of cyclists 'riding at 30mph on the towpath'(unlikely) this was a motorbike that was easily capable of that speed and I would guess he was doing at least 25mph. He had no crash helmet, no number plates and I'd give it a 50% chance the bike was probably stolen. Why was he doing it? because the chances of getting caught on the towpath is infinitesimal compared to the chance of getting caught on the road. He rode back at much the same speed half an hour later, am I going to try to stop a motorbike at that speed? not a cat in hell's chance. A further 30 minutes later, presumably responding to calls about the rider, two PCSO's came walking up the towpath. An hour later the same oik once again came blasting past on his motorbike. There is plenty of legislation already in place to stop his behaviour but without the enforcement, nothing is achieved.

[Alan de Enfield]

16 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

At about 4pm some oik came blasting along the towpath on a motorbike and, unlike those who give us anecdotes of cyclists 'riding at 30mph on the towpath'(unlikely) this was a motorbike that was easily capable of that speed and I would guess he was doing at least 25mph. He had no crash helmet, no number plates and I'd give it a 50% chance the bike was probably stolen

The problems of controlling Motorcycles on the Towpaths :

 

BW response -

 

 

Motorcycles_on_Towpaths_British_Waterways_and_the_Fieldfare_Trust.pdf

[zenataomm]

2 hours ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

But it still wont make any difference at all to their behaviour (those who ride like idiots, will ride like idiots).  This belief that stiff punishments make any difference to people's behaviour is badly misplaced; what makes a difference to people's behaviour is getting caught or the likelihood of getting caught, nothing else.

Ok?  So I'm looking for solutions and you're just shooting them out of the sky.

You clearly are basing your negativity on something, doesn't that same thing suggest any possible solutions to offer?

 

Or is it simply a case of "They're all just bad meat, put up with it!"

[zenataomm]

1 hour ago, roland elsdon said:

 

i presume the cyclist haters would prefer her to be hit by a truck or drive a car ( she had done 60 odd kms that day) than ride down the towpath.

 

 

 

 i will never forget the look on one of my staffs face when she  heard the impact as her phone call to her partner in the car resulted in his death. She realised later that she had killed him with that call, as it was a single vehicle incident.

 

 

I try not to presume anything, it usually means I've jumped into "obnoxious mode" which is a mistake I often made as a 30 year old, now I've doubled that age I'm more often in "confused mode".

I for one would much prefer her to decide for herself how she travels and be able to understand through informed thinking possible outcomes and her own responsibilities.

 

Your second point is a horrendous situation, and one I can't even begin to imagine how it would impact on anyone.  Taking a step back (which I imagine would be impossible if it involved one personally) it strikes me that because her partner chose to answer the phone plus she couldn't have known at that moment he was driving, then she didn't kill him.  However that's not the point is it?

What a nightmare scenario that could easily be the result of any of us calling someone on a mobile.  

[Wanderer Vagabond]

33 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

Ok?  So I'm looking for solutions and you're just shooting them out of the sky.

You clearly are basing your negativity on something, doesn't that same thing suggest any possible solutions to offer?

 

Or is it simply a case of "They're all just bad meat, put up with it!"

Yes, the 'solution' that is thrown up is that we all pay more in our taxes and boat licence fees and then we can have loads of enforcement officers on the towpaths dedicated to preventing all manner of anti-social behaviour. This would reduce the problem, but there is a price for it, are we all keen on paying that price? Even if we were, what then happens is that the problem diminishes and then everyone starts saying we  no longer have any problems with cyclists/motorcyclists/dog sh*t/graffitti and whatever else becomes the flavour of the moment for the 'something must be done brigade', they then ask why are we paying for all these enforcement officers? You then get rid of the enforcement officers and the problem resumes in a continuous cycle.

 

Of course we could go down the privatisation road for enforcement, which is even more of a dead end. You give a contract to a private company to enforce various regulations (road parking is a valid case in point) where the incentive it to catch offenders not prevent the behaviour (if they are getting their income from the penaties they impose, why would they want to stop people from offending?).

 

The pertinent point is what is the scale of the problem? (a question asked in the CRT policy on motorcycles linked on a post above).  If an enforcement officer is going to catch dozens of people a day then the expense of employing him/her is probably justified. If they are only going to catch one a week or one a month the justification evaporates.

[Jennifer McM]

17 hours ago, Jen-in-Wellies said:

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

Jen

Caldon Canal where we've just left, the tarmacked-type towpath is a Cycle Highway, which I think has given those cyclists driven to race 'permission' to be a priority  https://cycle.travel/city/stoke_on_trent/news/peak_district_towpath_becomes_bike_route

 

My goodness it was scary, racing round some of the blind bends silently, isn't a great idea. 

 

It's a habit now to walk the towpaths with the windlass in the hand nearest the path - somehow steel commands more respect than flesh and bone.

 

 

[zenataomm]

21 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

Yes, the 'solution' that is thrown up is that we all pay more in our taxes and boat licence fees and then we can have loads of enforcement officers on the towpaths dedicated to preventing all manner of anti-social behaviour. This would reduce the problem, but there is a price for it, are we all keen on paying that price? Even if we were, what then happens is that the problem diminishes and then everyone starts saying we  no longer have any problems with cyclists/motorcyclists/dog sh*t/graffitti and whatever else becomes the flavour of the moment for the 'something must be done brigade', they then ask why are we paying for all these enforcement officers? You then get rid of the enforcement officers and the problem resumes in a continuous cycle.

 

Of course we could go down the privatisation road for enforcement, which is even more of a dead end. You give a contract to a private company to enforce various regulations (road parking is a valid case in point) where the incentive it to catch offenders not prevent the behaviour (if they are getting their income from the penaties they impose, why would they want to stop people from offending?).

 

The pertinent point is what is the scale of the problem? (a question asked in the CRT policy on motorcycles linked on a post above).  If an enforcement officer is going to catch dozens of people a day then the expense of employing him/her is probably justified. If they are only going to catch one a week or one a month the justification evaporates.

Firstly, and ignoring the obvious pun about continuous cycles (very good by the way, although I might have plumped for vicious cycle ) your point: - what then happens is that the problem diminishes and then everyone starts saying we  no longer have any problems with cyclists/motorcyclists/dog sh*t/graffitti and whatever else becomes the flavour of the moment for the 'something must be done brigade', they then ask why are we paying for all these enforcement officers? You then get rid of the enforcement officers and the problem resumes in a continuous cycle.

Is surely the obvious and desirable outcome?  How many jobs have disappeared through history because the need has changed? I can think of jobs I've had that would leave today's youngsters with a gormless expression trying to comprehend what I did and why I was doing it.

 

Why would anyone just employ enforcement officers to deal solely with "cyclists/motorcyclists/dog sh*t/graffiti"? Totally uneconomical.  In days of yore a lengths man with responsibility for his patch would have done all of that as well as day to day maintenance.  A modern day equivalent could be allowed a free residential mooring on his/her patch report on everything including revenue avoidance, liaising with the local Plod, advance warning of breaches, painting the hedges and all while dressed up as floating electronic Michelin Man.  I'd do it in exchange for free approved mooring/licence and no more than a stipend.

I sense from you either personal experience that trying to deal with scrotes is a thankless job with little or bu99er all support from the decision makers and/or the initiative disappears after 10 mins when something new pops up.  The wasteful chucking money at an issue with scant regard to what happens after is typical of how successive governments and especially Quangos have functioned in the last 40 years.

It's not how they were successful before that.  Look to the past for lessons learnt, we mustn't get trapped in vicious continuing cycling circles.  

[Wanderer Vagabond]

1 hour ago, zenataomm said:

Firstly, and ignoring the obvious pun about continuous cycles (very good by the way, although I might have plumped for vicious cycle ) your point: - what then happens is that the problem diminishes and then everyone starts saying we  no longer have any problems with cyclists/motorcyclists/dog sh*t/graffitti and whatever else becomes the flavour of the moment for the 'something must be done brigade', they then ask why are we paying for all these enforcement officers? You then get rid of the enforcement officers and the problem resumes in a continuous cycle.

Is surely the obvious and desirable outcome?  How many jobs have disappeared through history because the need has changed? I can think of jobs I've had that would leave today's youngsters with a gormless expression trying to comprehend what I did and why I was doing it.

 

Why would anyone just employ enforcement officers to deal solely with "cyclists/motorcyclists/dog sh*t/graffiti"? Totally uneconomical.  In days of yore a lengths man with responsibility for his patch would have done all of that as well as day to day maintenance.  A modern day equivalent could be allowed a free residential mooring on his/her patch report on everything including revenue avoidance, liaising with the local Plod, advance warning of breaches, painting the hedges and all while dressed up as floating electronic Michelin Man.  I'd do it in exchange for free approved mooring/licence and no more than a stipend.

I sense from you either personal experience that trying to deal with scrotes is a thankless job with little or bu99er all support from the decision makers and/or the initiative disappears after 10 mins when something new pops up.  The wasteful chucking money at an issue with scant regard to what happens after is typical of how successive governments and especially Quangos have functioned in the last 40 years.

It's not how they were successful before that.  Look to the past for lessons learnt, we mustn't get trapped in vicious continuing cycling circles.  

It wasn't really intended as a pun, a vicious circle/cycle is one that gets progressively worse, a continuous cycle is just one that keeps coming back to the same point. Think of the various cutbacks made over the years, armed forces for instance. The thinking is,"Well we aren't at war with anyone, why do we need an army/navy/airforce with all these staff". They then cut them back to the bone and then some conflict comes up somewhere (let's say the Straights of Hormuz as a random sample) and all of a sudden they then have to magic up a military force from somewhere. By the same token on the towpath you 'cure' whatever the current problem is, sack those that cured the problem, problem returns and you re-employ another load.

 

The small issue with your proposal for getting a free mooring/licence and stipend in exchange for acting as lengthsman is that the places that you'd want a mooring probably don't really need it whereas the places that need it you probably wouldn't want. How about a nice free mooring on Birmingham Main Line by Winson Green Junction, near Smethwick to deter all those local 'artists' putting graffitti on the bridges? If they get to hear that you are the one reporting them to the Police things might get a bit tricky and it can feel a bit isolated at eleven o'clock at night. I am however absolutely certain that members of the Nation Bargee Traveller Association would welcome the opportunity for lots of free permanent residential moorings on the Kennet and Avon in exchange for '...painting the hedges...' (why would one do that? all of them around here are green and I like them that way). Asking them to report licence dodgers may need a bit of selling though.

Edited July 28, 2019 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Jen-in-Wellies]

45 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

a continuous cycle is just one that keeps coming back to the same point

It is supposed to be one where you cycle a considerable part of the towpath network and don't stay in one place any longer than 14 days.

 

Jen ?

[Onionman]

Doesn't always end well for the cyclist. The drenched girl on the floor (checking her mobile phone) had come under the bridge and swerved a little too far to miss the jogger on the towpath. Quite a drop. She was blaming it on the jogger for not hearing her.

 

[Heartland]

It could have been worse for the girl, but who is to blame? Walking towpaths has its challenges. Some cyclist, and perhaps more than some, have the opinion that by shouting or ringing bells that can  ride at speed regardless whether people are there or not. They ignore the CRT code and have the perception they have the priority. The canal side has become a noisy place in central Birmingham by the NIA. Such an attitude is driving walkers off the towpath. It is useful that the Guardian has highlighted the issue, but it will require more that than that to stop the cyclists. In Central Birmingham the diversion of national routes away from the towpath and closing the towpath off  to cyclists WOULD be of help.

[BilgePump]

The canals were built with horses towing boats in mind. It's called a towpath FFS. But now, horse towing isn't allowed, next bikes will be banned, maybe ban the joggers, how about those in wheelchairs, get rid of the fishermen sitting by the side. What a wonderful linear water park these twenty somethings will create for their own lazy lifestyle.

[Mike Todd]

Much of the time when I am on the boat, especially moving, I do not put my hearing aids in. One of the major problems is a marked reduction in the sense of direction of a sound. Hence quite often a cyclist has to ring several times, even shout. I suspect that they think i am being deliberately obstructive.  So?