Jump to content

Oh dear


Midnight

Featured Posts

4 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

Motorbikes on towpath are illegal and are a police matter.

 

 

Motorbikes on towpaths are only illegal in that they are in breach of CRT Byelaws. Byelaw enforcement is nothing to do with the police, who won't get involved unless there are other public order or criminal issues arising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

 

Motorbikes on towpaths are only illegal in that they are in breach of CRT Byelaws. Byelaw enforcement is nothing to do with the police, who won't get involved unless there are other public order or criminal issues arising.

Interesting, we once met a couple of coppers on a  towpath asking if we had seem kids on Motorbikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

Interesting, we once met a couple of coppers on a  towpath asking if we had seem kids on Motorbikes.

 

Perhaps the bikes had been stolen? Perhaps the kids had been seen on the public roads with no insurance, VED, helmets etc

 

7 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

>>Would having a pushchair (seen some of these huge 2 & 3 side by side one ?) qualify for a RADAR key ?<<

 

Don't you start that particular hare! There are places near my house where you can't get a double buggy past parked cars, because of overgrown hedges and inconsiderate parking.

  • Horror 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We encountered spring motorcycles on the Stourbridge flight yesterday, there was four of them doing probably in excess of 30mph up and down the towpath. A local lady with her child said they were a daily nuisance. I called CRT to report them and was told they would increase their checks on the locks, there was no mention of reporting to the police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 21/10/2020 at 10:11, bizzard said:

The single ping bells became all the rage in the 1950's if you happened to be rich enough to own a lightweight bike with ally drop handle bars, Doherty, Weiman brakes, Simplex, Benolux gears, or better still Campagnolo, double clanger chain wheel on at least an upgraded Viking, or Daws Debonair. Tailor built racing bikes like Duckett, Rory O'Brian, Hetchins, Leach ect were out of reach of Secondary Modern kids and were usually ridden by snobby high school kids. I couldn't afford any of these and made up my own by swapping things for wheels saddle ect, and fishing bits out of ditches.  My innertubes were just one load of patches, no mudguards, fixed wheel and no rear brake, BUT I did have a Ping bell like the posh kids but Phillips stick on soles on my shoes let me down that kept coming unstuck getting caught in the peddles and flapping on the pavement.

Phillis stick on soles, now there's a memory. I well recall a conversation between my mum and dad and some of their friends on the subject.  Why, when the friends childrens soles lasted months, did mine come off within a day. Maybe that's where my inherent mistrust of adhesives came from.  

 

PS. I wear hearing aids and appreciate cyclists using a bell. I thought they were a legal requirement. 

Edited by Slim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Jerra said:

We never found a one not working perhaps it depends on the part of the country.    However in retrospect a "waterways key" would do.   It is just a case of making cyclists slowdown and having to unlock would do that.   Somebody is going to say they wouldn't close the gate, we have many self closing gates on paths up here in the Lakes.   I am sure something could be designed.

Opening the restrictions us not a matter for boaters  more for disabled people who need the convenience if a single key national system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Opening the restrictions us not a matter for boaters  more for disabled people who need the convenience if a single key national system. 

Hence the fact I suggested the Radar key system.   If it is acceptable for the differently abled to need a key for access to things such as toilets then surely it is acceptable of towpaths as well.   Access to a toilet is much more important and the need often pressing than the need to access a towpath.

 

It was the poster that decried the radar key system suggesting they were no longer used that prompted the suggestion of waterways key.

 

Having a brother who uses a wheelchair and experience with my wheelchair bound late father and late mother in law I know all about the differently abled and access. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jerra said:

Interesting, we once met a couple of coppers on a  towpath asking if we had seem kids on Motorbikes.

I once met a couple of coppers on motorbikes riding down the towpath. 
A law unto themselves. 

 

( Leeds Liverpool Canal, got on the towpath at Saltaire) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jerra said:

Hence the fact I suggested the Radar key system.   If it is acceptable for the differently abled to need a key for access to things such as toilets then surely it is acceptable of towpaths as well.   Access to a toilet is much more important and the need often pressing than the need to access a towpath.

 

It was the poster that decried the radar key system suggesting they were no longer used that prompted the suggestion of waterways key.

 

Having a brother who uses a wheelchair and experience with my wheelchair bound late father and late mother in law I know all about the differently abled and access. 

I was not suggesting anything against Radar as a means of controlling access to towpaths, even though the situations where it is a proportionate option are limited. As we discovered in the early lockdown period, many sections of towpaths have numerous access points, not all 'official' and control is complex, both legally and in practice.

 

The point I was making earlier is that Radar locked barriers have been installed, and whilst another poster questions the proportions, my experience is that a very high proportion have been vandalised and eventually allowed to disappear. The same has happened in places with the anti-vandal lock measures where repair of the security devices outweighs any realistic measure of benefit. Alas, it is a desperate fact of life that measures intended to prevent, or even avoid, anti-social activities are so often destroyed by the people whom they are meant to control.

 

In reality, much as we might want it otherwise, I cannot see a lot else than campaigns to change attitudes as being both practical and, potentially, effective. When they work, preferably in a positive and constructive style, they are certainly better than negative restrictive approaches. I would want to say that this is but one example of the consequences of political trends which bolster those who want to do what they want (libertarian) whilst responding restrictively when the same people are adversely affected by those who actions are unwelcome (populism) - but I'd better not or the thread will shift to the Virtual Pub!

 

One of the reasons I like to engage with onlookers, especially at locks, is that I believe that if people feel more involved and see the plus side of understanding and looking after the canals then they will be much less likely to become a problem. To that extent, the Wellbeing idea is potentially helpful in the longer term.

 

Nevertheless, I ask those who are most vociferous in wanting physical access control to towpaths, to examine their consciences and consider how often they have seen other bylaws as being unwanted restrictions on what they want to and proceed to ignore them (such as over-staying on water points!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Nevertheless, I ask those who are most vociferous in wanting physical access control to towpaths, to examine their consciences and consider how often they have seen other bylaws as being unwanted restrictions on what they want to and proceed to ignore them (such as over-staying on water points!)

I don't know if you class me as falling into the vociferous group but here goes.

 

What I want is safe towpaths.  Currently they IMO aren't, in a single week I have been clipped by a speeding bike and had a bike ride at speed between myself (working a balance beam and just coming round the end as the gate had closed) and a pedestrian.   There was barely enough space for his handlebars.

 

There will always be an antisocial element in society (always has been) so IMO there needs to be some way of controlling cyclists.   Note, not preventing access merely making sure they aren't travelling at speed.  I really can't believe that in this day and age it is impossible to construct  something which slows cyclists and is vandal proof.   The only alternative, again just my opinion is requiring a system to identify the rider in case of accident and anti social riding.

 

With regard to by-laws, can safely say I haven't ever come across a bylaw which has prevented me doing anything I have wanted to.   I must be some sort of a saint I suppose.   Either that or for most people bylaws aren't a problem.

Edited by Jerra
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jerra said:

I don't know if you class me as falling into the vociferous group but here goes.

 

What I want is safe towpaths.  Currently they IMO aren't, in a single week I have been clipped by a speeding bike and had a bike ride at speed between myself (working a balance beam and just coming round the end as the gate had closed) and a pedestrian.   There was barely enough space for his handlebars.

 

There will always be an antisocial element in society (always has been) so IMO there needs to be some way of controlling cyclists.   Note, not preventing access merely making sure they aren't travelling at speed.  I really can't believe that in this day and age it is impossible to construct  something which slows cyclists and is vandal proof.   The only alternative, again just my opinion is requiring a system to identify the rider in case of accident and anti social riding.

 

With regard to by-laws, can safely say I haven't ever come across a bylaw which has prevented me doing anything I have wanted to.   I must be some sort of a saint I suppose.   Either that or for most people bylaws aren't a problem.

I wasn't calling anyone specifically - not the place to do that.

 

Note that the use of Radar key controlled barriers is very specifically about controlling access and does nothing to moderate activity once beyond the barrier.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

I wasn't calling anyone specifically - not the place to do that.

 

Note that the use of Radar key controlled barriers is very specifically about controlling access and does nothing to moderate activity once beyond the barrier.

 

I agree it does nothing to moderate activity after the barrier.  However the "speed merchants" would probably lose interest if they had to work their way past an obstacle occasionally.

 

You seem against the idea so what practical suggestions do you have for slowing speeding cyclist.   Education won't work, if it would there would be no crime, as everybody is at sometime in their life taught what is right and wrong.

 

So over to you.   A practical suggestion please?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/10/2020 at 17:01, Jerra said:

You seem against the idea so what practical suggestions do you have for slowing speeding cyclist.   Education won't work, if it would there would be no crime, as everybody is at sometime in their life taught what is right and wrong.

Well, I mean education does work, but it depends on what you count as 'working' / 'success'. The more you educate and the more opportunities the better society generally becomes. So education for cyclist and better alternative routes at the pinch points.

 

On the Southern GU I don't have a problem with inconsiderate cyclists to be honest. I imagine there's hotspots for where the towpath is used more extensively by riders, thus you will end up with more of the bad eggs. Tbh the towpath section I cycle on presently is quiet, I rarely meet any walkers or other riders, though at night fisher men & women do have their kit scattered all over the shop, making for some wiggly courses

 

Ultimately, better education would help to solve a lot of these issues. But that, I expect, would be strongly fought against as it will deter people from riding places, which in the grand scheme of things is an exceptionally bad idea.

 

Best to just accept that the towpath isn't yours, it isn't theirs, it's everybody and it's use has drastically changed over the years. There's not a user group that has more right to be there I don't believe. So cycle considerately, look and listen before walking backwards (or forwards) onto it, let faster users over-take and be considerate when over-taking. Be nice to one-another, be considerate of one-another and everyone will get on better. It's a shared space, so lets share it nicely aye

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Well, I mean education does work, but it depends on what you count as 'working' / 'success'. The more you educate and the more opportunities the better society generally becomes. So education for cyclist and better alternative routes at the pinch points.

 

On the Southern GU I don't have a problem with inconsiderate cyclists to be honest. I imagine there's hotspots for where the towpath is used more extensively by riders, thus you will end up with more of the bad eggs. Tbh the towpath section I cycle on presently is quiet, I rarely meet any walkers or other riders, though at night fisher men & women do have their kit scattered all over the shop, making for some wiggly courses

 

Ultimately, better education would help to solve a lot of these issues. But that, I expect, would be strongly fought against as it will deter people from riding places, which in the grand scheme of things is an exceptionally bad idea.

 

Best to just accept that the towpath isn't yours, it isn't theirs, it's everybody and it's use has drastically changed over the years. There's not a user group that has more right to be there I don't believe. So cycle considerately, look and listen before walking backwards (or forwards) onto it, let faster users over-take and be considerate when over-taking. Be nice to one-another, be considerate of one-another and everyone will get on better. It's a shared space, so lets share it nicely aye

The towpath is a bit like communism, users of the towpath are all equal, but some are more equal than others.........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Best to just accept that the towpath isn't yours, it isn't theirs, it's everybody and it's use has drastically changed over the years. There's not a user group that has more right to be there I don't believe. So cycle considerately, look and listen before walking backwards (or forwards) onto it, let faster users over-take and be considerate when over-taking. Be nice to one-another, be considerate of one-another and everyone will get on better. It's a shared space, so lets share it nicely aye

... and then his mam said "wake up son it's time to go to school."

Edited by Midnight
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, sirweste said:

Best to just accept that the towpath isn't yours, it isn't theirs, it's everybody and it's use has drastically changed over the years. There's not a user group that has more right to be there I don't believe.

I accept and have never suggested the towpath should belong to only one group.   

 

However sometimes groups (not just talking about towpaths) get banned from doing something because of general bad behaviour of a smallish minority.

 

I also believe no group should be allowed to endanger/injure any other group.  In a single week I came very close to being injured and was certainly endangered with two incidents.   IMO something has to be done when things get to that stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I accept and have never suggested the towpath should belong to only one group.   

 

However sometimes groups (not just talking about towpaths) get banned from doing something because of general bad behaviour of a smallish minority.

 

I also believe no group should be allowed to endanger/injure any other group.  In a single week I came very close to being injured and was certainly endangered with two incidents.   IMO something has to be done when things get to that stage.

Apologies, I was writing in the royal sense, not to you specifically; other than the initial point about education.

 

I agree that that can happen to some groups due to minorities, such as gun ownership in some countries.

I do not agree completely that no group should be allowed to endanger any other group as such an definitive statement. There is risk in all walks of life. Engineers are allowed to endanger bridge users for example. Pilots are allowed to endanger passengers. Canal boaters are allowed to endanger smaller water users. - unless you are referring to deliberate endangerment? If so it would be incorrect to state that cyclists are allowed to deliberately endanger other users, there's just risks to others, just as there are in all areas of life. 

 

Yes I would agree that endangerment / near misses you are stating are unacceptable.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sirweste said:

I do not agree completely that no group should be allowed to endanger any other group as such an definitive statement. There is risk in all walks of life. Engineers are allowed to endanger bridge users for example.

Please explain "Engineers are allowed to endanger bridge users for example."   I think any engineer who deliberately (or even accidentally) endangered the users would be in deep doo doo.

Just now, sirweste said:

Pilots are allowed to endanger passengers.

Which planet are you from?   It certainly isn't earth.   Show examples where pilots deliberately endanger passengers and get away with it.

Just now, sirweste said:

Canal boaters are allowed to endanger smaller water users. - unless you are referring to deliberate endangerment?

Of course I am referring to deliberate endangerment.  Riding a bike at speed among pedestrians, cycling under brdiges where they can't see if anybody is coming etc etc are deliberate acts.    Endangerment by non deliberate acts aren't "allowed" they happen and generally result in actions being taken against the perpetrator e.g. without due care prosecutions.

Just now, sirweste said:

If so it would be incorrect to state that cyclists are allowed to deliberately endanger other users, there's just risks to others, just as there are in all areas of life. 

Of course they are allowed to deliberately endanger people.   They are allowed to cycle at any speed they want, they aren't prevented from cycling where visibility is poor etc etc.   If they weren't allowed something would be done to prevent them doing these deliberate acts.

Just now, sirweste said:

Yes I would agree that endangerment / near misses you are stating are unacceptable.   

They were the result of deliberate actions.  One cycled deliberately at speed between myself and a pedestrian.   You can't call that accidental.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paul Gwilliams said:

Guilty of cycling furiously or wanton and furious driving. 

This law is probably better :

 

 

'Offences Against the Person Act 1861'. This law is the closest to dangerous driving a cyclist can be charged with, and states

35} Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.

 

 

This law, as it stands, does not even need the cyclist to come in contact with the pedestrian for an offence to be committed as it states '...do or cause to be done any bodily harm...'.

It appears from this that a cyclist could be liable if, by their action, they just make a pedestrian fall over and injure themselves. Therefore any action by a cyclist that causes bodily harm in any way could constitute an offence under this law.

 

A couple of years ago a cyclist was charged under this law and found guilty of causing bodily harm by 'wanton or furious driving'

 

C&RTs refusal to put in 'calming' methods could in fact be seen as them encouraging racing and, they could, actually become liable under the Duty of Care regulations.

They could then be forced to implement 'physical calming methods'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

This law is probably better :

 

 

'Offences Against the Person Act 1861'. This law is the closest to dangerous driving a cyclist can be charged with, and states

35} Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.
Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.

 

 

This law, as it stands, does not even need the cyclist to come in contact with the pedestrian for an offence to be committed as it states '...do or cause to be done any bodily harm...'.

It appears from this that a cyclist could be liable if, by their action, they just make a pedestrian fall over and injure themselves. Therefore any action by a cyclist that causes bodily harm in any way could constitute an offence under this law.

 

A couple of years ago a cyclist was charged under this law and found guilty of causing bodily harm by 'wanton or furious driving'

 

C&RTs refusal to put in 'calming' methods could in fact be seen as them encouraging racing and, they could, actually become liable under the Duty of Care regulations.

They could then be forced to implement 'physical calming methods'

 

The problem with the highlighted bit, is in identifying the errant cyclist, should they choose not to stop at the scene of the accident.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, cuthound said:

 

The problem with the highlighted bit, is in identifying the errant cyclist, should they choose not to stop at the scene of the accident.

 

If you witness a law being broken,are you not allowed to use "reasonable force" to keep the perpetrator at the scene until the police arrive?!...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.