Jump to content

is a towpath a right of way? [in England]


Wittenham

Featured Posts

44 minutes ago, Bobgrif said:

...I'm gobsmacked at the numbers and am trying to work out how they can be accurate particularly since CRT state that it is a survey of the public. I'd love to see the sampling methodology for this

Well it could be achieved by something like 3,000,000 people walking or cycling a short bit of towpath every on their way to/from work, or at lunchtime.

 

Once you add daily usage by some retired people, and families at weekends, the number needed would be rather lower.  So it doesn't seem impossible.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bobgrif said:

Just managed to zoom up the image you posted on my mobile phone (a bit tricky!) 

 

I'm gobsmacked at the numbers and am trying to work out how they can be accurate particularly since CRT state that it is a survey of the public. I'd love to see the sampling methodology for this

Up until last year (when they claim to have changed the methodology) the numbers were achieved in the following way :

 

A contract was issued by C&RT to a 'telephone call centre' to call 1000 random telephone numbers every two weeks and ask a series of questions, some questionnaires were also conducted 'on the street' (questions below).

 

The numbers answering that they had used a towpath in the last two weeks, and, how many times, were extrapolated as a percentage of the population.

 

So, is, for example 50% of those interviewed responded 'yes 2 times' then the 'number of visits' figure published would be extrapolated to 2x 50% of the UK population.

 

I have no idea what the 'new system' is but looking at the published figures it seems to have doubled the previous years figures.

 

What makes C&RTs KPIs difficult to follow is that as soon as the numbers start to go 'the wrong way' they change either the method of data collection or the parameters.

Another example is the number of days of closures, the numbers started getting 'too high' so C&RT recalculated the closures as 'those within their control' and amazingly there suddenly became dozens of days of closures due to 'vandalism'. I'm sure we all remember that the major Middlewich breach was due to 'vandals leaving both sets of lock gates open and an onrush of water washing away the bank'.

 

....................................................................................................

 

 

Q1 Firstly, I am going to read out some activities that you may have taken part in recently. For each one, can you tell me whether you personally have taken part in this activity in Britain within the past two weeks? So firstly, have you……[rotate activity list]…. on a stretch of inland water which is used by boats, for example a canal, river or lake.
1. Been on a boat with an engine
2. Been on a boat without an engine? Please
3. include activities such as canoeing, rowing boats and sailing boats
4. Been fishing
5. Been cycling
6. Walked a dog
7. Visited a specific attraction, heritage attraction or museum
8. Taken a walk or a ramble for leisure
9. Taken a run or jog for leisure
10. Used or walked along only in order to get somewhere else? For example, to get to work or to go shopping
11. Bought food or drink in a pub
12. Just sat or stood by the water as a break in the day to relax (always penultimate activity)
13. Used or visited for some other purpose? (SPECIFY)

Q2. [For each activity at Q1] On how many days in the past two weeks have you personally……[read out activity]….on a stretch of inland water used by boats, for example, a river, canal or lake in Britain?
WRITE IN NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN 1 AND 14.

Q3. [For each activity at Q1] And thinking about the last day you have……[read out activity]….which river, canal or lake did you do this on?
RECORD ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
a) Name of Waterway (if known):
b) Nearest Town / Village:
c) Name of County:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I have no idea what the 'new system' is but looking at the published figures it seems to have doubled the previous years figures.

There have been many comments/complaints on the forum since March as to how busy the towpaths are/were so we should expect a massive increase next year however it is calculated.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

Up until last year (when they claim to have changed the methodology) the numbers were achieved in the following way :

 

A contract was issued by C&RT to a 'telephone call centre' to call 1000 random telephone numbers every two weeks and ask a series of questions, some questionnaires were also conducted 'on the street' (questions below).

 

The numbers answering that they had used a towpath in the last two weeks, and, how many times, were extrapolated as a percentage of the population.

 

So, is, for example 50% of those interviewed responded 'yes 2 times' then the 'number of visits' figure published would be extrapolated to 2x 50% of the UK population.

 

I have no idea what the 'new system' is but looking at the published figures it seems to have doubled the previous years figures.

 

What makes C&RTs KPIs difficult to follow is that as soon as the numbers start to go 'the wrong way' they change either the method of data collection or the parameters.

Another example is the number of days of closures, the numbers started getting 'too high' so C&RT recalculated the closures as 'those within their control' and amazingly there suddenly became dozens of days of closures due to 'vandalism'. I'm sure we all remember that the major Middlewich breach was due to 'vandals leaving both sets of lock gates open and an onrush of water washing away the bank'.

 

....................................................................................................

 

 

Q1 Firstly, I am going to read out some activities that you may have taken part in recently. For each one, can you tell me whether you personally have taken part in this activity in Britain within the past two weeks? So firstly, have you……[rotate activity list]…. on a stretch of inland water which is used by boats, for example a canal, river or lake.
1. Been on a boat with an engine
2. Been on a boat without an engine? Please
3. include activities such as canoeing, rowing boats and sailing boats
4. Been fishing
5. Been cycling
6. Walked a dog
7. Visited a specific attraction, heritage attraction or museum
8. Taken a walk or a ramble for leisure
9. Taken a run or jog for leisure
10. Used or walked along only in order to get somewhere else? For example, to get to work or to go shopping
11. Bought food or drink in a pub
12. Just sat or stood by the water as a break in the day to relax (always penultimate activity)
13. Used or visited for some other purpose? (SPECIFY)

Q2. [For each activity at Q1] On how many days in the past two weeks have you personally……[read out activity]….on a stretch of inland water used by boats, for example, a river, canal or lake in Britain?
WRITE IN NUMBER OF DAYS BETWEEN 1 AND 14.

Q3. [For each activity at Q1] And thinking about the last day you have……[read out activity]….which river, canal or lake did you do this on?
RECORD ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
a) Name of Waterway (if known):
b) Nearest Town / Village:
c) Name of County:

Thst seems like a pretty poor way of measuring usage 

1000 random people is easy to do but with no correction for age group, gender, social group etc the sample may not be representative of the population. Geographical factors would also need considering accounting for those who are far from CRT waters

It does show how they could reach the numbers given but does not inspire confidence in the results

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Bobgrif said:

Thst seems like a pretty poor way of measuring usage 

1000 random people is easy to do but with no correction for age group, gender, social group etc the sample may not be representative of the population. Geographical factors would also need considering accounting for those who are far from CRT waters

It does show how they could reach the numbers given but does not inspire confidence in the results

 

 

 

With just a random selection of 1000 I would think under estimation was as likely (more likely?) than over estimation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jerra said:

There have been many comments/complaints on the forum since March as to how busy the towpaths are/were so we should expect a massive increase next year however it is calculated.

it is this that prompted my original question; trying to understand how towpath usage or all types could be managed [separate question to 'should it be?'].  I think the conclusions are:

- CRT have the authority to control usage on towpaths

- but they have 'sold' some of that control to get funding

- those in moored boats have one set of interests, whereas cyclists, pedestrians, commuters, those exercising, fishermen [er, persons, although I have never seen a female], dog walkers, etc have other, sometimes conflicting, interests.  I suspect the CRT see an accountability to all of these.

- so, similar to cyclists vs cars, how the morning trains used to be, the NHS, etc, there is much more demand than supply and an incremental price of use = zero means demand is not readily constrained  

 

 

Note that the above is about compliant use of the towpaths, riding a motorcycle down it is a separate point - which ties to 'it is pointless setting laws if there is no ability/will to  enforce them.  See:  Covid lockdowns, putting registration numbers on bicycles, that odd scottish proposal to make 'hate speech' at home a crime, etc etc

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chewbacka said:

In answer to the original question, cyclists always have ‘right of way’ on the tow path.  If you don’t believe me try walking along some ‘upgraded’ urban canal paths.......

I assume that you are being ironic. Although it will not normally apply to the towpath, Common Law does actually determine priority on shared public routes and single track lanes, which is based upon changing modes of transport over the centuries.  The priorities are :- 1st people on foot, 2nd Horses, 3rd Bicycles, 4th motorised vehicles although motorized wheelchairs are normally considered to be in the "people on foot" catagory.

 

Somewhere I still have my old British Waterways Towpath Cycle Licence, and I seem to recall that amongst the conditions, it required a cyclist to give an audible warning of approach to walkers, and to give walkers priority where there is insufficient space to pass easily.

 

 

Edited by David Schweizer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a point to laws which are unenforceable. They are in effect saying that society does not approve of this behaviour and we'd all be better off if everyone obeyed them, and that includes Covid lockdowns and Scottish hate speech laws as well as motorbikes on towpaths. In fact, no law is enforceable; all society can do is occasionally punish the lawbreaker, which isn't the same thing at all. It's all consensual. That's why social laws can change, unlike the ones of physics,  which don't very often.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was only last year that a towpath cyclist was charged (and found guilty) under an 'ancient law'.

 

The problem is actually identifying and stopping said cyclist.

 

From NBW :

 

THE case where a cyclist has been found guilty of causing bodily harm by 'wanton or furious driving' yesterday, has raised further questions about pedestrian safety and the responsibility of cyclists in public places, writes Keith Gudgin.

Mrs Briggs' family said they plan to campaign for tougher cycling laws to protect pedestrians. He said: "Out of this senseless carnage, I shall try to bring change to the law and change to attitudes. Perhaps in this way I can honour my wife."

Cycling furiously along the towpath

Cyclists need to remember this law whilst they are cycling furiously along the towpath. If they injure a pedestrian by 'wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct' with the result of causing 'any bodily harm to any person whatsoever' could mean they end up in prison for up to two years or having to fork out a hefty fine or both.

As can be seen, they would not need to kill anyone to be prosecuted, any bodily harm to any person whatsoever is sufficient for a prosecution and the law does not state that they have to be on a public road or footpath either so towpaths and private property are also covered.

Provide evidence

We boaters, as towpath users, need to be aware of this law and take measures to provide the police and other authorities with the evidence of cyclists who persist in riding in a wanton or furious manner or racing along the towpaths in order to get them stopped and/or prosecuted. Remember, speed trials are a form of racing and therefore fall within the remit of this law.

Also, I feel CaRT and local councils need to become aware that they could also, by not attempting to prevent furious riding or racing in any form by cyclists, become liable for a failure in their duty of care responsibilities.

CaRT could end up with a fine

If CaRT and local councils continue to upgrade all the towpaths to knowingly allow cyclists to race or ride furiously without including any other restrictions, i.e. speed humps, gates or even just a blanket speed limit to restrict cyclists then I feel that before long they could end up with a very hefty fine and a court order to implement measures of prevention.

Remember, aiding and abetting an offence is treated by the courts in just the same manner as actually committing the offence under British law.

Cyclists only one user of the towpaths

We pedestrians have the law on our side, we must put a stop to irresponsible and ignorant cyclists who insist that they have the right of way over everybody and anybody on any road, path, track or byway. Cyclists need to be made aware that they are only one user of the byways and that they are required to give way to others. On towpaths, the rules actually state that cyclists should give way to pedestrians.

Why do cyclists assume that all pedestrians are going to jump out of their way. Why should pedestrians have to step off the path into the mud and puddles just to let a speeding cyclist go past without even slowing down. What happens if the pedestrian is deaf and cannot hear the cyclist approaching from behind?

Not even need come in contact

This law, as it is, 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.

Not above the law

Cyclist need to be shown that they are not above the law and that other people, other byway users, also have rights and even have a right of way over cyclists in many cases.

One thing that needs urgent attention is the identification of cyclists to prevent them from just getting up and riding off after an accident without leaving any trace of who they are. Registration of all adult cyclists and a registration plate fixed to their bike is an urgent and long overdue legal need.

The law under which the cyclist was charged...

 '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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Nope, that is what they have said verbally and is confirmed in a written legal document (the company accounts) for which I actually did a screen grab in post #13

 

 

And then you wonder why I have nothing but contempt for the organisation, - the couldn't even lie straight in bed !

 

In 2018 they spent £500,000 MORE on raisng donations that they achieved in donations YES - THEY LOST £500,000 in one year.

In the first 6 year of their operation they spent £5,500,000 more in raising donations than they achieved in donations.

 

If they had done absolutely no fundraising they would have had £5,500,000 more to spend on maintaining the canals.

 

There are so many more examples of mismanagement.

 

After 30+ years on BW / C&RT waters I have finally accepted defeat, have been beated down & just had enough and have gone to waters where the shower have no authority,

 

 

 

I am sceptical that all of the loss on fund raising is down to mismanagement. You are assuming that good management could have made a surplus but i suspect that it is more about a failed strategy which was set by the government.

 

That is, the task of trying to fund raise like other charities was set at the outset as part of the framework for CaRT and its Trustees and by which they are assessed. However, I have never been convinced that this was a goer, not least because too few people outside the boating community either know about the canals or, more especially, their need for maintenance and the implications if they are allowed to decay (like flooding homes). 

 

Of course, it could be argued that once the brand promotion (well being and all that) takes off then more people will want to be friends but I somehow doubt that as I'd hazard a guess that most non boater people see this as a government task (just so long as they don't tax us for it!) I think it took quite some time for NT to grow its membership income and English Heritage (or whatever it is now called) has not, I think, even had a go at it.

 

The start point for any charity campaign has to be working out what is in it for the potential donors. For many it is a feel-good factor in helping distressed people who suffer through no fault of their own (eg flood victims, abused children etc), for others it might be a connection with climate change or a green agenda. The start point for CaRT was always a "What's that?" response to a request from the canal manager.

 

The next round of conversation with government about the basis for funding is going to have to look again at the principles - I'm not sure that as things stand right now that will end in a good place! What is clear is that the canals are unlikely to have a 100% commercial future - just as the attempt to privatise railways and buses continues to need public intervention. 

 

If 'pay-per-mile' takes off for roads (as the electric people seem to want) then perhaps a similar idea will be imposed on canals - the public look after the basic provision but operational costs have to come from users - bring back the toll stations? On the other hand, what might happen if towpath users, walkers, cyclists, anglers etc, all had to pay to use them at a rate based on actual costs. IIRC, Sustrans gets much of its money to re-build towpaths as cycleways from the public purse and many have been directly funded by local authorities who recognise that recreational facilities are a valid part of their responsibilities.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

That is, the task of trying to fund raise like other charities was set at the outset as part of the framework for CaRT and its Trustees and by which they are assessed. However, I have never been convinced that this was a goer, not least because too few people outside the boating community either know about the canals or, more especially, their need for maintenance and the implications if they are allowed to decay (like flooding homes). 

The two problems are :

 

1) C&RT pay chuggers (can rattlers) more per hour than they raised, they should have become aware of this very quickly (months, not years) and changed or stopped this system of fund raising.

The Government did not tell C&RT 'how to raise funds' just that they should be self sufficient by the time the DEFRA funding stops in the financial year 2026/7

 

2) C&RT does not want 'members' (like the National Trust has) as they don't want the 'public' to have any vote in how they operate. They chose to have 'friends' and failed to find any reasons for 'friends' to join and get any 'benefit' (as you pointed out). The target for 'friends' was (I think) 100,000 in 10 years, with 4 years left to go they still need 76,000 friends to reach target. Put another way, 19,000 for each of the remaining four years, when in fact current recruitment rate is in decline.

In the year2019-20 'Friends' sign up was just 2,400 people.

 

 

38 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

The next round of conversation with government about the basis for funding is going to have to look again at the principles - I'm not sure that as things stand right now that will end in a good place! What is clear is that the canals are unlikely to have a 100% commercial future - just as the attempt to privatise railways and buses continues to need public intervention. 

Maybe I have missed it, but there is no future 'next round of funding'.

 

There is a review of funding due 2022/23 that requires all of the agreed KPI's to have been achieved, if they have not then there is the possibility that funding can be withdrawn.

As far as I know there is no mechanism for a 'next round'. Funding stops 2026/7.

End of.

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Wittenham said:

I had a search of the forum, but could not find a straight answer.  What is the legal status of a  towpath and who controls it?  This is in the context of a discussion with [permanent] moorers about managing the speed and type of traffic passing the moored boats. 

No, not by default anyway. Most towpaths are permissive routes (see notes below)

 

Some towpaths are public footpaths, a few are cycleways (although in most cases these are permissive) 

 

A very few are actually public roads. but this tends to be obvious. 

 

There is no regulation of speed of walking or cycling as such. 

 

*Curiously, where a canal has been abandoned it is more likely that the towpath will be a right of way. 

 

*River towpaths are usually not even permissive, if they are not rights of way they are often on private land

Edited by magpie patrick
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Wittenham said:

at the risk of taking this thread offpiste, would you support the same for pedestrians? 

No. Pedestrians do not run me down from behind. By the way I am a cyclist and I see nothing wrong in bike insurance and registration, otherwise how can we identify those who ride recklessly and claim compensation for injuries.

  • Greenie 3
  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, magpie patrick said:

No, not by default anyway. Most towpaths are permissive routes (see notes below)

 

Some towpaths are public footpaths, a few are cycleways (although in most cases these are permissive) 

 

A very few are actually public roads. but this tends to be obvious. 

 

There is no regulation of speed of walking or cycling as such. 

 

*Curiously, where a canal has been abandoned it is more likely that the towpath will be a right of way. 

 

*River towpaths are usually not even permissive, if they are not rights of way they are often on private land

Much of the reason towpaths are not RoWs is due to the need to close them occasionally for operational reasons, remove that problem and most towpaths would become RoW quite easily with a bit of campaigning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sailor0500 said:

No. Pedestrians do not run me down from behind. By the way I am a cyclist and I see nothing wrong in bike insurance and registration, otherwise how can we identify those who ride recklessly and claim compensation for injuries.

I understand the frustration of poor cycling behaviour; in my decades of cycle commuting, I have never been hit by a car, and have been hit twice by other cyclists [in London, both in the crazy week following the 7/7 tube bombings].  I also raced for a couple decades and it is frustrating to see how some people on bikes behave, which gets all of us tarred.  But if we want to go down the road of 'put obligations on everyone because of we would like to identify a few of them', then I do not see the logic in stopping at only cyclists.  Horses, dogs, pedestrians, fishermen, canoeists:  tag everyone on the public right of ways.  Or none of them.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Wittenham said:

I understand the frustration of poor cycling behaviour; in my decades of cycle commuting, I have never been hit by a car, and have been hit twice by other cyclists [in London, both in the crazy week following the 7/7 tube bombings].  I also raced for a couple decades and it is frustrating to see how some people on bikes behave, which gets all of us tarred.  But if we want to go down the road of 'put obligations on everyone because of we would like to identify a few of them', then I do not see the logic in stopping at only cyclists.  Horses, dogs, pedestrians, fishermen, canoeists:  tag everyone on the public right of ways.  Or none of them.  

A cycle by definition is a vehicle. I have to insure and have a vel for both my vehicles and when I owned others and motorcycles also. Why do you think cyclists should get a free ride so to speak? Further to that as winter sets in and the towpaths get continous rain cyclists rip the towpath to shreds making it worse for walkers yet make zero specific contribution to their up keep.

  • Greenie 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, sailor0500 said:

It is surely time to make insurance compulsarry for cyclists, and of course registration plates so that cyclists can be identifed.

In Belgium, in the 60s, it was compulsory to have an annual cycle registration plate that you attached normally to a convenient nut somewhere. This plate had a registration number on it, and you got said plate from your local town hall, for about £5 a year. It identified you, and gave you insurance. If it was possible then it’s  certainly possible now.

  • Greenie 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Ronaldo47 said:

My late uncle used to cycle to work along the River Lea navigation tow path in East London in the 1950's and '60s . I seem to remember that  he had to get a permit to do so. 

Cycle permits for canal/river towpaths were discontinued around the time CRT took over. Some people like to blame CRT for this...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A surprising amount of towpath on canals that were restored from derelict is a public right of way. The restoration campaigns encouraged towpaths to be made rights of way to help preserve the route of the canal and promote public access and interest in the canal. 

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.