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

[Cheshire cat]

In my opinion is not cyclists per se that is the problem. It's people with a sense of entitlement. 

 

I notice in today's The Times there is an article claiming Boris is going to run a campaign subsidising the purchase of E bikes in the spring.

[Mike Todd]

4 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

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.

 

 

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all of the agreed KPI's to have been achieved, if they have not then there is the possibility that funding can be withdrawn.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.

I guess I was really anticipating that sooner or later someone will work out that letting the canal network 'go bust' will not be as cheap an option as some have assumed. A lot of the cost is around water management and environmental matters. I doubt the EA would want to take them on, even if navigation ceased.

 

Abandoning canals is not easy as the construction changes water courses. The Charnwood Forest Canal (??? memory not doing too well . . . ) near Loughborough only lasted a short time but issues were found in the 1960's when land through which has once ran was developed for housing even though there was no obvious sign of the cut. Or so I was told when we lived there back in time.

 

 

 

[Machpoint005]

2 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

cyclists rip the towpath to shreds making it worse for walkers yet make zero specific contribution to their up keep.

 

Why is "specific" of any relevance? Everyone pays taxes, including cyclists and pedestrians. 

46 minutes ago, Cheshire cat said:

In my opinion is not cyclists per se that is the problem. It's people with a sense of entitlement. 

 

I notice in today's The Times there is an article claiming Boris is going to run a campaign subsidising the purchase of E bikes in the spring.

 

Indeed. Mind you, that is the source of far too many of today's problems in the widest sense.

I have no comment to make on the blond slug's pronouncements, with him being so good at stuffing his buccal cavity with his metatarsals.

[mrsmelly]

29 minutes ago, Machpoint005 said:

 

Why is "specific" of any relevance? Everyone pays taxes, including cyclists and pedestrians. 

 

Indeed. Mind you, that is the source of far too many of today's problems in the widest sense.

I have no comment to make on the blond slug's pronouncements, with him being so good at stuffing his buccal cavity with his metatarsals.

Because as you say we all pay standard taxes that dont cover damage that cyclists cause. As a boater I contribute specificaly to maintaining the system whilst I use it, I contribute when using roads through vel and two kinds of tax on fuel, Cyclists contribute diddly squat unless they donate to CART when they are begging and use roads, paths etc etc without contribution. Even a bloody angler pays for a day ticket etc.

[Jerra]

6 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

Cyclists contribute diddly squat unless they donate to CART when they are begging and use roads, paths etc etc without contribution. 

Also don't get me started on the environmental damage mountain bikes do on the fell side.

[Arthur Marshall]

I think once ebikes become the norm they will have to be licensed. Firstly, because if they stop petrol\diesel cars they'll lose all that duty and secondly because they'll start killing people on pavements and towpaths, so they will have to be controlled, as will escooters. Anything powered should be licensed, it's just another change that's happened too fast for the law to keep up.

[mrsmelly]

Just now, Jerra said:

Also don't get me started on the environmental damage mountain bikes do on the fell side.

I hadnt thought of that!! Its just weird that everyone pays for whatever transport they use or passtime they have except cyclists. We have all seen huge ruts made by so called mountain bikes tearing up and down in the winter. If a cyclist cause a road accident ( they certainly do ) they dont have by law to be insured so the great scrape down your paintwork in town is down to the motorist again. Its th eonly vehicle thats exempt and its a nonsense.

[Jerra]

Just now, mrsmelly said:

I hadnt thought of that!! Its just weird that everyone pays for whatever transport they use or passtime they have except cyclists. We have all seen huge ruts made by so called mountain bikes tearing up and down in the winter.

In our mountains the problem is they are covered in peat.   Gouge a channel in that aiming downhill and suddenly you have a drain.   Water streams down the drain and erodes the peat and encourages drying out.  DRying out is  death to peat.

Just now, mrsmelly said:

If a cyclist cause a road accident ( they certainly do ) they dont have by law to be insured so the great scrape down your paintwork in town is down to the motorist again. Its th eonly vehicle thats exempt and its a nonsense.

Not merely paint work they do occasionally damage people, much more important for there to be compensation available if they are off work etc.   That is always assuming you can identify the cyclist before they zoom off.   I suspect grasping them warmly by the throat would be frowned on by the authorities.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I hadnt thought of that!! Its just weird that everyone pays for whatever transport they use or passtime they have except cyclists or walkers or horse riders or runners or wheelchair users.

Maybe enough said otherwise I'll get told off for calling you something rude........

[peterboat]

5 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I hadnt thought of that!! Its just weird that everyone pays for whatever transport they use or passtime they have except cyclists. We have all seen huge ruts made by so called mountain bikes tearing up and down in the winter. If a cyclist cause a road accident ( they certainly do ) they dont have by law to be insured so the great scrape down your paintwork in town is down to the motorist again. Its th eonly vehicle thats exempt and its a nonsense.

I have claimed twice for damage to my Rolls Royce caused by a cyclists, once was a child, he was covered by household insurance police ended up attending, second was a racer who was fly down between cars as they do lost control and did over a thousand pounds worth of damage police and ambulance had to attend, he was caught on dashcam being a total dick

[mrsmelly]

4 minutes ago, StationMaster said:

Maybe enough said otherwise I'll get told off for calling you something rude........

walkers and runners are not on a vehicle though, why do you think a cyclist should have no need to have insurance when every other vehicle user does? a wheelchair is hardly to be counted as thats some poor less abled person. A horse may be a valid point.

Edited November 17, 2020 by mrsmelly

[Guest]

Just now, mrsmelly said:

walkers and runners are not on a vehicle though, why do you think a cyclist should have no need to have insurance when every other vehicle user does? a wheelchair is hardy to be counted as thats some poor less abled person. A horse may be a valid point.

If the cyclist causes damage to a Rolls Royce I think they should be given a medal rather than asked for insurance details ? Blooming polluting cars and rich people...

[Allan(nb Albert)]

With regard to visitor numbers, in June 2019 I attended an AWCC/CRT meeting on behalf of my club.

Knowing that there would be an opportunity to put questions to Richard Parry, I prepared five questions. One related to falling visitor numbers. I was somewhat surprised that Richard Parry put up a slide of achievements which included 400m visitors as that was the figure for 2014/15 and visitors have been in decline since that date. (The figures below are the "average two week period period" figures from the survey because it is these that have a target set for them).

 

Quote

 

Questions on visitor numbers.

The following figures are taken from CRT publications with targets in brackets. C&RT’s 2014/15 annual report gives a figure of 4.5m with later years as follows -

2015/16 4.4m (4.6m)

2016/17 4.3m (4.7m)

2017/18 4.3m (4.5m)

2018/19 4.0m* (4.5m)

* Expected figure based on YTD information. Actual was 4.1m

What is C&RT doing to reverse the downward trend in public benefit (including presumably wellbeing benefit) over the last four years?

What can boaters do to help?

 

Needless to say, I did not get a reply to either question and it would now appear that CRT has sorted the problem by abandoning a system that has been in use since 2003 for a new one which will give much better results!

I think the main reason for this move was that Defra had picked up on the falling numbers.

 

Edited November 17, 2020 by Allan(nb Albert)

[ditchcrawler]

1 hour ago, StationMaster said:

If the cyclist causes damage to a Rolls Royce I think they should be given a medal rather than asked for insurance details ? Blooming polluting cars and rich people...

It was probably an electric one ?

[magpie patrick]

As abandoned canals have come up (partly instigated by me) some clarification....

 

Canal towpaths were originally permissive, they were there for a purpose and people not using for that purpose could be told to leave, and in many instances signs made this clear. Thus, they were protected from becoming rights of way by virtue of continuous use

 

Once a canal had been legally abandoned there was no purpose, and no one enforcing the permissive use, thus if (a big of) the towpath carried on in use as a footpath, eventually it could become established as such by uninterrupted use. 

 

In some instances they have been designated following action by various bodies for other reasons - for example, when Cheshire County Council paid for Marple Aqueduct to be repaired in the 60's one condition of the funding was that the towpath over it became a public right of way, thus ensuring a public benefit from the expenditure

[cuthound]

23 hours ago, Wittenham said:

thanks both, and does that mean the CRT could - if they wanted - introduce any kinds of restrictions/prohibitions on using the towpath?  For example "no cyclists on weekends", [to be clear, I am not proposing this].

 

Excellent suggestion and if it worked, it could be extended to other days of the week, although only those with with a "y" in them. ??

[Richard Fairhurst]

4 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

In my opinion is not cyclists per se that is the problem. It's people with a sense of entitlement. 

Fortunately there are none of those on this forum!

[Mike Todd]

21 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I hadnt thought of that!! Its just weird that everyone pays for whatever transport they use or passtime they have except cyclists. We have all seen huge ruts made by so called mountain bikes tearing up and down in the winter. If a cyclist cause a road accident ( they certainly do ) they dont have by law to be insured so the great scrape down your paintwork in town is down to the motorist again. Its th eonly vehicle thats exempt and its a nonsense.

Not just cyclists but walkers as well.

[Chewbacka]

7 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Not just cyclists but walkers as well.

I doubt there is much ‘Walker’ caused damage that would be covered by the walkers insurance.

[Mike Todd]

43 minutes ago, Chewbacka said:

I doubt there is much ‘Walker’ caused damage that would be covered by the walkers insurance.

Perhaps I was too oblique: I was really hinting at the fact that in some popular areas, the footpaths have been seriously eroded and rutted just by feet.

[Jerra]

14 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Perhaps I was too oblique: I was really hinting at the fact that in some popular areas, the footpaths have been seriously eroded and rutted just by feet.

An interesting concept.  However I am wracking my brains trying to think of anywhere that has that much foo traffic and absolutely no bikes.    Where are you thinking of?

[Cheshire cat]

How about the pennine way. They've had to pave a lot of the southern end.

[Ronaldo47]

Some 40 years ago I was on a week's holiday at the Plas-y-Brenin mountain centre learning about mountain craft. The tutors mentioned the damage being done to some of the footpaths up Snowdon due to the number of walkers using them, and mused that it might become necessary to pave the worst-affected parts to prevent further erosion. Interesting that it has had to be done to the Pennine way. 

 

  

Somewhere in the loft I have the 1940 edition of "The Motor" annual. It mentions that in the event of an accident between a car and a cyclist, the motorist was liable to pay medical bills for the cyclist (from memory, up to 10/6d), regardless of who was to blame.

 

When I worked in London I used to use a bike to cycle between Liverpool Street Station and Holborn, first with an ordinary bike when you could take bikes free on trains that had guards vans, and then when they got new trains with no guards vans, with a folding bike that would go on the luggage rack. I did have a couple of near misses with cars overtaking and then turning sharp left, forcing me to turn left with them, and one with a driver opening his door without looking, but the main problem was pedestrians stepping off the pavement without looking. Not that all cyclists are angels: I despair at the eco-warrier types who give responsible cyclists a a bad name by acting as if the highway code does not apply to them. 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Ronaldo47
Further comment on new post; typos

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Cheshire cat said:

How about the pennine way. They've had to pave a lot of the southern end.

Nobody mountain bikes of the pennine way?    However that is comparing apples with oranges.   Towpaths flat often with some form of hard core Pennine way up and down and very often over peat.

 

What I am wondering about is comparing a continuous downward pressure on a fairly small area (the bit of a bike tyre against the ground) with the spaced out downward pressure spread over a larger area.  Not to mention the fact the bike tyre applies a greater force to displace mud than a foot does.

 

I am trying in my head to reconcile the damage on towpaths and which causes most damage.

[Richard Fairhurst]

27 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Nobody mountain bikes of the pennine way?

No, because going back to the original topic, the Pennine Way is largely not a right of way for bikes. It's mostly public footpath. The Pennine Bridleway is a right of way for bikes but that's a different route entirely.

 

Go up any popular peak in Snowdonia, the Beacons or the Lake District and you'll see plenty of evidence of erosion by walkers.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Richard Fairhurst