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

[Jerra]

6 minutes ago, Richard Fairhurst said:

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.

I live in the Lake District and I see plenty of evidence of Bikes on public footpaths and the fells in general.   How is the Pennine way any different?

 

However let us assume there are no bikes.

 

1.  The towpath is flat the fells are steep much of the erosion is owning to water running down the places where the surface vegetation has been worn away.   This run off does not occur on towpaths ( for the pedantic yes I suppose their might be some at locksbut in general miles and miles where it doesn't happen.

 

Now let us turn to the nice flat towpaths.

 

1.  There are bikes all over the place hence the reason I asked where there was foot erosion without bikes.

 

2.   Let us take a nominal person say 10 st (63.5Kg approx) and lets say size 8 shoes.   So you have an area of roughly 190 cm² per foot.   This means there is a downward pressure of approx 0.334 Kg per cm²

 

3.   Now we will consider a bike.  The tyres have a contact patch which varies with the tyre but generally between 35 - 40 cm².  We double that giving say 80 cm² (two wheels).   I'll be generous and call it 100 cm²  Which means the bike has a downward pressure just about double the foot.  In reality 0.635Kg per cm²

 

4.  The bike's extra pressure is continuous not every couple of feet of so.

 

5.  The bike is giving a continuous backward force over the whole of the contact patch as it moves forward as opposed to the (say half the foot area as we step off our toes) every few feet.

 

Which do you feel causes most damage to towpaths? 

 

I anyone wants to check my maths/science and point out I am wrong fair enough.

[Cheshire cat]

You might also struggle to find a 10st walker these days. 

 

I don't disagree that a cyclist  will cause more erosion than a walker where the towpath is susceptible to structural failure. Most of the length of the Shroppie would be a good example of a towpath of this type. For many miles there is no run off on the Shroppie towpath. Rainfall just sits in puddles that are made ever wider by pedestrian feet. 

 

In order to maintain the integrity of the Shroppie towpath it would be necessary to ban walkers as well as cyclists. 

[mrsmelly]

55 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I live in the Lake District and I see plenty of evidence of Bikes on public footpaths and the fells in general.   How is the Pennine way any different?

 

However let us assume there are no bikes.

 

1.  The towpath is flat the fells are steep much of the erosion is owning to water running down the places where the surface vegetation has been worn away.   This run off does not occur on towpaths ( for the pedantic yes I suppose their might be some at locksbut in general miles and miles where it doesn't happen.

 

Now let us turn to the nice flat towpaths.

 

1.  There are bikes all over the place hence the reason I asked where there was foot erosion without bikes.

 

2.   Let us take a nominal person say 10 st (63.5Kg approx) and lets say size 8 shoes.   So you have an area of roughly 190 cm² per foot.   This means there is a downward pressure of approx 0.334 Kg per cm²

 

3.   Now we will consider a bike.  The tyres have a contact patch which varies with the tyre but generally between 35 - 40 cm².  We double that giving say 80 cm² (two wheels).   I'll be generous and call it 100 cm²  Which means the bike has a downward pressure just about double the foot.  In reality 0.635Kg per cm²

 

4.  The bike's extra pressure is continuous not every couple of feet of so.

 

5.  The bike is giving a continuous backward force over the whole of the contact patch as it moves forward as opposed to the (say half the foot area as we step off our toes) every few feet.

 

Which do you feel causes most damage to towpaths? 

 

I anyone wants to check my maths/science and point out I am wrong fair enough.

I think you miss the main point in that walking doesnt involve a vehicle. A bike is a vehicle, yet unlike other vehicles its owner pays nowt for its use.

[Jerra]

34 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I think you miss the main point in that walking doesnt involve a vehicle. A bike is a vehicle, yet unlike other vehicles its owner pays nowt for its use.

I am well aware of that, however I was taking RF up on his assertion that lots of towpaths were eroded "just by feet".   I know nowhere on the towpaths where walkers go and cyclists don't.   I am happy for somebody to draw my attention to such an area.

 

In the absence of any such area being pointed out I believe the assertion that erosion is "just by feet" to be totally false.   Or to put it another way a desperate attempt to draw attention away from the damage done by bikes.

[magpie patrick]

12 hours ago, Jerra said:

In the absence of any such area being pointed out I believe the assertion that erosion is "just by feet" to be totally false.   Or to put it another way a desperate attempt to draw attention away from the damage done by bikes.

Both erode but the erosion is quite different

 

Cyclists (and horses) tend to churn up the surface - walkers tend to step round puddles and mud and widen the footpath, this happens even if the towpath is not used by cyclists

 

It's the latter that has caused serious problems in national parks such as the peak district, where once narrow paths end up being several metres wide (and still muddy except at the edges), many of the worst affected paths are really not cyclable. On towpaths the problem is exacerbated as the restricted width means nowhere to go.

 

Historically towpaths were used by horses, which do far more damage than bikes - mind you, historically towpaths were maintained....

[Jerra]

43 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

Both erode but the erosion is quite different

 

Cyclists (and horses) tend to churn up the surface - walkers tend to step round puddles and mud and widen the footpath, this happens even if the towpath is not used by cyclists

 

It's the latter that has caused serious problems in national parks such as the peak district, where once narrow paths end up being several metres wide (and still muddy except at the edges), many of the worst affected paths are really not cyclable. On towpaths the problem is exacerbated as the restricted width means nowhere to go.

 

Historically towpaths were used by horses, which do far more damage than bikes - mind you, historically towpaths were maintained....

Talking of National Parks when I was younger and fitter I worked a  a volunteer with the Lake District National Parks.  Much of the work was on footpaths.    The damage noticeably increased when bikes started using paths.   What seemed to happen was the bikes created channels running water which did a couple of things.   Either it laid in hollows creating long standing wet areas, naturally people walked round them.   Or it stripped the slope back to bare rock, many prefered the smoother surface of vegetation and so walked beside the bare rock.   Both resulted in wider paths.

 

I am not totally convinced that a horse plodding slowly along would be more damaging than a bike travelling at twice the speed or more.  I shall have to look into that and have a think.  I can see that a horse trotting/cantering/galloping would be very damaging as you see the clods flying up from the hooves.    When I have time I will have a walk out and look at some of the routes used by our local racing stables, 20 to 30 animals along the two or three times a day.

[Alan de Enfield]

4 minutes ago, Jerra said:

When I have time I will have a walk out and look at some of the routes used by our local racing stables, 20 to 30 animals along the two or three times a day.

A walking shod horse will certainly leave depressions in 'soft ground' (grass etc) and will even leave 'scratches' on tarmac roads (which can be seen as a 'whitening' in the surface).

A Galloping horse (shod or not) will take out big divots of 'soft' ground.

 

Well - ours do.

 

For example our Normandy Cob weights aver 3/4 of a ton and that weight is unevenly placed on 4 points each about about 8" diameter. when moving at a walk only 3-points have contact and when cantering / galloping it would normally be only 2-points at any one time, which both have a very large rearwards 'push'. The Steel shoes cut the surface the foot then pushes the soil backwards causing flying divots.

 

[Mike Todd]

17 hours ago, Cheshire cat said:

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

That ways one example but I have seen plenty. Down here, for instance, some parts of the coastal path have suffered significant obvious damage but nature takes its revenge in some places by eroding the edge such that a new path has to be made a few metres further inland.

[Jerra]

33 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

A walking shod horse will certainly leave depressions in 'soft ground' (grass etc) and will even leave 'scratches' on tarmac roads (which can be seen as a 'whitening' in the surface).

A Galloping horse (shod or not) will take out big divots of 'soft' ground.

 

Well - ours do.

 

For example our Normandy Cob weights aver 3/4 of a ton and that weight is unevenly placed on 4 points each about about 8" diameter. when moving at a walk only 3-points have contact and when cantering / galloping it would normally be only 2-points at any one time, which both have a very large rearwards 'push'. The Steel shoes cut the surface the foot then pushes the soil backwards causing flying divots.

 

So how would the Cob compare in size and weight to the horses towing boats?    Smaller?  Larger?  About the same?

[Tacet]

16 hours ago, Jerra said:

I live in the Lake District and I see plenty of evidence of Bikes on public footpaths and the fells in general.   How is the Pennine way any different?

 

However let us assume there are no bikes.

 

1.  The towpath is flat the fells are steep much of the erosion is owning to water running down the places where the surface vegetation has been worn away.   This run off does not occur on towpaths ( for the pedantic yes I suppose their might be some at locksbut in general miles and miles where it doesn't happen.

 

Now let us turn to the nice flat towpaths.

 

1.  There are bikes all over the place hence the reason I asked where there was foot erosion without bikes.

 

2.   Let us take a nominal person say 10 st (63.5Kg approx) and lets say size 8 shoes.   So you have an area of roughly 190 cm² per foot.   This means there is a downward pressure of approx 0.334 Kg per cm²

 

3.   Now we will consider a bike.  The tyres have a contact patch which varies with the tyre but generally between 35 - 40 cm².  We double that giving say 80 cm² (two wheels).   I'll be generous and call it 100 cm²  Which means the bike has a downward pressure just about double the foot.  In reality 0.635Kg per cm²

 

4.  The bike's extra pressure is continuous not every couple of feet of so.

 

5.  The bike is giving a continuous backward force over the whole of the contact patch as it moves forward as opposed to the (say half the foot area as we step off our toes) every few feet.

 

Which do you feel causes most damage to towpaths? 

 

I anyone wants to check my maths/science and point out I am wrong fair enough.

I'll check your logic.  If the tyre pressure is, say, 30 psi (2.1 kgf per sq cm) then that is the pressure imposed on the ground, pretty much regardless of the size of the cyclist at least until he or she flattens the tyre.  Your pedestrian will need very flat feet to keep the pressure across the entire sole -running and/or stilettos will increase the pressures.

 

Assuming the same velocity for both (which is the big catch). the forward force to propel a cyclist or a pedestrian will be pretty much the same overall in simple terms, When walking, the forward push is not limited to the duration of the stepping-off, but if it were, the force would need to be greater at that point to make up for the rest of the stride.  I imagine the force for both cyclist and pedestrian will rise and fall over the whole stride/rotation of the crank but my guess is that the pedestrian varies more.

 

[Alan de Enfield]

54 minutes ago, Jerra said:

About the same?

This,

 

They are 'medium weight' and were used in France for ploughing in soft ground.

Big horses (Shires, Suffolk Punch Percheron etc) were the 'heavy ploughing' horses.

 

This is our "Hippofattimus"

 

 

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, Alan de Enfield said:

This,

 

They are 'medium weight' and were used in France for ploughing in soft ground.

Big horses (Shires, Suffolk Punch Percheron etc) were the 'heavy ploughing' horses.

 

This is our "Hippofattimus"

 

 

Lovely animal!   How would it compare in size to the ones used to pull boats?   Any idea?

[Alan de Enfield]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Lovely animal!   How would it compare in size to the ones used to pull boats?   Any idea?

 

1 hour ago, Jerra said:

About the same?

 

^^^^^^^^^^^ This.

[Jerra]

4 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

^^^^^^^^^^^ This.

Thank you.

[Graham Davis]

1 hour ago, Mike Todd said:

That ways one example but I have seen plenty. Down here, for instance, some parts of the coastal path have suffered significant obvious damage but nature takes its revenge in some places by eroding the edge such that a new path has to be made a few metres further inland.

The Wales Coastal Path has had to be paved in numerous areas because of erosion by walkers. 

The footpath to the top of Pen y Fan in the Brecon Beacons likewise.

The footpath to the summit of Punlimon likewise.

None of these see use by mountain bikes or horses.

[David Mack]

On 17/11/2020 at 11:45, Alan de Enfield said:

 

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.

 

If CRT had 'members' who could vote, we would see boaters outnumbered by walkers, cyclists, anglers etc. And that might see yet more resources directed towards their interests and less on maintaining the navigability of the system by boats.

[Jerra]

13 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

If CRT had 'members' who could vote, we would see boaters outnumbered by walkers, cyclists, anglers etc. And that might see yet more resources directed towards their interests and less on maintaining the navigability of the system by boats.

I think you might be underestimating walkers and probably cyclists and possibly even anglers.  I suspect most of the groups with the possible exception of anglers welcome the interest added by seeing boats and gongoozlering at locks.   Even anglers would I think miss out if the canals weren't used and slowly had offside growth extending fully across the canal and slowly silted up.

[David Mack]

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

I think you might be underestimating walkers and probably cyclists and possibly even anglers.  I suspect most of the groups with the possible exception of anglers welcome the interest added by seeing boats and gongoozlering at locks.   Even anglers would I think miss out if the canals weren't used and slowly had offside growth extending fully across the canal and slowly silted up.

But you would see more pressure for things like widening the towpath and narrowing the channel to better accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. Most towpaths don't meet Sustrans minimum shared path width for example.  Edgbaston Tunnel is a warning.

And what about naturalists complaining about cutting back overhanging vegetation or dredging? Or wanting limits on boat numbers or seasonal restrictions?

Boating might still be allowed, but it could get a whole lot less enjoyable.

[Mike Todd]

27 minutes ago, David Mack said:

 

If CRT had 'members' who could vote, we would see boaters outnumbered by walkers, cyclists, anglers etc. And that might see yet more resources directed towards their interests and less on maintaining the navigability of the system by boats.

In reality, there are more similarities between the governance of NT and CaRT than there are differences. Only very rarely has the membership of NT made much difference I suspect. And then it was over emotive issues such as fox hunting.

 

As a random sample I found the 2017 AGM when there were two members resolutions (one on A303 at Stonehenge and the other on trail hunting). The Trustees recommended voting against both of them. I don't know the outcome but it does how how restricted the members influence is at a formal level.

[Jerra]

1 minute ago, David Mack said:

And what about naturalists complaining about cutting back overhanging vegetation or dredging? Or wanting limits on boat numbers or seasonal restrictions?

Being a lifelong naturalist I think you are exaggerating.    As I have stated only yesterday nature does not in most cases need managed what it needs is being given a chance.   Cutting back offside vegetation would be being criticised already if there was any basis for this.   What might be criticised is total habitat change.   If canals were being built now they would be opposed just as many oppose the HS2.

 

I am a member of many wildlife organisations and can't think of a single case where they have wanted change to how land they don't own is used.  If the government was to gift the canals to say the RSPB there might (just might) be some pressure in some areas.

 

Can you suggest what would be effected by limiting boat numbers or seasonal restrictions. 

[Alan de Enfield]

28 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Can you suggest what would be effected by limiting boat numbers or seasonal restrictions. 

 

The 'EFFECT' would be a lower numbers of boats.

or

Do you mean AFFECT ?

[Jerra]

5 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

The 'EFFECT' would be a lower numbers of boats.

or

Do you mean AFFECT ?

Whoops Fingers going faster than brain!  You are of course correct.

[MrsM]

2 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

This,

 

They are 'medium weight' and were used in France for ploughing in soft ground.

Big horses (Shires, Suffolk Punch Percheron etc) were the 'heavy ploughing' horses.

 

This is our "Hippofattimus"

 

 

Absolutely stunning! Is that you riding?

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, MrsM said:

Absolutely stunning! Is that you riding?

No, I no longer ride, this was at a show just before we bought him.

SWMBO is the rider (and also used to drive, she made it to the 'Nationals' one year. Her driving pony was a retired world driving champion in her 20's but was more than happy to be still doing 'local' stuff.)

 

We had to send Hippo away for his holidays this Summer as we were away on the boat for 14 weeks (after the Welsh Lockdown was lifted in the middle of July)

Edited November 19, 2020 by Alan de Enfield

[manxmike]

Once upon a time, many years ago, I took the Chair of the local mountain bike club to task over the state of the footpaths in and around the plantation I walked my dogs in. His reply startled me:

"We created the paths by riding them, therefore we have the absolute right to carry on riding them. We are not damaging the paths, we are improving them. The narrow ruts in the earth which fill with water are in fact created by people walking their dogs, and have nothing to do with bicycles, despite the width of the ruts and the tread pattern in them."

Sadly he was being entirely serious and believed everything he was saying.

This chap was, during working hours, a lawyer. I responded by saying that I had not been aware that my dogs were dragging their feet to such an extent, and that I would ensure any shoes I bought in future would be more than an inch wide. He didn't get it, typical lawyer - no sense of the ridiculous!