Richard Parry Responds to my Email About Tarmacking Over the Towpaths

[enigmatic]

27 minutes ago, Tonka said:

So you are driving along the road and come to a 20mph sign. This implies the bit before you could do over 20. The bit before the "Pedestrian has Priority" implies they did not have priority. You need to look at it from the cyclists point of view 

Or we're boating along the canal until we come to a "no mooring" sign on the offside

Does this mean we have mooring rights along the rest of the offside, including all the private gardens that haven't put signs up?

 

Pretty obvious the signs are going to be up where there are significant issues with anti-social cyclists, or concern there might be because the towpath gets really narrow

[IanD]

27 minutes ago, enigmatic said:

Or we're boating along the canal until we come to a "no mooring" sign on the offside

Does this mean we have mooring rights along the rest of the offside, including all the private gardens that haven't put signs up?

 

Pretty obvious the signs are going to be up where there are significant issues with anti-social cyclists, or concern there might be because the towpath gets really narrow

...or where an unusually large number of people enter/cross the towpath, as described?

[beerbeerbeerbeerbeer]

59 minutes ago, Tonka said:

The bit before the "Pedestrian has Priority" implies they did not have priority. You need to look at it from the cyclists point of view 

A bit like where it says “cyclists dismount” at bridges implies they don’t have to spend their complete journey dismounted but just at bridges. 
 

From my observations, rarely do cyclists dismount and equally rarely do they give pedestrians priority in busy areas. 

mind, I did see a cyclist dismount yesterday at a bridge, you could see they were very nervous of the other towpath users jogging and cycling through. 

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Goliath said:

A bit like where it says “cyclists dismount” at bridges implies they don’t have to spend their complete journey dismounted but just at bridges. 
 

From my observations, rarely do cyclists dismount and equally rarely do they give pedestrians priority in busy areas. 

mind, I did see a cyclist dismount yesterday at a bridge, you could see they were very nervous of the other towpath users jogging and cycling through. 

 

I always slow down and ring my bell at bridges, and am prepared to stop in case there's a pedestrian coming the other way.

 

Or an idiot cyclist coming through at full speed without doing any of this, as has happened more than once. One nearly ended up in the canal, which would have been appropriate punishment... 😉

[magnetman]

1 hour ago, Unicorn Stampede said:

There's a nude cyclist by us - goes up and down the towpath stark bollock naked.

I recall a gentleman on a shopper bike with no clothes on up near Dorchester on the Thames. He was very well mannered as he saw a couple of lady ramblers so stopped and put his shorts on until they had passed. After this he took them off and continued to enjoy the pleasant day. 

 

 

[LadyG]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

 

I always slow down and ring my bell at bridges, and am prepared to stop in case there's a pedestrian coming the other way.

 

Or an idiot cyclist coming through at full speed without doing any of this, as has happened more than once. One nearly ended up in the canal, which would have been appropriate punishment... 😉

I always make sure that I take the safest part of towpath, I'm slowing down cyclists, bit essentially I am not as nimble as others, so I'm not going to be knocked over by silent cyclists.

[Mike Todd]

2 hours ago, IanD said:

 

I always slow down and ring my bell at bridges, and am prepared to stop in case there's a pedestrian coming the other way.

 

Or an idiot cyclist coming through at full speed without doing any of this, as has happened more than once. One nearly ended up in the canal, which would have been appropriate punishment... 😉

And presumably always dismount at a bridge where a sign says so.

[IanD]

1 minute ago, Mike Todd said:

And presumably always dismount at a bridge where a sign says so.

There's only one round here (Hanwell top lock) -- and yes I do, since the path is steep and has transverse bars nothing else makes sense 🙂

[MtB]

10 minutes ago, IanD said:

There's only one round here (Hanwell top lock) -- and yes I do, since the path is steep and has transverse bars nothing else makes sense 🙂

 

I take particular pleasure in succeeding in riding my bike through anything obviously designed to stop bikes. Chicanes, awkward surfaces, steps etc. Usually have to go at a snail's pace tho! 

 

And before anyone starts, I usually dismount and walk the bike whenever I encounter pedestrians. I'm often thanked, although I think it's just common courtesy to get off. 

 

 

[IanD]

1 hour ago, MtB said:

 

I take particular pleasure in succeeding in riding my bike through anything obviously designed to stop bikes. Chicanes, awkward surfaces, steps etc. Usually have to go at a snail's pace tho! 

 

And before anyone starts, I usually dismount and walk the bike whenever I encounter pedestrians. I'm often thanked, although I think it's just common courtesy to get off.

 

 

The towpath from the lock down to the bridge at Hanwell is steep and angled with zero visibility either way, the sign telling cyclists to dismount is entirely sensible -- ignoring it would be pretty stupid unless you think that anyone coming the other way is watching and listening and can see through bricks... 😉

 

I find slowing down and a polite "ding ding" when approaching pedestrians -- and extra care if they're old or walking slowly or pushing a buggy or wheelchair -- usually works fine, together with a "thanks" if they've walked to or stepped to one side. I even get a "thank you" in reply sometimes. No need to be confrontational or aggressive, much better to co-operate and get on with other people... 😉

Edited June 23, 2023 by IanD
autocorrect...

[Alan de Enfield]

1 hour ago, IanD said:

the sign telling circuits to dismount is entirely sensible

 

Is there a large number of AI out cycling ?

[IanD]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Is there a large number of AI out cycling ?

Antisocial Idiots? -- there are certainly some... 😉

 

P.S. Autocorrect, grrr... 😞

P.P.S. Are there... 🙂

Edited June 23, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

P.S. Are there...

 

I disagree, even web based 'grammar check' programmes say that 'are' is an incorrect verb to use in that context.

 

It seems that the verb are does not agree with the subject. Consider changing the verb form.

 

And another checker states :

 

............many native speakers make the mistake of using 'are'.

[IanD]

42 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I disagree, even web based 'grammar check' programmes say that 'are' is an incorrect verb to use in that context.

 

It seems that the verb are does not agree with the subject. Consider changing the verb form.

 

And another checker states :

 

............many native speakers make the mistake of using 'are'.

If "AI" is singular -- "Artificial Intelligence" -- then "Is" appears correct, but the sentence makes no sense in English -- "Is there a large number of Artificial Intelligence out cycling ?".

 

To make it work AI needs to be either made quantifiable -- "Is there a large amount of Artificial Intelligence out cycling ?", which doesn't make sense with the way that AI is normally used -- or numerable, in which case it needs to be plural, or have an implied plural -- "Are there a large number of AIs out cycling ?", or "Are there a large number of AI out cycling ?" where the AI stands for "Artificial Intelligences".

 

That's correct English, as opposed to what grammar check programs (not programmes...) say which don't really understand how to use modern terms like "AI"... 😉

Edited June 23, 2023 by IanD

[Alan de Enfield]

1 minute ago, IanD said:

If "AI" is singular -- "Artificial Intelligence" -- then "Is" appears correct, but the sentence makes no sense in English -- "Is there a large number of Artificial intelligence out cycling ?".

 

To make it work AI needs to be either made quantifiable -- "Is there a large amount of Artificial Intelligence out cycling ?", which doesn't make sense with the way that AI is used -- or numerable, in which case it needs to be plural, or have an implied plural -- "Are there a large number of AIs out cycling ?", or "Are there a large number of AI out cycling ?" where the AI stands for "Artificial Intelligences".

 

That's correct English, as opposed to what grammar check programs say which don't really understand how to use modern terms like "AI"... 😉

 

I asked the question " is there a large number of boats" and then "are there a large number of boats"

[IanD]

2 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I asked the question " is there a large number of boats" and then "are there a large number of boats"

No, you asked "Is there a large number of AI out cycling ?" -- your exact words... 😉 

[Alan de Enfield]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

No, you asked "Is there a large number of AI out cycling ?" -- your exact words... 😉 

 

I asked that of you because you posted that "circuits should dismount"

Guessing that the grammar programmes would answer in a better way using 'boat' in lieu of AI. I have now asked the same question substituting AI for boat and still get the same response - "Is" is correct.

 

Maybe you had an American teacher?

 

Go on - you can have the last word on the subject .......................................

[IanD]

7 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I asked that of you because you posted that "circuits should dismount"

Guessing that the grammar programmes would answer in a better way using 'boat' in lieu of AI. I have now asked the same question substituting AI for boat and still get the same response - "Is" is correct.

 

Maybe you had an American teacher?

 

Go on - you can have the last word on the subject .......................................

I know full well why you posted it, and it would have been a good joke if it had been grammatically correct 😉

 

Any grammar program -- American or English grammar? -- which thinks that "Is there a large number of xxx out cycling" is correct is wrong, regardless of what singular noun xxx is -- "boat" or "AI"... 😉

 

I didn't have an American teacher, I had an English one -- and a very good one at a grammar school to boot... 🙂

Edited June 23, 2023 by IanD

[David Mack]

4 hours ago, IanD said:

Any grammar program -- American or English grammar? -- which thinks that "Is there a large number of xxx out cycling" is correct is wrong, regardless of what singular noun xxx is -- "boat" or "AI"... 😉

The grammar programme is correct. In that example it is 'number' which is singular. What it is a number of is immaterial.

[MtB]

45 minutes ago, David Mack said:

The grammar programme is correct. In that example it is 'number' which is singular. What it is a number of is immaterial.

 

Indeed. It was even actually "a number". The "a" indicating singular. 

 

 

[IanD]

52 minutes ago, MtB said:

 

Indeed. It was even actually "a number". The "a" indicating singular. 

 

"A large number of boats" (plural) would be correct. "A large number of boat" (singular) is not.

 

AI (Artificial Intelligence) used as a subject is singular, so it's wrong.

 

In addition, if the subject is plural like "boats", "Are there" is correct, not "Is there", regardless of what comes in between, because the subject is "boats".

 

"Are there [xxx] boats [doing something]" is correct whether [xxx] is "a large number of" or "many" or "a few" or "hardly any", it's a description of quantity.

 

Sorry, but that's the way English works... 😉

 

None of which has the slightest relevance to tarmac towpaths, but there you go...

Edited June 23, 2023 by IanD

[Quattrodave]

12 hours ago, Tonka said:

So you are driving along the road and come to a 20mph sign. This implies the bit before you could do over 20. The bit before the "Pedestrian has Priority" implies they did not have priority. You need to look at it from the cyclists point of view 

 

That would depend on the size of the speed sign.  A little signs is a reminder of the speed limit, a big sign is a change in speed limit.

[magpie patrick]

14 hours ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

I 

............many native speakers make the mistake of using 'are'.

 

Language evolves so if "many native speakers" are making a mistake it's the teacher or the pedant who is outdated. Purists don't (and can't) stop a language changing 

[1st ade]

23 hours ago, Tonka said:

So you are driving along the road and come to a 20mph sign. This implies the bit before you could do over 20.

Or the previous bit, you were restricted to 10 MPH and are now allowed to speed up...

[magnetman]

Signage on towpaths related to cycling is interesting. 

 

The more signage there is the more it becomes like a road and the towpaths will gradually be lost to 2 wheeled transport because it is so convenient. 

 

 

No Idea why that bit went red ! 

 

Anyway how long will it be before there are speed limit signs on towpaths. 

 

If and when high power ebikes become legal without having to be motorbikes ie a class between push bikes and mopeds perhaps these will be authorised on Sustrans routes. 

 

It could get dodgy out there.