Cyclists, do they belong on the towpath?

[Chris Pink]

This wasn't a group of militant ramblers (don't get me started on them) just a family day out looking at the canal and some boats, there were 3-4 generations from toddlers to granny, on an afternoon after lunch gamble

 

That's a least 3 non-taxpayers on your party. It's their own fault,they shouldn't be on the towpath - obviously - they do not pay enough towards the upkeep of the canals and have no rights whatsoever.

 

and lunch, on sunday? obviously wealthy - put their licence up 20%

[Nine of Hearts]

Your post implies that the pedestrian has a perfect right to be there, UNLESS he has been given sufficient warning to get out of the way by a lycra lout.

What? Where is that implied?

 

Why should the cyclist not give way to the pedestrians?

Because they're less manoeverable?

 

...if they need to slow down too much, they should hop off the bikes, and walk past the pedestrians..

Thus making themselves twice as wide? Isn't it just easier for people to accommodate each other?

 

Personally, I have no problem with stepping to one side to allow cyclists to pass. When I worked at Bournville, I also had to step aside for runners who were rarely equipped with bells and would cane along at speeds in excess of 8mph, the reckless, inconsiderate swine.

[alan_fincher]

This is a SHARED path, which means that cyclists and pedestrians each have an entirely equal right to be there.

 

Your post implies that the pedestrian has a perfect right to be there, UNLESS he has been given sufficient warning to get out of the way by a lycra lout.

I object to the use of terms like "Lycra Lout". I know that you probably do not mean all cyclists in Lycra are louts, but it comes across that way in just the same way as many other stereotyping labels.

 

I am both cyclist and boater, and although seldom in Lycra these days, its the sensible thing to wear if you are cycling any distance, in just the same way that if you go swimming a pair of trunks is better than a business suit.

 

Having defended cyclists, I do not know of any situation though where they should not give way to other towpath users, though.

 

The situation is different in London, where no permit is required, and London's "Towpath Code of Conduct" should be followed. This quite clear

 

Pedestrians have priority over cyclists on the towpath.

 

 

Elsewhere I would suggest normal BW guidelines apply, (although I know there was a plan to extend the London rules elsewhere)....

 

Considerate cycling

Remember that the standard speed on the waterways, for boaters and walkers, is just 4mph. Anglers also use our towpaths and sometimes have expensive, fragile equipment.

 

Follow these hints and tips for a trouble-free cycle ride.

 

Avoid cycling where your tyres would damage the path or verges (e.g. when they are wet or soft).

Give way to others on the towpath and warn them of your approach. A polite 'hello' and 'thank you' mean a lot.

Watch out for anglers' tackle and give them time to move it before you try to pass.

Never race one another or perform speed trials. If you need to get somewhere quickly, use a road.

We recommend you obtain third party liability insurance and equip your bike with a bell or equivalent.

 

So maybe in many places Cyclists have an equal right to be there to Pedestrians, but it is clear that when it comes to giving way, it should be the Cyclist every time.

 

Note there are many sections of canal where cycling is not permitted - I was amazed to find this now includes the whole stretch through Milton Keynes, and a long way each side, (barking mad, in my view).

 

Different rules may apply if it's a formally adopted Sustrans path, but the guideline would still be from Sustrans that cyclists give way, as they promote any form of getting about without an internal combustion engine - not just cycling, as many believe.

 

Alan

[carlt]

I belive he leaves them where they land.

it is illegal to ride a mini moto on the towpath and is a problem in the London area.

 

J

And deliberately attempting to cause injury or worse, to them, is a legitimate punishment?

 

What a sad world we share.

[mayalld]

What? Where is that implied?

 

"Sounds like the cyclist gave plenty of warning so the woman should have moved."

 

Why should the woman have moved?

 

Does that mean that if the pedestrian had shouted ample warning, the cyclist should have given way instead?

 

 

 

I object to the use of terms like "Lycra Lout". I know that you probably do not mean all cyclists in Lycra are louts, but it comes across that way in just the same way as many other stereotyping labels.

 

The beauty of stereotyping labels is that they only apply to those who actually fit the label.

 

If you wear lycra, but don't actually act like a lout, you aren't a lycra lout.

 

Easy, innit.

[Richard Fairhurst]

In some places (e.g. the Grand Union) where the National Cycle Network follows towpaths, a 10mph speed limit is requested.

 

It wouldn't hurt to have this on the K&A - and, for once, I'd actually like to see more signs promoting this. For a cyclist who's been following (say) the Bristol-Bath railway path, it may be helpful to see reminders that the towpath, despite also being an off-road route, operates under very different rules. The London scheme is a good example to follow.

 

Richard

(incidentally a volunteer Sustrans ranger, though obviously speaking in a personal capacity)

[Nine of Hearts]

"Sounds like the cyclist gave plenty of warning so the woman should have moved."

 

Why should the woman have moved?

 

Because the cyclist was moving, and the "pedestrian" was not. If the woman had not have moved the cyclist (and all subsequent towpath users) would have had to queue up until she did.

 

Easy, innit.

 

NB: I do take issue with Chickadee, however. I think if she shouted "excuse me!", rather than "politely!", it would be less confusing.

[mayalld]

Because the cyclist was moving, and the "pedestrian" was not. If the woman had not have moved the cyclist (and all subsequent towpath users) would have had to queue up until she did.

 

The problem is that the cyclists are out of step with other users in their expectations of the pace of things.

 

The rest of the users have an expectation of a leisurely pace, where one can stand around for a little while and move aside casually if somebody wishes to pass.

 

the cyclist has no time for this, and wants people to move instantly when warned of his approach.

 

It is interesting to note that the cyclist pays nothing to be on the road, and (fairly) justifies this because his presence there causes insignificant wear, compared to the presence of motor vehicles.

 

What argument does the cyclist have on a canal towpath, where his cycling causes significantly more wear than other users.

 

Let us have £50 per-annum cycle permits, enforcement of no cycling sections, and towpath bans for inconsiderate cycling.

[grahoom]

What argument does the cyclist have on a canal towpath, where his cycling causes significantly more wear than other users.

 

because some towpaths are Sustran cycle routes. And Some Cyclists donate to Sustran.

[Richard Fairhurst]

When you say "the cyclist", do you mean this case or cyclists in general?

[mayalld]

When you say "the cyclist", do you mean this case or cyclists in general?

 

In this case.

 

because some towpaths are Sustran cycle routes. And Some Cyclists donate to Sustran.

 

And on the routes that Sustrans pays bugger all towards??

[grahoom]

In this case.

 

 

 

And on the routes that Sustrans pays bugger all towards??

 

you're advocating a 50 licence for cyclists for towpaths. how will this be "patrolled"?

[GSer]

you're advocating a 50 licence for cyclists for towpaths. how will this be "patrolled"?

 

 

Along wth your boat licence you will receive a Deputy Sheriffs badge, from then on you will be the law around your boat

[mayalld]

you're advocating a 50 licence for cyclists for towpaths. how will this be "patrolled"?

 

Enforcement officers stopping cyclists, checking permits, and prosecuting for non-payment

[Richard Fairhurst]

In this case.

Ah, right. So when you also say

 

It is interesting to note that the cyclist pays nothing to be on the road, and (fairly) justifies this because his presence there causes insignificant wear, compared to the presence of motor vehicles.

...then I can only guess you've spoken to the cyclist in question and found out that's how he justifies it (because it's certainly not an argument that all cyclists subscribe to). Perhaps next time you speak to him, you could pass on some of the other comments from this thread!

[grahoom]

Enforcement officers stopping cyclists, checking permits, and prosecuting for non-payment

 

would these be the same ones who are supposed to check licences for boats? and tackling non-payment etc?

[alan_fincher]

What argument does the cyclist have on a canal towpath, where his cycling causes significantly more wear than other users.

 

Let us have £50 per-annum cycle permits, enforcement of no cycling sections, and towpath bans for inconsiderate cycling.

Oh, get real!

 

I'd rather have the odd tyre track left by bikes, than the dog s**t left by dog walkers, or the various lines with leads, floats & hooks on left in trees by anglers.

 

Who is going to enforce the £50 cycle permits. BW enforcers, the boys in blue, or some new outfit contracted to do it ? It would be dead before it started, (which is why it was tried and abandoned on the K & A).

 

The reason we shouldn't charge to cycle on towpaths is that mostly, (but I admit not always), people have got to them by bike, and not cluttered the roads with another car. Most fishermen & boaters & many walkers get the car out first, it seems to me.

[mayalld]

Ah, right. So when you also say

 

 

...then I can only guess you've spoken to the cyclist in question and found out that's how he justifies it (because it's certainly not an argument that all cyclists subscribe to). Perhaps next time you speak to him, you could pass on some of the other comments from this thread!

 

It is a comment that I have often heard cyclists use. I wouldn't dream of assuming that they all subscribe to it.

 

would these be the same ones who are supposed to check licences for boats? and tackling non-payment etc?

 

Yes. Perhaps with the income from enforcing cycling permits they could employ rather more of them.

 

They would have to have a fancy job title mind.

 

How about "Lengthsman"

[grahoom]

How about "Lengthsman"

 

well i hope you get your wish... will tricycles we charged more than bicycles? how about tandems? or will any cycled vehicle be charged the same usage for the towpath?

 

how about a toll, and turnstile system, this way an RFID chip's card could be used to allow access to the towpath...

 

or rather, considering these same "cyclists" probably to pay SOMETHING to the towpath out of their taxes that is then passed on to BW via a grant.

 

Personally, as a cyclist (I commute 12 miles a day to work) I would be happy to pay for more well maintained cycle paths.

[GSer]

Oh, get real!

 

 

The reason we shouldn't charge to cycle on towpaths is that mostly, (but I admit not always), people have got to them by bike, and not cluttered the roads with another car. Most fishermen & boaters & many walkers get the car out first, it seems to me.

 

And, i'm afraid cyclists, many pull up in cars unload their bikes then go for an easy cycle option that is the canal network.

 

Never ceases to amaze me the self important attitude of some cyclists, most of them cycle, car, bike, boat, walk, run along side the rest of us, yet as soon as people start wanting cyclists to contribute back to society by way of a fee or licence they get all 'but we're saving the planet'

 

Until cyclists start to behave in a reasonable manner ie abide with traffic laws, get insurance, use common sense around others then I'm afraid cyclists will always be getting 'misunderstood' by others.

 

Paul

Edited September 15, 2008 by GSer

[twocvbloke]

I think that in this case, that was an extremely rude cyclist, and for those saying that a bicycle isn't as manoeuvrable, last time I checked, my bike had brakes...

 

This is from Waterscape's website:

 

The Waterways Code aims to protect your own and other people's safety, to safeguard the environment, and to avoid disturbing the enjoyment of other users of the waterway and towpath. There is no public right of way for cyclists on canal towpaths, and British Waterways reserves the right to withdraw permission from users who disregard the rules.

 

http://www.waterscape.com/things-to-do/cycling/permit

 

I think that says it all really...

[grahoom]

Until cyclists start to behave in a reasonable manner ie abide with traffic laws, get insurance, use common sense around others then I'm afraid cyclists will always be getting 'misunderstood' by others.

 

 

the problem is - that anyone of us can be "cyclists" and any one of us can be "bad examples" of cyclists.

 

it annoys me to no end when I see other people on bikes cycle past me when I am waiting at a traffic light, or see they cruise through a pelican crossing, or don't stop at a zebra crossing.

 

I guess it's Easier for people to deal with easy target groups.

 

I don't separate drivers from cyclists, but I do make the distinctions of inconsiderate people - they could be active in cycling, fishing, boating, driving, kiting, parachuting or a whole host of other activities.

[Richard Fairhurst]

Never ceases to amaze me the self important attitude of some cyclists, most of them cycle, car, bike, boat, walk, run along side the rest of us, yet as soon as people start wanting cyclists to contribute back to society by way of a fee or licence

Er... if they drive or boat alongside the rest of us, they already are paying a licence to use the roads or canals.

 

twocvbloke: there's no public right of way for anyone on BW towpaths - they're permissive paths, not rights of way.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Richard Fairhurst

[grahoom]

Er... if they drive or boat alongside the rest of us, they already are paying a licence to use the roads or canals.

 

 

i think we need a Venn Diagram... to illustrate all of this...

[carlt]

I think we need to make a distinction between boaters, who have a bicycle (ordinary cyclists) and what I like to call "continuous cyclists" who don't own a boat.