IS IT ME

[mayalld]

The thing that annoys me about the cyclists that seem to believe they own the towpath, is that most don’t know that, 1) then are not allowed to cycle of that part of the towpath (northern Stratford), and 2) on the sections that cycling is allowed on that they should have a permit.

 

So to me I have a right to be there, walking, but they don’t, so they should at least be considerate and keep a low profile.

 

Out of interest how many that carry a bike around on their boat for lockwheeling etc, have a permit?

 

The use of a bike by the crew of a boat in connection with the navigation of a boat does not require a permit.

[ditchcrawler]

The thing that annoys me about the cyclists that seem to believe they own the towpath, is that most don’t know that, 1) then are not allowed to cycle of that part of the towpath (northern Stratford), and 2) on the sections that cycling is allowed on that they should have a permit.

 

So to me I have a right to be there, walking, but they don’t, so they should at least be considerate and keep a low profile.

 

Out of interest how many that carry a bike around on their boat for lockwheeling etc, have a permit?

Permits are not required everywhere

[alan_fincher]

I said 'rarely' and I maintain that this is the case countrywide - Alan has quoted some exceptions but that is just what they are. Towpaths (especially out in the country) are usually too narrow to allow two cyclists travelling in opposite directions to pass safely without dismounting - in my view that is not 'good'.

I would still dispute "usually" !

 

Tow-paths originally needed to allow two horses to pass, (for obvious reasons), although I accept erosion and plant growth has long since reduced available with in a lot of places.

 

Anyway what's the problem at a narrow point with one person having to give way to let another pass, (assuming a sensible patient pair of cyclists).

 

That's very much the norm on a bridleway, for example, where cycling is permitted and encouraged.

 

The problem with bridleways of course being use by horses, which in my view should be banned - they'll be allowing them on tow-path's next.... Oh, they did ?

 

 

Permits are not required everywhere

Another wonderful effort by BW!

 

Cyclists must follow the Towpath Code of Conduct at all times.

 

This to me implies

 

"All cyclists must follow the Towpath Code of Conduct at all times, when cycling any towpath."

 

But the link takes you to.....

 

"London's Towpath Code of Conduct"

 

So does what you are looking at, (including the "two tings"), only apply to London, or to everywhere ?

 

Their penchant for continuing to make a mess of things remains undiminished!

 

Why waive cycle permits in London, (where few would dispute the greatest dangers exist from idiot behaviours), but retain elsewhere.

 

In the Berkhamsted area a local initiative between (I think) BW, the local council, and the borough council upgraded the towpath surface. I am assured by local councillors that the requirement for a cycle permit was waived by BW as a result - try finding that documented anywhere !

 

A total mess up, frankly.

Edited July 5, 2010 by alan_fincher

[Chris Pink]

And the other side of the issue.....

 

...the aggressive sheep who despite hearing the approach of a cyclist make no attempt to allow room for the cyclist to pass and claim the right to walk three abreast even when someone is attempting to pass them?

 

 

A lack of consideration to others is not the exclusive preserve of cyclists.

[alan_fincher]

And the other side of the issue.....

 

...the aggressive sheep who despite hearing the approach of a cyclist make no attempt to allow room for the cyclist to pass and claim the right to walk three abreast even when someone is attempting to pass them?

 

 

A lack of consideration to others is not the exclusive preserve of cyclists.

 

Or anglers with long fibreglass poles withdrawn back across the towpath, and through the hedge, and massive umbrellas or even small tents erected on the cyclable / walkable bit of the tow-path.

 

As I say each time this comes up, considerate or inconsiderate behaviours exist in all classes of canal-user, whether boater/walker/cyclist/dog-owner/angler. As the last of those categories is the only one I don't belong in, perhaps that's why I feel so sensitive on this issue ?

[john6767]

To me it looked as though it was only London where you were not required to have a permit. I can't really see the point of the permit, just the BW does seem to say you should have one.

 

There is a list of where you can and can not cycle here, and the North Stratford that I was referring to is "no cycling".

[alan_fincher]

There is a list of where you can and can not cycle here, and the North Stratford that I was referring to is "no cycling".

Accepted.

 

Same is true of parts of both Southern and Northern Oxford, and it also acknowledges poor conditions on parts where it is allowed. Some of the remarks made on here seem reasonable enough in such cases, but other tow-paths are more than equal to regular (sensible!) bike use, and over considerable distances.

 

Not sure I would do it in a tight fitting dress myself, though......

 

Chalice Blog Entry

 

(Sorry - no pictures - I missed it, and Cath didn't have a camera!).

[NB Alnwick]

I would still dispute "usually" !

 

Tow-paths originally needed to allow two horses to pass, (for obvious reasons), although I accept erosion and plant growth has long since reduced available with in a lot of places.

 

Anyway what's the problem at a narrow point with one person having to give way to let another pass, (assuming a sensible patient pair of cyclists).

 

That's very much the norm on a bridleway, for example, where cycling is permitted and encouraged.

 

The problem with bridleways of course being use by horses, which in my view should be banned - they'll be allowing them on tow-path's next.... Oh, they did ?

 

Perhaps I failed to make a distinction between a 'cyclist' who uses a bicycle as a means of transport and the modern trend of riding what many call 'mountain bikes' over rough terrain. And I do not in any way infer that the latter do not have the right to enjoy what they do!

 

When I cycle (usually on the roads), I try to maintain an average speed of between 15 and 20 mph - I know of few (if any) canal towpaths where this would be safe or practical - so in my view towpaths are not "good" for this activity - in fact, from a safety viewpoint, I don't think anyone should be travelling along a canal towpath at a speed much greater than walking pace but there will always be exceptions. Horses could pass safely because the did so at walking pace (although I do not know of many places on our rural canals where they could do so today) - a cyclist who dismounts and proceeds along a canal towpath at walking pace (which is something I often do) is a pedestrian wheeling a bicycle - he/she is not cycling!

[Bones]

I am still outraged about the horses using the tow path.....

[alan_fincher]

At risk of being controversial, I don't actually have an issue with someone riding a bike, (mountain or otherwise), at (say) 15 mph along some of the wider stretches of the lower GU, or Paddington Arm, if it's a completely clear straight stretch, with a good view ahead. I have a major issue with someone attempting something similar around Hampstead Road Locks, whilst expecting me to leap out of their way.

 

It's about being sensible and courteous....... Many cyclist are. Many are not. Same applies to boaters. Same applies to anglers.............

 

A walker or boater who thinks the policy on BW towpath cycling is wrong should attempt to get that policy changed, not to enforce their will on those they object to by for example staying 3 abreast in front of a cyclist and refusing to budge. If I felt motorway speeds should not exceed 30mph, I still would not team up with other like minded drivers to occupy all lanes at that speed to force others to do what I thought was right.

 

A cyclist who is using a permitted part of the towpath sensibly, and following the rules currently has as much right to be there as any other class of canal user. People may not like it, but that's life.

[NB Alnwick]

>snip<

 

Same is true of parts of both Southern and Northern Oxford, and it also acknowledges poor conditions on parts where it is allowed. Some of the remarks made on here seem reasonable enough in such cases, but other tow-paths are more than equal to regular (sensible!) bike use, and over considerable distances.

 

>snip<

 

I love it when BW state that a towpath is open for 'cycling' but adds the condition that "Take extra care - towpath is narrow. Do not speed. Dismount when encountering other users." - what sort of cycling is that?

[alan_fincher]

I love it when BW state that a towpath is open for 'cycling' but adds the condition that "Take extra care - towpath is narrow. Do not speed. Dismount when encountering other users." - what sort of cycling is that?

Rather slow ?

 

Not for me, really, but some people cycle slower than I or you walk, (or at least when we haven't smashed some part of our respective bodies!....)

[churchward]

At risk of being controversial, I don't actually have an issue with someone riding a bike, (mountain or otherwise), at (say) 15 mph along some of the wider stretches of the lower GU, or Paddington Arm, if it's a completely clear straight stretch, with a good view ahead. I have a major issue with someone attempting something similar around Hampstead Road Locks, whilst expecting me to leap out of their way.

 

It's about being sensible and courteous....... Many cyclist are. Many are not. Same applies to boaters. Same applies to anglers.............

 

A walker or boater who thinks the policy on BW towpath cycling is wrong should attempt to get that policy changed, not to enforce their will on those they object to by for example staying 3 abreast in front of a cyclist and refusing to budge. If I felt motorway speeds should not exceed 30mph, I still would not team up with other like minded drivers to occupy all lanes at that speed to force others to do what I thought was right.

 

A cyclist who is using a permitted part of the towpath sensibly, and following the rules currently has as much right to be there as any other class of canal user. People may not like it, but that's life.

I tend to agree.

 

People are people, some good some bad and belonging to a certain group like boater, cyclist etc. doesn't mean they are more likely to be one or the other. It is just that human nature likes to pigeon hole folk. People are not that one dimensional for instance it is quite possible that a boater is also a cyclist, angler, dog and cat owner plus many other things.

[Derek R.]

Permits are not required everywhere

 

This situation is ludicrous. Of what value is a permit where needed when it is issued free of charge? The generation of a document costs, even if that cost is directly passed to the consumer by dint of them having to access, download, and print in their own time and on their own materials - there still has to be someone within the authorising body who has spent time and made such a document available to be downloaded. This is an expense that shows no return. Permits so obtained and never asked to be shown is further indication of the idiocy of such a permit.

 

Does cycling without a permit bring forth a penalty in the form of a fine? If taken to court over such, what judge would issue a charge that is 'fair', when the said permit is free, and is only applicable in certain areas?

 

The re-introduction of licences for dogs would not stop any abuse of dogs and their uses if they were free. Nor would it if they were expensive. The entire charade feeds the legal system and its leeches.

 

It's perfectly ludicrous - but it is BW.

 

LYCRA: It's not normal. The wearing of it smacks of wishing to belong to a clique. It originates from racing where wind resistance needs to be minimised and certain colours represent a team. In all the years I have ridden bicycles - and largely during childhood through puberty into cheap transport to and from work - I have never worn out any item of clothing used, none of it Lycra. Yet I have worn out several saddles, and two seemingly covered in a Lycra like material - ripped to pieces. Am I that abrasive?

 

Apart from the 'clique' attraction, there is the desire to show off the figure. Very nice for others if the Lycra adorned is female and attractive, as are young ladies in one piece leathers - not so the beer gut and podge, but the whole scenario smacks of a degree or two of too much aggressiveness in appearance, and being seen as a group apart from the 'remainder' of cyclists - Lycra, fancy helmet, and shades. Is the personality so weak as to need these 'props'?

 

Well, I've been left in charge to feed a fledgling Sparrow and Blue Tit (though it's far from cold) and I thought I'd gee someone up . . . I ought to carry on reading my 'how to make £64,000 a month with no effort' literature really. Then I could buy some Lycra, and set myself apart from the rest of the plebs at the school gates.

 

Derek

[bargemast]

Perhaps I failed to make a distinction between a 'cyclist' who uses a bicycle as a means of transport and the modern trend of riding what many call 'mountain bikes' over rough terrain. And I do not in any way infer that the latter do not have the right to enjoy what they do!

 

When I cycle (usually on the roads), I try to maintain an average speed of between 15 and 20 mph - I know of few (if any) canal towpaths where this would be safe or practical - so in my view towpaths are not "good" for this activity - in fact, from a safety viewpoint, I don't think anyone should be travelling along a canal towpath at a speed much greater than walking pace but there will always be exceptions. Horses could pass safely because the did so at walking pace (although I do not know of many places on our rural canals where they could do so today) - a cyclist who dismounts and proceeds along a canal towpath at walking pace (which is something I often do) is a pedestrian wheeling a bicycle - he/she is not cycling!

 

 

Graham, you are in very good shape if you are trying to maintain a speed of 15 and 20 mph, I'm already more then happy if I can do 15/20 km/h.

I've risked my live many times by riding my bicycle on the roads and being pushed off by trucks or busses meeting on the roads and completely ignoring my presence.

For me the tow-paths are much safer and there's no need for me to do my usual 15/20 km/h there, and I love to see the boats on the canals at the same time, which is really my main reason for riding the tow-paths (with my down-loaded permit).

 

Peter.

[Tiny]

I think the issue is that whether by the tinging of a bell, saying excuse me, or a shout of "coming through", there does seem to be an expectation from many cyclists (and I refrain from any judgement as to whether "many" constitutes a majority, large or small or a minority large or small) that having given some kind of warning of their approach the pedestrian is under some kind of obligation to get out of the way before the cyclist gets there.

 

 

This 'my right of way thing' really annoys us. The idea is that 'As I am on a bike you must move out of my way' is held by the majority of cyclists in Lycra or not. A number of times I have seen family groups with young kids trundling along out front more or less run down innocent walkers. These bikers are not racing, they are doing a reasonable speed as is the walker yet, when they reach the walker they don't want to slow so ting ting - move you for each in turn. Of course when encountering towpath objects,like fishermen, walkers or boater tieing up cyclists could dismount, walk their bike past, then remount (as the BW cyclist code used to imply). But now with BW pushing the twotings thing as London idiots will run anyone down so two tings at least gives you a chance to jump it seems this is the new BW policy for all cycleways ex towpaths everywhere.

So, according to BW on towpaths bikers - who get their horrid solid towpaths to cavort on for no charge are now the first class citizens of the BW towpath while the rest of us are treated like second class citizens. And no matter how nice the cyclist passing it in most cases we get out of his way as it is expected. In this we are not unlike the American slaves before the civil war (If a master rides towards you on a horse jump - he has right of way - you (slave) are nothing.)

[alan_fincher]

LYCRA: It's not normal. The wearing of it smacks of wishing to belong to a clique. It originates from racing where wind resistance needs to be minimised and certain colours represent a team.

It's a view, Derek!

 

The Lycra I used to wear on my "bottom half", (shorts and or leggings), was usually chosen in black, because the last thing I was proud of, even then, was my not so sylph-like figure. I wore it because I didn't get less suitable clothing hooked on to the saddle each time I tried to get on or off in a hurry, because it stayed out the way of the pedals, and because it dried out very quickly when it got wet, and I didn't get chafed in the rain. (It also washes and dries very easily and economically after a bathing in mud)

 

The Lycra I used to wear on my "top half" was on the other hand often chosen in the brightest yellows or oranges. I did this not to ruin the vista on the towpath, but because when riding roads I found blind idiots in motor vehicles, (and even pedestrians just stepping of pavements), were far more likely to see I was there.

 

If I was part of a "stay dry, stay comfortable and stay alive" clique, I'm happy to have been in that clique. Only the extra stone I'm currently carrying might stop me inflicting it on the world at the moment!

 

In this we are not unlike the American slaves before the civil war (If a master rides towards you on a horse jump - he has right of way - you (slave) are nothing.)

I really can't believe where this thread is going! I must get back to fitness, get on the old bike again, and go and massacre a few tow-path "slaves" it seems! I'm smiling, because I really can't take such comment seriously!

[Tiny]

It's a view, Derek!

 

The Lycra I used to wear on my "bottom half", (shorts and or leggings), was usually chosen in black, because the last thing I was proud of, even then, was my not so sylph-like figure. I wore it because I didn't get less suitable clothing hooked on to the saddle each time I tried to get on or off in a hurry, because it stayed out the way of the pedals, and because it dried out very quickly when it got wet, and I didn't get chafed in the rain. (It also washes and dries very easily and economically after a bathing in mud)

 

The Lycra I used to wear on my "top half" was on the other hand often chosen in the brightest yellows or oranges. I did this not to ruin the vista on the towpath, but because when riding roads I found blind idiots in motor vehicles, (and even pedestrians just stepping of pavements), were far more likely to see I was there.

 

If I was part of a "stay dry, stay comfortable and stay alive" clique, I'm happy to have been in that clique. Only the extra stone I'm currently carrying might stop me inflicting it on the world at the moment!

 

 

I really can't believe where this thread is going! I must get back to fitness, get on the old bike again, and go and massacre a few tow-path "slaves" it seems! I'm smiling, because I really can't take such comment seriously!

 

Try standing on a towpath near Bath!

[Henhouse]

Try standing on a towpath near Bath!

 

 

Try going for a gentle, peaceful, condiderate cycle near Bath. Or even a walk. I have been nearly run over / into on a few occasions.

As with so much in life it is the stupid few who will spoil it for everyone else.

 

 

Given that in the current economic environment it is almost certain that BW will suffer again. I think it is vital that everyone who enjoys the canals and what they offer should be getting behind the cause to argue for the cuts to be as small as possible.

 

The days of the working boats are all but gone. Leisure Boaters already pay enough for usage of the system. The Towpaths are freely available for all, both young and old. A great resource, of historical and architectural significance. As such, there is a strong case for central government support to continue.

 

Whether we be Boaters, Walkers, Cyclists, or Anglers we should be uniting to promote what we love so much.

[Natalie Graham]

I'm baffled by this attitude towards cyclist wearing lycra cycle clothing. What on earth is wrong with people wearing the clothes specifically designed for the activity in question? Just because you are not a Tour standard rider doesn't mean you need to make it harder for yourself by not wearing the most suitable clothing. OK I could understand it if people were talking about men getting dressed up in brightly coloured matching shirts and short trousers instead of jeans and pullovers or a suit and tie to play football, I mean, that would just be ridiculous, next thing you know cricketers will be wearing white trousers and pullovers and big gloves and pads on their legs. Where will it end?

[Henhouse]

I'm baffled by this attitude towards cyclist wearing lycra cycle clothing.

 

In my experience it is generally persons from within this group who travel at speed without regard or consideration for others. Their primary objective appears to be cycling, as opposed to taking in and enjoying the canalside scenery and environment.

[alan_fincher]

Their primary objective appears to be cycling, as opposed to taking in and enjoying the canalside scenery and environment.

Trust me, it's fully possible to enjoy both the cycling and the surroundings.

 

I've tried it both in Lycra, and without, and the canal and the environment looks equally good either way - no discernible difference really.

 

But if I was (say) cycling the near 50 miles from home into central London, the proper clothing certainly makes the whole thing a bit easier and more pleasant.

 

If I were just going a mile or two I'd probably not bother.

 

Mind you the last time I went cycling I did it in "boating" clothes and ended up in hospital with a pelvis fractured in 3 places and a broken elbow on top, and have not been able to get on a bike since, (yet!). If I'd had my helmet on, it would not have happened, as my injuries were because a highly unsuitable boating hat managed to blow off my head.

[BlueStringPudding]

Perhaps I failed to make a distinction between a 'cyclist' who uses a bicycle as a means of transport and the modern trend of riding what many call 'mountain bikes' over rough terrain. And I do not in any way infer that the latter do not have the right to enjoy what they do!

 

When I cycle (usually on the roads), I try to maintain an average speed of between 15 and 20 mph - I know of few (if any) canal towpaths where this would be safe or practical - so in my view towpaths are not "good" for this activity - in fact, from a safety viewpoint, I don't think anyone should be travelling along a canal towpath at a speed much greater than walking pace but there will always be exceptions. Horses could pass safely because the did so at walking pace (although I do not know of many places on our rural canals where they could do so today) - a cyclist who dismounts and proceeds along a canal towpath at walking pace (which is something I often do) is a pedestrian wheeling a bicycle - he/she is not cycling!

 

Around Chester they ride like maniacs because parts of it, especially nearer town, have a concrete surface. You do have to leap out of the way.

[Derek R.]

The key words are given on Waterscape:

 

"By accepting this cycle permit, you are agreeing to follow the Waterways Code, and to cycle only on those stretches of towpath classified as open to cyclists."

 

In other words, if you have downloaded the permit you are bound by BW's rules. But if you do not have permit (or are in London where you do not need one), you are in effect not bound by BW's rules. In theory you are breaking the bylaws, but the chances of BW successfully prosecuting you for that are virtually nil.

 

David

 

Precisely. Enter their playground and willingly submit to their ineffective rules, and you submit to getting knobbled by them. Enter it and spurn their ineffective rules, and you do not submit to getting knobbled by them. You have a choice. Some rules are justworthy - discharging fire-arms and tampering with equipment, but seeking a permit that is a pure paperwork/electronic procedure aimed at nothing more than appearing to 'allow' a certain practice which can be carried out with or without said permit in practical terms and which affects no one if carried out in a safe and reasonable manner, is totally pointless. It's a 'paper' exercise for little Hitlers. Holding a permit does not give one permission to ride like a maniac (though some may think so), and ridden considerately with or without permit - who's bothered?

 

Natalie, you can wear all the lycra you like - I promise I will not object.

 

Alan, was it not that you were 'not' wearing your helmet that may have helped cause your accident - but that your hat was not secured? And had you no hat at all?

 

Derek

Edited July 6, 2010 by Derek R.

[mayalld]

I'm baffled by this attitude towards cyclist wearing lycra cycle clothing. What on earth is wrong with people wearing the clothes specifically designed for the activity in question?

 

There is nothing wrong as such with wearing clothing specifically designed for an activity.

 

However;

• There is a strong (but NOT absolute) correlation between the wearing of lycra and inconsiderate behaviour
  
• Surely lycra clothing was specifically designed for the purpose of riding a bicycle fast, an activity that is incompatible with the towpath environment
  
• Do those who wear it realise how SILLY they look?