Canal or Leisure Park?

[furnessvale]

 

I don't see how CRT could be failing in care. Surely they only need to ensure that the "environment" for users is safe. Not to protect against rule breakers and idiots. people acting in a fashion that endangers the safety of others is surely a matter for the police. I have seen an idiot riding a scramble bike along the towpath in central London, I very much doubt that any regulations would stop brainless gits.

I do not know exactly where this incident occurred but the fact that the majority of canal towpaths do not meet the DfT code of practice for shared paths must surely have some bearing on CRT liability seeing as how they allow, and even actively promote, their shared use?

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[AMModels]

The author seems to have seized on the fact that cycling is being described by the CaRT as a "sporting activity", and helped himself to the conclusion that they must therefore want to encourage overtly "sporty" forms of cycling (racing, speed trials etc.). Plainly they don't want to do this, however, since they are actively pushing a new "Share the Space, Drop your Pace" campaign in an effort to ensure that towpaths are safely shared by a variety of users (boaters, pedestrians, anglers, cyclists, joggers, dog walkers). If they're getting actively involved in delivering taster days and courses to cyclists wanting to use the canals, that seems like an ideal opportunity to ensure that cyclists are well-informed about appropriate speeds, giving way to pedestrians and boaters, etc.

 

So this looks to me like nothing more than a manufactured scandal designed to push an anti-CaRT agenda.

 

In answers to the OP's question, "Canal or Leisure Park": the canals have no future as an exclusive leisure facility for a few tens of thousands of boating enthusiasts, any more than they have a future as a network for the transportation of goods. If they're going to survive and thrive, it will be because the non-boating 99% of the population value them as places to go walking, cycling, fishing etc., as habitats for wildlife, and as part of our industrial heritage.

if thats the case how are they going to get cyclists to pay for the upkeep the same way they charge boaters/anglers/canoeists? If they arent then cyclists are leeches on the backs of users who pay for the system surely?

[mark99]

 

But we generally are not the mugs paying (or at least not to CRT).

 

Nearly all these tow-path improvements are externally funded by bodies other than CRT. This is why it is often not the worst bits of tow-path that get improved, (e.g. Leighton Buzzard, where the local funding is only available if used in Leighton Buzzard, otherwise not on offer).

 

The Sports Participation Manager, Joe Sammon, is from my understanding a fixed term contract post funded by something like (from memory) Sport England, so again not funded I think from CRT coffers.

 

The article is the usual anti CRT spin from Allan Richards - why are CRT encouraging speeding cyclists by such an appointment? They are not, of course.

Are the Croxley and Berko improvements funded by external bodies too? Surely as taxpayers we are paying?.

 

Personally I hear more moans when boating from canal users about errant cyclists on towpaths than anything else and I have sympathy. In some areas they are nothing but a persistant pest. A mental overhead that has to be accommodated who treat other towpath users as a nuisance to their progress.

Edited June 5, 2015 by mark99

[magictime]

if thats the case how are they going to get cyclists to pay for the upkeep the same way they charge boaters/anglers/canoeists? If they arent then cyclists are leeches on the backs of users who pay for the system surely?

 

Non-boaters pay more for the upkeep of the system through their taxes than boaters do through licence and mooring fees. They're hardly acting as leeches on the backs of boaters if they then walk or ride their bikes along the towpath.

[GUMPY]

 

Non-boaters pay more for the upkeep of the system through their taxes than boaters do through licence and mooring fees. They're hardly acting as leeches on the backs of boaters if they then walk or ride their bikes along the towpath.

But boaters pay taxes as well so we do pay more....... tax plus licence and mooring fees v taxes only

[jenlyn]

 

Non-boaters pay more for the upkeep of the system through their taxes than boaters do through licence and mooring fees. They're hardly acting as leeches on the backs of boaters if they then walk or ride their bikes along the towpath.

Don't talk rubbish. Your being utterly ridiculous now. Someone did the argument on this a while back, and I think each person was credited with a few pence or something like that.

Your statement is totally off the wall.

 

You need to accept that when something is not right, there may well need to be a reminder sent. This of course can be quite hard hitting, and sometimes even justified.

Edited June 5, 2015 by jenlyn

[churchward]

I do feel sorry for the lady in the photo we would all be angry and distressed if it was us or someone we knew.

 

I do agree we those that say it is about being inconsiderate of others rather than being cycling overall and sharing the space with others.

 

I also think that CRT do have to be innovative in use of the system to invite in and (hopefully) gain new means of income. A sports event is possible but if a competitive event it woudl need to be marshalled etc and quite possibly sections of towpath closed for the duration of the event. This is what would happen if it was a road race potentially. We have a motor rally going through some lanes around us in the next few weeks and this will mean road closing for a while and marshals to make sure people do not come to harm.

 

There needs to be balance of use of the canal system too otherwise we stand to lose the unique flavour of its environment and history. Sports events and towpath closers all the time everywhere would not be good. But we all do need to share nicely.

[churchward]

 

Non-boaters pay more for the upkeep of the system through their taxes than boaters do through licence and mooring fees. They're hardly acting as leeches on the backs of boaters if they then walk or ride their bikes along the towpath.

It is true that collectively the tax payer pays more than the total of boat licences but these groups are not mutually exclusive (ie boaters can be tax payers too and so on). On an individual level the boater will pay much more than an individual taxpayer. Depending on how one works it out a taxpayer is paying somewhere between 50p and £1 each or maybe less each year.

 

Boaters contribute around 20-30% or a bit less of CRTs income (again depending on how you work it out) and the government pays a similar chunk ( a bit more)

 

So what I think this really tells us is two things the canal system is not paid for and the domain exclusively of boaters and it is a resource of the nation that is to be shared. However, given that the boater is a significant contributor they need to be listened to for their needs and also preservation/restoration of navigation along with the inherent heritage it all comes with.

[Tuscan]

But we generally are not the mugs paying (or at least not to CRT).

 

Nearly all these tow-path improvements are externally funded by bodies other than CRT. This is why it is often not the worst bits of tow-path that get improved, (e.g. Leighton Buzzard, where the local funding is only available if used in Leighton Buzzard, otherwise not on offer).

 

The article is the usual anti CRT spin from Allan Richards - why are CRT encouraging speeding cyclists by such an appointment? They are not, of course.

The appointment in itself does not encourage speeding, however the external funding obtained is dependant upon turning the towpath into a smooth treated pathway which by its very nature results in cyclists cycling faster than they previously would have been able to do. The question is are these cycle ways with free pedestrian access or footpaths which cyclists are permitted to use. If it's the latter they should be promoted as such.

[MtB]

The way I think it will pan out is towpath pedestrians will gradually learn that better maintained sections of towpath are not particularly safe due to speeding cyclists, and walking on them is no different from walking on a designated cycle track.

 

Next, CRT will give up trying to educate meat-headed cyclists into going slow near pedestrians as it is an impossible task, and revert to putting up signs warning pedestrians to watch out for fast moving cyclists.

 

The final step will be for the pedestrians hit by speeding cyclists to be blamed, for not paying attention and avoiding the cycle traffic.

[magictime]

But boaters pay taxes as well so we do pay more....... tax plus licence and mooring fees v taxes only

 

No, as a group we still pay less because there are so few of us (tens of thousands of tax plus licence vs. tens of millions of tax only). Individually we pay much more, of course.

 

Don't talk rubbish. Your being utterly ridiculous now. Someone did the argument on this a while back, and I think each person was credited with a few pence or something like that.

Your statement is totally off the wall.

 

You need to accept that when something is not right, there may well need to be a reminder sent. This of course can be quite hard hitting, and sometimes even justified.

 

I'm simply denying that non-boating members of the public, who help to pay for the upkeep of the canal system through their taxes, are acting as leeches on the backs of boaters if they cycle on the towpath. You're not going to defend that point of view, surely?

 

So what if the contribution made by each individual is only a few pence or a few tens of pence? That's how it works when people collectively fund shared resources through their taxes.

 

Yes, for every 2000 non-boating towpath users paying 50p in tax (say) there's one boater paying £1000 in licence fees, and in that sense boaters pay much more. But it's still the case that our heavy use of the waterways infrastructure is being subsidised by the many people who make lighter use of that infrastructure - not the other way around. (Because non-boating towpath users pay more than enough in tax to cover the CaRT's spending on towpaths, while boaters don't pay enough to cover its spending on everything else.)

 

And once again, I have absolutely no problem with alerting the CaRT to problems facing towpath users. I've only taken issue with two specific claims: one, that the CaRT are encouraging cyclists to speed on towpaths, and two, that they have completely ignored all the feedback they've had on this issue.

Edited June 5, 2015 by magictime

[alan_fincher]

The appointment in itself does not encourage speeding, however the external funding obtained is dependant upon turning the towpath into a smooth treated pathway

 

 

Surely you are mixing up two things?

 

(1) The appointment of Joe Sammon.

 

(2) The ongoing improvement of tow paths by external funding by whatever means.

 

I can't see they are that closely related. (2) has been happening for many years now, (long before CRT). (1) can still take place, even if there was no (2).

[Jerra]

 

No, as a group we still pay less because there are so few of us (tens of thousands of tax plus licence vs. tens of millions of tax only). Individually we pay much more, of course.

It needs to be kept in mind that boaters get use of the tow-path locks etc while other canal users only get to use the tow-path so it isn't unfair that the boater as an individual pays more.

[Tuscan]

Surely you are mixing up two things?

 

(1) The appointment of Joe Sammon.

 

(2) The ongoing improvement of tow paths by external funding by whatever means.

 

I can't see they are that closely related. (2) has been happening for many years now, (long before CRT). (1) can still take place, even if there was no (2).

I thought my point was clear enough however perhaps :

 

The upgrading of the towpath to enable cyclists to travel faster ,as indicated by (2) above, may have led to the belief that the appointment of Joe Salmon , as described in (1) above could lead to the greater use of the upgraded towpath , see (2) above for sports related activities.

[magictime]

It needs to be kept in mind that boaters get use of the tow-path locks etc while other canal users only get to use the tow-path so it isn't unfair that the boater as an individual pays more.

 

Absolutely.

 

We get a pretty good deal from the licence fee IMHO. For £20 a week or so, we get to cruise wherever we like using all the costly infrastructure along the way (the canals themselves, the towpaths, the locks, the swing bridges, the aqueducts etc.). There are places to leave our rubbish for collection, to empty our toilet cassettes, to get a shower, to have a barbecue or a picnic. We can moor pretty much wherever we like and enjoy a couple of days or a couple of weeks staying in an appealing town or village, or at a favourite beauty spot. Can you imagine the Caravan Club (say) introducing an analogous £20 a week subscription, giving caravanners the right to pitch up and use the facilities at any of its sites at any time for a short break or holiday? There's no way. But as boaters, we get to enjoy all those benefits at that heavily subsidised price because taxpayers are paying (from memory) £39 million a year towards the upkeep and running of the system.

[bassplayer]

Absolutely.

 

We get a pretty good deal from the licence fee IMHO. For £20 a week or so, we get to cruise wherever we like using all the costly infrastructure along the way (the canals themselves, the towpaths, the locks, the swing bridges, the aqueducts etc.). There are places to leave our rubbish for collection, to empty our toilet cassettes, to get a shower, to have a barbecue or a picnic. We can moor pretty much wherever we like and enjoy a couple of days or a couple of weeks staying in an appealing town or village, or at a favourite beauty spot. Can you imagine the Caravan Club (say) introducing an analogous £20 a week subscription, giving caravanners the right to pitch up and use the facilities at any of its sites at any time for a short break or holiday? There's no way. But as boaters, we get to enjoy all those benefits at that heavily subsidised price because taxpayers are paying (from memory) £39 million a year towards the upkeep and running of the system.

One of the biggest attractions for the public when visiting the waterways is the boats and watching them navigate through locks.....and we don't charge the public for providing entertainment

 

Don't forget most boaters pay a lot more than their licence fee because they have a mooring. Those who pay for a mooring get similar privileges to that of a caravan club where they can stay as long as they like, plug in facilities, more security etc. Once using a CRT facility mooring you are supposed to move on.

 

If I had a camper van and was happy running off my batteries, I could park up in a street each night and just pay my road tax. What I'm saying is that the comparison with the caravan club is similar to that of paying for a mooring.

[furnessvale]

 

Absolutely.

 

We get a pretty good deal from the licence fee IMHO.

I agree that boaters get a pretty good deal from the licence fee.

 

However, it is indisputable that other users get an even better deal.

 

Walkers pay ZERO at point of use.

 

Cyclists pay ZERO at point of use.

 

Anglers pay very little at point of use.

 

The idea that central government pays for walkers, cyclists etc, is a complete red herring. Boaters also pay central taxes as well as point of use charges.

 

The cost of towpath improvement for other users runs into many £millions and is by no means "pin" money.

 

Many so called boater improvements are nothing of the sort. Witness new pontoon moorings at Macclesfield installed at a six figure cost. Very nice, but installed to placate complaining residents at NEW BUILD housing at the existing visitor moorings.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Tony Brooks]

 

The CaRT can issue guidelines, put up signs, erect barriers, lay new surfaces etc., so I'm not going to say there's nothing they can do about the problem - but 'taking action' against cyclists who record times on a website? How? What sort of action? Even if the cyclists had committed some crime (which as far as I know they haven't), that would be a matter for the police, not the CaRT.

 

You may have put your figure on the problem. In much the same way as the EA has a speed limit for boats on the Thames AND ENFORCES IT THROUGH THE COURTS occasionally I would hope that CaRT has a speed limit for cycles. Be it by statute or more probably bylaw/terms and conditions. This is where it gets complicated because it has been claimed that when it was set up Parliament deliberately avoided giving CaRT the power to license cyclists so it may be harder to prove an individual cyclist knew there was a speed limit. This is the first thing CaRT need to address with some urgency. Then they can use the entries on that website as evidence of speeding. They could even set up speed traps - just like the police and community groups do on the road.

 

If it needs a change in the law then so be it. Maybe Parliament could consider making speed enforcement on towpaths a police matter (no that the police would do much but a combination of police and volunteer action might).

 

If you invite someone onto your property and by your failure to act in good time they are injured it is you that could be sued. Your defence might be that the persons actions were so outlandish they could not be foreseen. However CaRT can not mount that defence because they have been told and know about the problem of speeding cyclists.

 

Maybe those who are trying to defend CaRT's apparent inactions should ask themselves why we lock up irresponsibles (criminals) rather than just claim nothing can be done. Something can be done but not by boaters. It's CaRT who are dragging their feet.

[magictime]

One of the biggest attractions for the public when visiting the waterways is the boats and watching them navigate through locks.....and we don't charge the public for providing entertainment

 

Don't forget most boaters pay a lot more than their licence fee because they have a mooring. Those who pay for a mooring get similar privileges to that of a caravan club where they can stay as long as they like, plug in facilities, more security etc. Once using a CRT facility mooring you are supposed to move on.

 

If I had a camper van and was happy running off my batteries, I could park up in a street each night and just pay my road tax. What I'm saying is that the comparison with the caravan club is similar to that of paying for a mooring.

 

Yes, I think non-boaters get a good deal too!

 

I agree that the existing offer at caravan clubs (pay to stay as long as you like in your chosen spot with facilities close at hand) is more like paying for a mooring than paying for a licence. But whether you were paying for a 'home' pitch like that or not, you'd be getting a good deal if for a £20-a-week subscription, you got the deal described above (pitch at any site for a limited time and use the facilties).

 

 

The idea that central government pays for walkers, cyclists etc, is a complete red herring. Boaters also pay central taxes as well as point of use charges.

 

The cost of towpath improvement for other users runs into many £millions and is by no means "pin" money.

 

Many so called boater improvements are nothing of the sort. Witness new pontoon moorings at Macclesfield installed at a six figure cost. Very nice, but installed to placate complaining residents at NEW BUILD housing at the existing visitor moorings.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

 

But the amount paid by non-boating taxpayers to the CaRT, via central government, must far exceed the cost of towpath improvements or improvements such as those new moorings. Hence it's not unreasonable to say that non-boating taxpayers cover the whole cost of towpath maintenance and in fact subsidise the running and maintenance of the rest of the system (the bits used exclusively by boaters). Yes, boaters pay taxes too, but because there are so few of us (relatively speaking) that doesn't change the overall picture.

[Sabcat]

This is an entertaining thread, some people really do want to be wrapped up in cotton wool.

 

Some cyclists are knob heads, most aren't. The cut is either something that the majority of people are going to see the value of, if not enjoy themselves, or it's not going to exist. If the price of that is dealing with the occasional cyclist riding like a prick then it's a small price to pay and pay it we must because the chances of there being any enforcement against speeding cyclists is precisely zero and that's a good thing in my view.

[bassplayer]

Yes, I think non-boaters get a good deal too!

 

I agree that the existing offer at caravan clubs (pay to stay as long as you like in your chosen spot with facilities close at hand) is more like paying for a mooring than paying for a licence. But whether you were paying for a 'home' pitch like that or not, you'd be getting a good deal if for a £20-a-week subscription, you got the deal described above (pitch at any site for a limited time and use the facilties).

 

 

I'd be getting an even better deal with a camper van if I didn't use caravan clubs! Many people living in camper vans find a nice quiet spot in the countryside for nothing....well just road tax.

 

Yes, CC'ers get access to CRT facilities and like everyone else get a good deal but you can't plug in overnight or reserve a pitch. You kind of get what you pay for really. Generally I think the boat licence fee is reasonable but it would probably go a lot further if it was just used on maintaining the infrastructure rather than self perpetuating nonsense. (Oops here I go again)

This is an entertaining thread, some people really do want to be wrapped up in cotton wool.

 

Some cyclists are knob heads, most aren't. The cut is either something that the majority of people are going to see the value of, if not enjoy themselves, or it's not going to exist. If the price of that is dealing with the occasional cyclist riding like a prick then it's a small price to pay and pay it we must because the chances of there being any enforcement against speeding cyclists is precisely zero and that's a good thing in my view.

If you ever decide to stand for a place on the CRT council, I'd vote for you (so long as the meetings get videoed). Brilliant!

[Tony Brooks]

This is an entertaining thread, some people really do want to be wrapped up in cotton wool.

 

Some cyclists are knob heads, most aren't. The cut is either something that the majority of people are going to see the value of, if not enjoy themselves, or it's not going to exist. If the price of that is dealing with the occasional cyclist riding like a prick then it's a small price to pay and pay it we must because the chances of there being any enforcement against speeding cyclists is precisely zero and that's a good thing in my view.

 

So presumably you are in favour of taking no action against the odd "prick" when they are doing 60 in a residential road? No action against the "prick" who is weaving across all the lanes on a motorway? No action against the odd "prick" who attacks you in the street or burgles your home?

 

I agree that at present there is very little chance of any enforcement against speeding cyclists but that does not mean CaRT have no responsibility to seek and extra powers they need to enable them to protect the general public using their property.

[bassplayer]

So presumably you are in favour of taking no action against the odd "prick" when they are doing 60 in a residential road? No action against the "prick" who is weaving across all the lanes on a motorway? No action against the odd "prick" who attacks you in the street or burgles your home?

 

I agree that at present there is very little chance of any enforcement against speeding cyclists but that does not mean CaRT have no responsibility to seek and extra powers they need to enable them to protect the general public using their property.

These are police matters though and they are responsible for maintaining law and order on the waterways too. If a cyclist runs into someone on a towpath they can still get arrested for causing injury. I've had enough of CRT trying to be police thanks, I'd rather them get on with their proper job.

 

Maybe a bit more real police presence on the waterways might help....

[dmr]

This is an entertaining thread, some people really do want to be wrapped up in cotton wool.

 

Some cyclists are knob heads, most aren't. The cut is either something that the majority of people are going to see the value of, if not enjoy themselves, or it's not going to exist. If the price of that is dealing with the occasional cyclist riding like a prick then it's a small price to pay and pay it we must because the chances of there being any enforcement against speeding cyclists is precisely zero and that's a good thing in my view.

 

Although maybe only a small minority of cyclists are complete knobheads in my experience the majority fail to slow down sufficiently when passing walkers unless the narrowness of the towpath forces them to.

 

..............Dave

 

You may have put your figure on the problem. In much the same way as the EA has a speed limit for boats on the Thames AND ENFORCES IT THROUGH THE COURTS occasionally I would hope that CaRT has a speed limit for cycles. Be it by statute or more probably bylaw/terms and conditions. This is where it gets complicated because it has been claimed that when it was set up Parliament deliberately avoided giving CaRT the power to license cyclists so it may be harder to prove an individual cyclist knew there was a speed limit. This is the first thing CaRT need to address with some urgency. Then they can use the entries on that website as evidence of speeding. They could even set up speed traps - just like the police and community groups do on the road.

 

If it needs a change in the law then so be it. Maybe Parliament could consider making speed enforcement on towpaths a police matter (no that the police would do much but a combination of police and volunteer action might).

 

If you invite someone onto your property and by your failure to act in good time they are injured it is you that could be sued. Your defence might be that the persons actions were so outlandish they could not be foreseen. However CaRT can not mount that defence because they have been told and know about the problem of speeding cyclists.

 

Maybe those who are trying to defend CaRT's apparent inactions should ask themselves why we lock up irresponsibles (criminals) rather than just claim nothing can be done. Something can be done but not by boaters. It's CaRT who are dragging their feet.

 

Its good to see Tony posting on canal politics rather than just the technical stuff, This one gets a greeny from me.

 

...............Dave

[jenlyn]

IT never ceases to amaze me how some attempt to use parallels with cars, caravans, the m1, caravan parks etc etc to justify the nonsense they come out with.

 

(Off out to see how much it will cost to have an axle, drive chain, wheels and towhitch added to me fatboat)