Cyclists bad attitude or selfish

[Guest]

Quite

I was thinking of nailing 4x4" pieces of timber to a prayer mat, 10" apart with a 6" nail.

This could quite easily be rolled up and stored on the roof,and deployed on the towpath when required.

Should kill two birds with one stone.

Boater bad attitude or selfish?

[Emerald Fox]

'Road bikers' in Lycra clothing give us real jeans & Carradice saddlebag cycle tourists a tarred brush.

Specialised & Bianchi will never beat Dawes Galaxies.

[Paul C]

For Paul C go look at Facebook Narrowboat Users Group and I hope none of yours are involved in any cycling related mishap.

Come on it must be time to cut the Hawthorn.

 

Tried but gave up the wild goose chase, can you provide the actual link or copy and paste the relevant article?

[jollymoggy]

The cyclists don't bother me but the other day we rescued a bird from the canal, we dried it out and it hopped away onto the towpath later to its mum. Only for a speeding cyclist to run it over. I felt really bad for it!

[Henhouse]

yep it's the old adage of "let's tar everyone with the same brush"

 

I was enjoying a couple of hours out on my old bike the other day, near Hungerford. Usual attire, jeans, flannel shirt, flat cap, and DM boots.

 

A couple of the lycra clad Taliban came zooming up behind me, tinging and dinging away. I just had one of my selective deaf moments, eventually they passed me at Cobblers lock, complaining that I shouldn't be enjoying a smoke whilst cycling !

 

It can sometimes take me 5 hours to do a 12 mile round trip, because I stop and talk to people. Boaters, fishermen, or little old ladies walking their dogs. And I'll always stop and swing a lock gate open for an approaching boat.

 

So, personally, I'd rather not be associated with all other cyclists, or all other men, or all other anything. I'm just me.

[b0atman]

Paul c just had a look at N.U.G it was 9th item down I do not know how to do the computer bits and am not really into computers to that degree that I need to know .

[b0atman]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sarah Talbot

 

18 hrs

.

 

A cyclist ran over my 11 week old kitten this morning. Then rode off when I told him what he had done. When is CRT going to sort out the speed limit for bikes. They are dangerous. The kitten appears to be ok, playing and eating and drinking

 

 

 

 

 

Like · Comment · Share copied and pasted from Narrowboat users group for Paul C to what purpose I do not know ?

[alan_fincher]

A cyclist ran over my 11 week old kitten this morning. Then rode off when I told him what he had done. When is CRT going to sort out the speed limit for bikes. They are dangerous. The kitten appears to be ok, playing and eating and drinking

 

OK, I'll take the bait.....

 

How many 11 week old kittens appear to be "OK, playing, eating and drinking" if genuinely "ran over" by someone on a cycle.

 

Whilst in no way condoning the action of irresponsible cyclists, do you not think the term "ran over" a bit of an exaggeration, given the outcome? If truly "ran over", the kitten would be at least seriously injured, or probably dead, surely?

[Ricco1]

 

OK, I'll take the bait.....

 

How many 11 week old kittens appear to be "OK, playing, eating and drinking" if genuinely "ran over" by someone on a cycle.

 

Whilst in no way condoning the action of irresponsible cyclists, do you not think the term "ran over" a bit of an exaggeration, given the outcome? If truly "ran over", the kitten would be at least seriously injured, or probably dead, surely?

 

The seriousness does seem to be exaggerated, but that doesn't change the inevitability of a serious accident, or a number or serious accidents, in the future. CRT's indifference of this problem amounts to a reckless disregard for public safety.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Ricco1

[alan_fincher]

 

CRT's indifference of this problem amounts to a reckless disregard for public safety.

 

Indifference? What do you actually propose CRT do about it?

 

On London's roads a large police force, cameras, and loads more technology can't do much about the behaviour of the more reckless cyclists, so what on earth can an organisation that has fewer and fewer people on the ground do to police thousands of miles of often rural tow-path.

 

The problem is those cyclists who would probably behave irresponsibly wherever they were, and not CRT's, surely?

 

Is CRT negligent of it's duties because it hasn't erected barriers to stop people attempting to jump narrow locks, or to walk along the handrail at the side of aqueducts?

 

As in most other categorisations of people, (e.g. anglers, walkers, dog owners, runners), some cyclists are plonkers, but a very much greater number actually act responsibly.

[magnetman]

We had a cat when I was a lad. One day it was hit by a car. I saw it and heard it. Thump. Cat got up shortly after and was behaving normally. Does this mean it was not hit by the car?

 

They are quite durable with good balance.

If a child is hit in this way they have a longer distance to fall and a big heavy head to hit on the tarmac

[Paul C]

 

As in most other categorisations of people, (e.g. anglers, walkers, dog owners, runners), some cyclists are plonkers, but a very much greater number actually act responsibly.

 

Most kittens are responsible but you do come across the occasional rogue kitten.

 

[magnetman]

 

 

CRT should issue advice to pedestrians NOT to give wy to fast cyclists. Just let them wait for a gap. I see people diving out the way as if the bike is a holy cow or something

 

Bikes do 'reclaim the streets" and make things difficult for cars so why can't pedestrians do a bit to reclaim towpaths. Normal pleasant cyclists won't mind at all

[alan_fincher]

We had a cat when I was a lad. One day it was hit by a car. I saw it and heard it. Thump. Cat got up shortly after and was behaving normally. Does this mean it was not hit by the car?

 

"Hit", (which may just be glancing contact), is not the same as "ran over" though is it? It says "ran over", not "hit", and that is what I was questioning. I am not disputing it may not have been hit in a way apparently did it no damage.

[Paul C]

Is it possible only the kitten's tail was ran over? A broken tail wouldn't affect the ability of the kitten to eat and drink (as an animal expert, basically, it uses the other end where its mouth is located for these tasks) and after a bit of rest, would probably be able to resume playing activities?

[magnetman]

 

"Hit", (which may just be glancing contact), is not the same as "ran over" though is it? It says "ran over", not "hit", and that is what I was questioning. I am not disputing it may not have been hit in a way apparently did it no damage.

Fair enough alan I see what you mean. Personally I don't particularly like cats at all but I don't think it is acceptable for a bicycle to impact a pet or human on what is in fact a footpath. Imagine how agitated the ramblers would get if all footpaths were tarmacked over and made into cycle superhighways !

 

I know it won't change and I live on an offside mooring anyway but I do think cyclists make the towpaths significantly more dangerous and unrelaxing than they would otherwise be.

 

I do agree crt can't do much about it, its up to the users to assert their own rights to safety in a public environment (which is not a roadway, yet)

 

I had a Raleigh shopper bike briefly before it was stolen from my boat. I was cycling along gently minding my own business and saw a dickhead cyclist in the distance

He was going at a high speed so I pulled towards the safer edge of the path to hope to slow him down

"GET OVER TO THE LEFT!!!OVER TO THE LEFT!! RULES OF THE ROAD!!! He shouted and gesticulated all over the place.

 

 

Oh dear

[Paul C]

I don't think it is acceptable for a bicycle to impact a pet or human on what is in fact a footpath.

 

 

 

Are cyclists allowed or not allowed? I'm confused here.

[The Lockie]

I think CRT could bring a world of pain upon themselves over this. They have a duty of care to their employees and their customers. They have to demonstrate the management and control of risk under their obligations to the Health and safety at work act.

 

Most organisations as part of that compile Risk Assessments for tasks undertaken by employees and (perhaps the relevant bit here) they also have to undertake PSRA's (public safety risk assessments) to ensure they are controlling and minimising risk for the public using their sites.

 

Would love to see those!! FOI request anyone?? And before you ask , no its not going to be me requesting it!! ;-)

[b0atman]

CRT may not be able to do anything about it but I don't think it is the Path fairies laying these go faster tow paths.

Putting obstacles / barriers at the end of all visitor moorings will happen eventually at CRTs expence.

[madcat]

I cycle on the towpath , carefully past boats and stop for pedestians. In my head it's a footpath so me and my bike are in someone else's space .

If I'm on a mission then roads are available for the tanking along stuff.

 

I'm a bit resistant to bullies and pretty deaf these days.

 

I heard a funny tale involving a blade full that suddenly came away a big boat hook and a passing cyclists front wheel . No serious injury , would you tear past somebody hooking off a blade full under a bridge ? I wouldn't . I'm more likely to stop and offer help .

[Señor Chris]

I do think cyclists make the towpaths significantly more dangerous

 

 

Have you any actual evidence for that or is it just your prejudice showing?

 

I've just been reading about the deaths of a woman and young child in a car crash. A driver has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-33420616

 

Then I come here and see the hysterical reaction to a dog being run into on the towpath.

 

I think some perspective is needed.

[magnetman]

 

Are cyclists allowed or not allowed? I'm confused here.

I agree it is confusing but I am pretty sure its a footpath. Of course bikes just use it and it is in effect a cycleway but technically I do believe its a footpath.

 

I would welcome correction on that

 

Have you any actual evidence for that or is it just your prejudice showing?

 

I've just been reading about the deaths of a woman and young child in a car crash. A driver has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-33420616

 

Then I come here and see the hysterical reaction to a dog being run into on the towpath.

 

I think some perspective is needed.

[Paul C]

I agree it is confusing but I am pretty sure its a footpath. Of course bikes just use it and it is in effect a cycleway but technically I do believe its a footpath.

 

I would welcome correction on that

 

As I understand things, it NEVER was a footpath, it was a towpath, which meant horses and the guy who led them used it. Historically, there was no public access to the towpath. But as its intended use faded away in time, access to the public was then permitted. CRUICIALLY, it was NEVER marked or recorded as a "Right of Way" in the same way that a footpath is, ie they are not marked on a Definitive Map or List of Streets (which is how a footpath is typically defined in law). As time went on, it became established as a path which could be used by the public - no distinction was made on whether this was by foot or bicycle. But then BWB/BW (can't remember when) addressed the situation of cycling by 1) not permitting it in some areas and 2) requiring a cyclist to obtain a permit which was to be attached to the bicycle. (2) was dropped quite recently (well, relatively) so the current situation is:

 

- some areas cycling is permitted

- some areas cycling isn't permitted.

 

I'm going to stick my neck out and assume that in areas where the towpath has recently been improved, cycling either already was permitted, or if not, then it was changed to allow cycling to be permitted.

 

So, it would be critical when criticising cycling on a footpath, to establish whether this was indeed being done in a stretch where cycling isn't permitted; or in an area where it is.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Paul C

[madcat]

The ideal is not to run into anybody or creatures . People have been hurt or badly scared by inconsiderate cyclists .

 

I'm so relieved the kitten appears to be ok. I would have been distraught if it was my cat.

 

On the sad issue of road deaths , each one is a tragedy especially for the bereaved. Nobody sets out to hurt or kill but a moments mistake or foolish act can have devastating long term consequences .

[alan_fincher]

 

(2) was dropped quite recently (well, relatively) so the current situation is:

 

- some areas cycling is permitted

- some areas cycling isn't permitted.

 

Can you provide a source that supports that please?

 

I know this has always been a confused area, but the Cycling FAQs page on the CRT site do not seem to make any reference any more to permitted or non-permitted tow-paths.

 

In fact specifically it says.....

 

Is there a map specifically designed for the towpath to see where there is and isn’t a towpath to cycle?

We’re working on it! At the moment we don’t have a map of our towpaths available but we do have a map showing all of our canals and rivers. You can use this to plan your journey and then follow any signs asking you to walk with your bike. You can also see details of any towpath closures by searching through our stoppages and notices section of the site.

 

 

So, I think you are probably wrong about the current situation. I would suggest it is now always allowed, unless there is specific signage saying otherwise, or to ask you to dismount for particular pinch points.