Cyclists bad attitude or selfish

[Henhouse]

 

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.

 

I think you'll find that the towpath has been used as a footpath since day one.

 

A link to 25 drownings going back 200 years. http://www.todmordenandwalsden.co.uk/

 

 

Edit to add, link not going directly to correct page. Click on PEOPLE in index, then LIFE AND DEATH ON ROCHDALE CANAL

Edited July 7, 2015 by Henhouse

[Jess--]

Senor Chis, I believe the point being made is that a towpath with fast cyclists on is significantly more dangerous than a towpath without fast cyclists.

[Paul C]

 

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.....

 

 

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.

 

I don't have a link but simply anecdotally I know there's short stretches with barriers and signage which says (words or symbols to the effect of) "No Cycling". I'm not talking about large areas, but small sections at what you might call pinch points, for example past Middlewich Narrowboats. I see you've done a bit of research yourself and even CRT don't have a proper map detailing all these - so we're all somewhat reliant on existing barriers and signage to indicate these.

[Wanted]

Tow paths should be Uni Cycle only. Problem solved

[Señor Chris]

Senor Chis, I believe the point being made is that a towpath with fast cyclists on is significantly more dangerous than a towpath without fast cyclists.

 

The point I was responding to claimed that cyclists in general created significantly more danger - no mention of speed.

 

I would also like to know what 'significantly more dangerous' actually means in this context. A comparison with the danger of walking/driving on a road would give some idea.

[ditchcrawler]

I think the wording on this Birmingham notice from CRT sums it up nicely,

 

"As part of the wider Birmingham Cycle Revolution project, this section of the canal towpath will be closed to the public to allow towpath resurfacing works to be undertaken. The towpath needs to be closed to ensure the safety of the public. Closure notices with location maps will be placed at access points."

[Guest]

There are good & bad & just plain unsociable boaters, cyclists, dog owners/walkers, fishermen, police officers, CRT wardens, parking wardens, politicians, clergy.........

Exactly that ^^. Makes good news when somebody gets mowed down doesn't it? What if there were reports about how many incidents did not occur on canal banks in a day? Sure some cyclists are arseholes (as in any other sector of human activity) but we spend a great deal of time on the cut, and in my observation most cyclists are careful.

Some wind me up as I am unable to hear the bells these days, and admit to one or two near misses.

[Stephen Sugg]

Can't believe it took until post #30 for some to say "Lycra clad".

Anyway, cycling on the towpath is perfectly safe, lock wheelers have been doing it for years. Just need respect for other users. Some people lack this, but then some car drivers lack respect for cyclists and vice versa, can't please everyone. People are people.

[Morat]

IANAL, but my understanding is that the tow paths are not public rights of way and therefore the access given to cyclists is permissive. This would leave CaRT responsible for the safety of those using the towpath. Am I right?

 

In any event, as a narrowboater and lycra wearing cyclist I think the rule on the towpath should be "Cyclists give way to pedestrians". There's absolutely no glory to be had in speeding down a towpath, they're flat as a pancake and no challenge to either mountain bikers or wannabe time trialists. They're there for pootling!

[Guest]

Can't believe it took until post #30 for some to say "Lycra clad".

Anyway, cycling on the towpath is perfectly safe, lock wheelers have been doing it for years. Just need respect for other users. Some people lack this, but then some car drivers lack respect for cyclists and vice versa, can't please everyone. People are people.

Agreed.

[Ricco1]

 

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.

 

I'm not against cycling, not at all. Actually I'm very much a live and let live type of guy, not one for ever increasing regulation.

 

However:

 

I can't talk for the rest of the country but in my local area some towpaths have been upgraded to smooth tarmac. Whether that was necessary in the first place is a separate argument. It should be obvious to anyone with common sense that such upgrades would result in more and/ or faster cycling. That been the case public safety should have been considered. That's not being a killjoy, it's common sense. It appears that no consideration has been given to safety. Perhaps 'humps' every so often might have been a good idea. At the very least, some signage indicating priority to walkers, a suggested speed limit perhaps, something to warn cyclists that belting down a towpath at top speed is not only inconsiderate, it's also dangerous.

 

 

The reality is that there are no signs whatsoever, no indication as to how anyone should behave in order to be safe and considerate. That, in my opinion, is a blatant disregard of public safety.

[magnetman]

 

The point I was responding to claimed that cyclists in general created significantly more danger - no mention of speed.

 

I would also like to know what 'significantly more dangerous' actually means in this context. A comparison with the danger of walking/driving on a road would give some idea.

What are you on about?

 

How can a canal towpath be compared with a road?

 

Obviously people don't go out for a leisurely stroll with children or pets on a bloody road. What???? roads have nothing to so with this topic.

 

Fact is the towpath is more dangerous with bicycles than it would be without them. Its a generalisation but it is also a fact. And yes I know its a bit of a rant but c'est la vie

 

I'm not against cycling, not at all. Actually I'm very much a live and let live type of guy, not one for ever increasing regulation.

 

However:

 

I can't talk for the rest of the country but in my local area some towpaths have been upgraded to smooth tarmac. Whether that was necessary in the first place is a separate argument. It should be obvious to anyone with common sense that such upgrades would result in more and/ or faster cycling. That been the case public safety should have been considered. That's not being a killjoy, it's common sense. It appears that no consideration has been given to safety. Perhaps 'humps' every so often might have been a good idea. At the very least, some signage indicating priority to walkers, a suggested speed limit perhaps, something to warn cyclists that belting down a towpath at top speed is not only inconsiderate, it's also dangerous.

 

 

The reality is that there are no signs whatsoever, no indication as to how anyone should behave in order to be safe and considerate. That, in my opinion, is a blatant disregard of public safety.

There are some 'pedestrian priority" signs about but they are missing the smiley

[Morat]

Here's an interesting post I just noticed on a cycling forum...

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=91777.0

[Guest]

What are you on about?

 

How can a canal towpath be compared with a road?

 

Obviously people don't go out for a leisurely stroll with children or pets on a bloody road. What???? roads have nothing to so with this topic.

 

Fact is the towpath is more dangerous with bicycles than it would be without them. Its a generalisation but it is also a fact. And yes I know its a bit of a rant but c'est la vie

 

There are some 'pedestrian priority" signs about but they are missing the smiley

Would be even safer without people or water?

[magnetman]

 

Ta

[Paul C]

Would be even safer without people or water?

 

Apparently not...... www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=77463

[Guest]

 

Apparently not...... www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=77463

Point taken. Read "without water" as "filled in" (as was once proposed at Wigan after an unfortunate fatality.)

[Señor Chris]

What are you on about?

 

How can a canal towpath be compared with a road?

 

Obviously people don't go out for a leisurely stroll with children or pets on a bloody road. What???? roads have nothing to so with this topic.

 

Fact is the towpath is more dangerous with bicycles than it would be without them. Its a generalisation but it is also a fact. And yes I know its a bit of a rant but c'est la vie

 

There are some 'pedestrian priority" signs about but they are missing the smiley

 

Fact is canals are more dangerous with boats than without them. A generalisation but also a fact.

 

It is perfectly valid to compare towpaths with roads. If you are going to make sweeping statements about 'significant danger' without any supporting evidence, a comparison with more familiar, quantified dangers is perfectly valid. Otherwise you are just ranting.

 

Anyway, I'm off to watch the Tour.

[Jerra]

 

If truly "ran over", the kitten would be at least seriously injured, or probably dead, surely?

I once saw a single decker coach run over both legs of a 15 year old. He was no worse apart from severe bruising. It strikes me as just as traumatic so perhaps possible.

[Jerra]

Obviously people don't go out for a leisurely stroll with children or pets on a bloody road. What????

You are in the wrong part of the country they do up here.

[MtB]

Tow paths should be Uni Cycle only. Problem solved

 

 

Pashley tricycles would be ok too, IMO.

[larkshall]

Was the dog on a lead and under control?

 

Was the cat on a lead and under control???

 

Links to the actual stories, please, its a bit hasty to blame the cyclist when the dog/cat may have caused the collision.

Was the cyclist on a leash and under control plus insured.

Incidentally what do cyclists pay for using towpaths?

[Wanted]

 

 

Pashley tricycles would be ok too, IMO.

Risky, you could get three cats in one go, a catrick if you will..

[AMModels]

How about the woman in Wigan run down by an inconsiderate cyclist travelling at speed? Some cyclists are a danger to every other person around them including other cyclists. Lycra taliban.... I think that will catch on.

[sirweste]

Storm in a tea cup this.

 

What speed was the kitten doing? Was it's velocity perpendicular to the cyclist's?

Now to take these questions and apply the CanalWorld storm in a teacup system to them:

 

Did the reckless kitten signal before running out from it's ambush position, I bet it didn't. I hear it collided with the front wheel of a frail cyclist who was pootling along slowly. Luckily the cyclist gained control again else they could have been killed. Appauling behavour of he pet and owner, all pets and owners should be either banned from the system or restricted to 1 mph and must wear high vis and signage when ever they are on the towpath.

When are CRT going to impose a training and qualification system for all pet ownership on the canal system, they need to do it soon before they are resonsible for many deaths.