Inconsiderate cycling is a bigger problem than overstayers ?

[kris88]

As in the title, I think the increase in inconsiderate cycling is a bigger obstacle to more people's enjoyment of the canals, than boats overstaying. I also think that the increase in speeding cyclists is more likely to end up with a member of the public being seriously injured,than any infringement of the boating bylaws.

So why are crt continuing to throw out of proportion resorces at a minor issue? Rather than addressing the immediate more serious issue of speeding cyclists.

 

Regards Kris

[comfortably numb]

A fair point, but if CRT were to throw more resources into it how do you suggest they go about it? What measures should they implement etc?

[kris88]

They could have enforcement officers.

 

 

Regards kris

[magpie patrick]

It is rather like mooring problems though - there are some hotspots, popular with pedestrians and cyclists, where there is an issue, but for much of the system there isn't a problem

 

I'm also going to be site specific and say that I am much more comfortable taking Magpie the Elder on the K and A towpath, which is part of the national cycle network, than I am on the Peak Forest, which isn't

 

I will add one further about both issues - why do people pretend that breaking the rules is okay? "Overstaying" may or may not be causing a problem at any given location, but if a sign asks you to move on after 24 hour, 5 days or two weeks why is there this collective "we don't have to and we're not going to"?

 

Same for the cyclists who pelt down the towpath - you probably know you're being a nuisance, so why do it?

[blackrose]

As in the title, I think the increase in inconsiderate cycling is a bigger obstacle to more people's enjoyment of the canals, than boats overstaying.

Perhaps, but antibiotic resistance will be a bigger obstacle to people's enjoyment of the canals than inconsiderate cycling if we're all dead!

 

It's all relative...

[kris88]

Perhaps, but antibiotic resistance will be a bigger obstacle to people's enjoyment of the canals than inconsiderate cycling if we're all dead!

It's all relative...

Nuclear war might be a bigger obstacle, than antibiotic resistance to people's enjoyment of the canals. But I think most people are more likely to encounter an inconsiderate cyclist whilst walking the towpath. Don't you?

 

 

Regards kris

[blackrose]

Nuclear war might be a bigger obstacle, than antibiotic resistance to people's enjoyment of the canals. But I think most people are more likely to encounter an inconsiderate cyclist whilst walking the towpath. Don't you?

 

 

Regards kris

Perhaps, but petty soon antibiotic resistance may affect many more people and much more severely than inconsiderate cyclists.

 

Risk assessments are generally based on impact x likelihood. While the impact of nuclear war is very high, the likelihood of it happening is fairly low. On the other hand the impact of antibiotic resistance is very high and so is its likelihood.

 

Edit: Anyway, for the purposes of this thread I only introduced the subject a festive black joke, so you didn't need to take it seriously.

Edited December 26, 2015 by blackrose

[BWM]

As in the title, I think the increase in inconsiderate cycling is a bigger obstacle to more people's enjoyment of the canals, than boats overstaying. I also think that the increase in speeding cyclists is more likely to end up with a member of the public being seriously injured,than any infringement of the boating bylaws.

So why are crt continuing to throw out of proportion resorces at a minor issue? Rather than addressing the immediate more serious issue of speeding cyclists.

 

Regards Kris

I don't think that these two issues are comparable, even though they both involve selfish behaviour.

[kris88]

Perhaps, but petty soon antibiotic resistance may affect many more people and much more severely than inconsiderate cyclists.

I'm sorry did I come across as serious? May I suggest(as you seem to be so concerned,)not eating meat that is pumped full of antibiotics. Also taking greater care of your own immune system.

 

I still can't help thinking that inconsiderate cyclists are a more immediate infringement on people's enjoyment of the canals, than antibiotic resistance, nuclear war or even overstayers.

 

 

Regards Kris

[NickF]

I think the OP's point is both problems compete fot CRT funds so have to be compared. I am not sure I agree with th OP but that is his point.

Edited December 26, 2015 by NickF

[bassplayer]

As in the title, I think the increase in inconsiderate cycling is a bigger obstacle to more people's enjoyment of the canals, than boats overstaying....

Continuous Moaners are more of a problem. Especially the ones who don't use a boat...

[kris88]

I don't think that these two issues are comparable, even though they both involve selfish behaviour.

 

I think the comparison comes from they both involve the canals, they are both something crt have some responsibility for and as such both take up some of crt's resources.

So how are they not comparable?

 

 

Regards Kris

[Martin Megson]

Maybe overstaying is a minor issue because of enforcement.

[NickF]

I don't own my own boat so perhaps can't see the full argument but up on the Rochdale this year I felt safer moored where the tow path was a cycle route than where it wasn't. The flow of friendly cyclists was reassuring.

[kris88]

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. I am not saying there should be no enforcement, quite the opposite I'm saying why not expand the enforcment departments remit. To include enforcing some of the bylaws on the towpath. At the moment crt don't seem to want to tackle this responsibility they have. In fact from talking to bank staff, when they approach speeding cyclists they get abuse. So much so that management have told them not to approach speeding cyclists. I know this is a growing problem, on all mixed use paths not just towpaths. With all the resurfacing work that is getting done it's only set to get worse. So maybe now is the time crt should start to do something about it. Before someone is killed or seriously injured.

 

 

Regards Kris

[BWM]

I think the comparison comes from they both involve the canals, they are both something crt have some responsibility for and as such both take up some of crt's resources.

So how are they not comparable?

 

 

Regards Kris

As a boater who willingly signed up to a set of rules and expected behaviour the relationship between you and the governing body is clear. A member of the public, cyclist or not, May never have visited the canal and as such is not necessarily aware of rules, etc. Just to clarify, I am certainly not defending thoughtless cyclists or any other badly behaved visitors to our environment.

[NickF]

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. I am not saying there should be no enforcement, quite the opposite I'm saying why not expand the enforcment departments remit. To include enforcing some of the bylaws on the towpath. At the moment crt don't seem to want to tackle this responsibility they have. In fact from talking to bank staff, when they approach speeding cyclists they get abuse. So much so that management have told them not to approach speeding cyclists. I know this is a growing problem, on all mixed use paths not just towpaths. With all the resurfacing work that is getting done it's only set to get worse. So maybe now is the time crt should start to do something about it. Before someone is killed or seriously injured.

 

 

Regards Kris

Now I agree with you Kris, if everyone stuck to the rules it would be better for everyone.

[bassplayer]

Ultimately only the law can be enforced. Have CRT enforcemenet officers got those powers? They certainly have the power to generate fear but that's not the same thing as law enforcement.

[kris88]

In my opinion crt are encouraging lots of new people ,to use the waterways for alsorts of differing activities. As the body responsible for these waterways, they have a duty of care to these people they are encouraging to use their facilities. For instance where are the toilets for all these new towpath users, where are all the extra bins for the rubbish that this increased footfall brings. Their most important duty of care, in my opinion is to do everything they can to ensure their "customers" safety. Which I don't feel they are doing at this moment in time.

 

Regards Kris

[Rickent]

I think a bit of fishing line tied between the two sides of the canal should sort out the problem.

Heads would roll methinks.

[kris88]

Ultimately only the law can be enforced. Have CRT enforcemenet officers got those powers? They certainly have the power to generate fear but that's not the same thing as law enforcement.

 

I agree, I think the point I'm trying to make. Is that crt are being very selective over which bylaws they are choosing to enforce. Even using the "overstaying issue" as a distraction technique, to distract people from the real issues that the waterways face. Of which in my opinion inconsiderate cycling is one.

 

 

Regards Kris

[jenlyn]

I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. I am not saying there should be no enforcement, quite the opposite I'm saying why not expand the enforcment departments remit. To include enforcing some of the bylaws on the towpath. At the moment crt don't seem to want to tackle this responsibility they have. In fact from talking to bank staff, when they approach speeding cyclists they get abuse. So much so that management have told them not to approach speeding cyclists. I know this is a growing problem, on all mixed use paths not just towpaths. With all the resurfacing work that is getting done it's only set to get worse. So maybe now is the time crt should start to do something about it. Before someone is killed or seriously injured.

 

 

Regards Kris

I tend to agree with you about enforcement taking on the role of "policing" the towpath. (i suspect this is an eventuality that will be sooner rather than later).

However, the present system of using volunteers, is quite cheap, but they have no powers.

To "police" the towpath, they would need more employees on the ground.

[Alan de Enfield]

I agree, I think the point I'm trying to make. Is that crt are being very selective over which bylaws they are choosing to enforce. Even using the "overstaying issue" as a distraction technique, to distract people from the real issues that the waterways face. Of which in my opinion inconsiderate cycling is one.

 

 

Regards Kris

Potentially they could enforce the Bye Laws :

 

 

Towing Paths Improper use of towing paths

(1) No person, unless authorised by the Board or otherwise legally entitled so to do shall:

(a) Ride or drive any animal or vehicle over any towing path

(b ) Obstruct any towing path or interfere with the authorised use thereof

 

Under the section 'definitions' we have :

 

“vehicle” means anything on wheels, runners or articulated tracks

 

The question then becomes 'have the Board authorised the use of towing paths by cyclists' by accepting money for the refurbishment of said towpaths.

 

Edit to remove the 'smiley B'

Edited December 26, 2015 by Alan de Enfield

[bassplayer]

I agree, I think the point I'm trying to make. Is that crt are being very selective over which bylaws they are choosing to enforce. Even using the "overstaying issue" as a distraction technique, to distract people from the real issues that the waterways face. Of which in my opinion inconsiderate cycling is one.

 

 

Regards Kris

It's certainly less confrontational to write down a number and feed it into a system which sends out warning notices than to arrest a cyclist for speeding down a tow path.

 

If someone breaks the law (cyclist injures someone) it will be a matter for the police not CRT. Unless the law is changed to set a speed limit on tow paths I don't see what else can be done really.

[kris88]

Potentially they could enforce the Bye Laws :

 

 

The question then becomes 'have the Board authorised the use of towing paths by cyclists' by accepting money for the refurbishment of said towpaths.

B'

I think this is one sticking point, but I don't think it overrides the duty of care that crt has to all of its "customers"

 

Regards Kris

If someone breaks the law (cyclist injures someone) it will be a matter for the police not CRT. Unless the law is changed to set a speed limit on tow paths I don't see what else can be done really.

I think this is the position crt are taking, but if crt aren't the body to take responsibility for the users of the towpath, who is?

 

Regards Kris