Inconsiderate cycling is a bigger problem than overstayers ?

[Arthur Marshall]

Actually, this thread reminds me of the one about MK. Strikes me someone's got bored because of the weather and started a controversial thread cos they wanted a bit of fun... Waste of time, but it's wet outside.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Arthur Marshall

[kris88]

Actually, this thread reminds me of the one about MK. Strikes me someone's got bored because of the weather and started a controversial thread cos they wanted a bit of fun... Waste of time, but it's wet outside.

Well your wrong, I think inconsiderate cycling is one of the biggest issues facing towpath users. Definitely a more immediate problem than overstaying. So I've started a thread to discus solutions, so if you think it's a waste of time please don't post.

 

Regards Kris

[valrene9600]

So what would you suggest as a solution to this problem?

 

 

Regards Kris

Now Kriss you often ask people to keep up and read all the posts so perhaps from now on you will understand when people post like you have.

I suggested twice that speed humps would work. No one to get hurt confronting the cyclists just a silent deterrent that causes them to slow or buckle a wheel. Remind me of your solution.

All the best for the new year.

Well your wrong, I think inconsiderate cycling is one of the biggest issues facing towpath users. Definitely a more immediate problem than overstaying. So I've started a thread to discus solutions, so if you think it's a waste of time please don't post.

 

Regards Kris

NOT a waste of time in my opinion, good discussion subject.

[kris88]

My solution was for more education,and the establishment of towpath warden/ranger roles.

 

 

Regards Kris

Edited December 26, 2015 by kris88

[alan_fincher]

I think you'll find Sustrans aren't impressed with crt. Something to do with feeling they didn't get value for money. So I don't think there's any danger of them giving crt a big chunk of money again.

 

Presumably you cam quote some reliable sources that support that claim?

 

Can you?

[GUMPY]

So what would suggest doing? Nothing ? Just let the speeding cyclists rule the towpaths, to the detriment of every other user.

 

Random lengths of 4x2 Buried in the towpath would slow them down.

put all dredging on the towpaths as BW used to do.

Allow towpaths to become muddy quagmires once again

[kris88]

Presumably you cam quote some reliable sources that support that claim?

 

Can you?

I wouldn't put any names to it no, because I never asked if I could put the imformation in the public domain. Why don't you ask Sustrans?

 

Regards Kris

[valrene9600]

My solution was for more education, the establishment of towpath warden/ranger roles.

 

 

Regards Kris

The speeding towpath cyclists are to thick to be educated. A warden/ ranger would have no legal standing. What would they do wrestle them to the ground and handcuff them. Remember no registration plates to identify them so if they give or refuse to give name etc your warden/ranger can do nought.

 

I can cycle at full speed stop for the warden give false details and speed off.......untill i get to the speed hump then no one has to tell me my wheel will buckle unless i slow down.

[kris88]

Random lengths of 4x2 Buried in the towpath would slow them down.

put all dredging on the towpaths as BW used to do.

Allow towpaths to become muddy quagmires once again

I'd go for the last one.

 

Regards Kris

 

I can cycle at full speed stop for the warden give false details and speed off.......untill i get to the speed hump then no one has to tell me my wheel will buckle unless i slow down.

 

Unless I use the speed bump as a jump to get some air.

 

Regards Kris

[valrene9600]

I'd go for the last one.

 

Regards Kris

 

 

Unless I use the speed bump as a jump to get some air.

 

Regards Kris

They would be thin so no chance of that.

[alan_fincher]

A major point that many seem to be missing is that a the Government have placed a heavy remit on CRT to increase public footfall (or, in this case, "wheelfall") on our tow-paths as part of the whole deal that went with the migration from public body to charitable trust.

 

People, (and specifically boat owners, I guess), may not like that, but it is a fact we now have to live with, and it will not suddenly be changed by banning certain classes of visitors from our tow-paths - that isn't going to happen, because it goes completely against their remit.

 

The fact that incoming waterways managers appointed by CRT have backgrounds in tourism and attractions management is a pretty fair indication of where CRT are determined that things have to go.

 

CRT have little or no funds to maintain or upgrade tow-paths themselves, and are continually looking for any third parties that will provide some funding. From my observation, they will seize any such opportunity wherever they can grab, it, because it means monies they would not otherwise attract. They are quite open that they have upgraded paths that are already in far better condition than others that desperately need improvement, because the body funding it is only interested in doing it on a length of canal that they specify.

We are likely to see our tow-paths increasingly used by more walkers, angler, cyclists, etc, and it is something that we as boat owners have little choice but to accept, because the government funding model for CRT is not to just provide an exclusive facility to just some very small percentage of the population, (boat owners), but to make the amenity available to as many people as they possibly can.

[system 4-50]

If you establish the idea in cyclists' minds that boaters are happy to damage cyclist's equipment then some of them will retaliate by damaging boater's equipment. It is not a civilised way to proceed.

I am happy to let the powers that be monitor the situation and react if they consider the level of harm done excessive. I do not need to continuously judge the operation of all aspects of life, even though I know that they are mostly not perfect.

Meanwhile I will concentrate on ensuring that my boating and my cycling are done with consideration, & respect for the rules, such as they are, to the limits of my ability.

Edited December 26, 2015 by system 4-50

[alan_fincher]

I wouldn't put any names to it no, because I never asked if I could put the imformation in the public domain. Why don't you ask Sustrans?

 

Regards Kris

 

Ah, it is difficult to argue with something that is secret.

 

I follow schemes that go on with some interest, and I see no evidence of Sustrans loosing interest in canals as future routes. However by no means all such schemes are Sustrans initiatives, of course - pleanty of toe-path upgrades are funded by other (non CRT) sources.

[kris88]

A major point that many seem to be missing is that a the Government have placed a heavy remit on CRT to increase public footfall (or, in this case, "wheelfall") on our tow-paths as part of the whole deal that went with the migration from public body to charitable trust.

 

People, (and specifically boat owners, I guess), may not like that, but it is a fact we now have to live with, and it will not suddenly be changed by banning certain classes of visitors from our tow-paths - that isn't going to happen, because it goes completely against their remit.

 

The fact that incoming waterways managers appointed by CRT have backgrounds in tourism and attractions management is a pretty fair indication of where CRT are determined that things have to go.

 

CRT have little or no funds to maintain or upgrade tow-paths themselves, and are continually looking for any third parties that will provide some funding. From my observation, they will seize any such opportunity wherever they can grab, it, because it means monies they would not otherwise attract. They are quite open that they have upgraded paths that are already in far better condition than others that desperately need improvement, because the body funding it is only interested in doing it on a length of canal that they specify.

We are likely to see our tow-paths increasingly used by more walkers, angler, cyclists, etc, and it is something that we as boat owners have little choice but to accept, because the government funding model for CRT is not to just provide an exclusive facility to just some very small percentage of the population, (boat owners), but to make the amenity available to as many people as they possibly can.

So we just have to accept speeding cyclists? You seem to be forgetting that inconsiderate cyclists are having an effect on other user groups experience of the towpath.( walkers, anglers, families on days out even other cyclists) I thought these are the groups that crt are trying to attract. If there experience is coloured by inconsiderate cyclists, how is this going to help the continued survival of the waterways.

 

Regards Kris

[dmr]

A major point that many seem to be missing is that a the Government have placed a heavy remit on CRT to increase public footfall (or, in this case, "wheelfall") on our tow-paths as part of the whole deal that went with the migration from public body to charitable trust.

 

People, (and specifically boat owners, I guess), may not like that, but it is a fact we now have to live with, and it will not suddenly be changed by banning certain classes of visitors from our tow-paths - that isn't going to happen, because it goes completely against their remit.

 

The fact that incoming waterways managers appointed by CRT have backgrounds in tourism and attractions management is a pretty fair indication of where CRT are determined that things have to go.

 

CRT have little or no funds to maintain or upgrade tow-paths themselves, and are continually looking for any third parties that will provide some funding. From my observation, they will seize any such opportunity wherever they can grab, it, because it means monies they would not otherwise attract. They are quite open that they have upgraded paths that are already in far better condition than others that desperately need improvement, because the body funding it is only interested in doing it on a length of canal that they specify.

 

We are likely to see our tow-paths increasingly used by more walkers, angler, cyclists, etc, and it is something that we as boat owners have little choice but to accept, because the government funding model for CRT is not to just provide an exclusive facility to just some very small percentage of the population, (boat owners), but to make the amenity available to as many people as they possibly can.

 

Yes, but for boaters the cyclists are mostly just a major irritation, but for walkers, dog walkers, and fishermen they are a very serious problem.

A big issue is that cyclists, who visit a good quality surface rather than visiting a canal, may well deter the other users who genuinely want to visit the canal.

I believe that a recent survey showed that dog walkers are the largest tow path user group, but how long before cyclists make dog walking impossible?

 

edit to add... interesting cross post with Kris, he's not always right, but sometimes he is!

 

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

Edited December 26, 2015 by dmr

[kris88]

Ah, it is difficult to argue with something that is secret.

 

I follow schemes that go on with some interest, and I see no evidence of Sustrans loosing interest in canals as future routes. However by no means all such schemes are Sustrans initiatives, of course - pleanty of toe-path upgrades are funded by other (non CRT) sources.

I have no intention of betraying a friend on the Internet thanks. I seem to remember you using a similar reason for non-disclosure on numerous occasions, so you'll understand. If you'd like to do some research, you could see if Sustrans has given crt any money. After the initial 6million or so they gave, just after crt had been formed. The other funding sources for towpath improvements are European money I believe. Something called connecting communities, that local authorities apply for. I'd be interested to know if there are any other funding sources being accessed at the moment for these projects.

 

Regards kris

[alan_fincher]

So we just have to accept speeding cyclists? You seem to be forgetting that inconsiderate cyclists are having an effect on other user groups experience of the towpath.( walkers, anglers, families on days out even other cyclists) I thought these are the groups that crt are trying to attract. If there experience is coloured by inconsiderate cyclists, how is this going to help the continued survival of the waterways.

 

Regards Kris

 

Yes, but for boaters the cyclists are mostly just a major irritation, but for walkers, dog walkers, and fishermen they are a very serious problem.

A big issue is that cyclists, who visit a good quality surface rather than visiting a canal, may well deter the other users who genuinely want to visit the canal.

I believe that a recent survey showed that dog walkers are the largest tow path user group, but how long before cyclists make dog walking impossible?

 

My intention was not to try and justify or defend a situation, although I stand by my statement that I personally have visited many many miles of tow-path, and generally have not had many major issues with cyclists outside of the biggest conurbations.

 

Clearly there is the potential for conflicts about usage, nobody I think disputes that, but from my observations one of the primary sources of funding for tow-path upgrades is organisations that are in some way promoting cycling. I don't see anything like the same levels of funding coming from associations promoting walking or dog walking.

 

CRT will not generally turn down external funding if it is offered - they see it as a lifeline to being able to do things they can not otherwise possibly find budget for.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

As a boater, pedestrian and cyclist I would suggest that the most effective way of slowing the cyclists down is by some means that does not require any enforcement. When upgrading the towpaths they should be made into gravel paths. This is a surface that is comfortable for walkers, wheelchairs with thicker tyres can use them without too much difficulty as can mobility scooters and mountain bikes would be able to use them and since they travel slower than road bikes they are less of a problem. What would have difficulty using them would be the general purpose road bikes since, with narrower tyres, they will sink into the gravel which will make their progress slower. There is no point in talking of any form of enforcement because there is no legislation to support it

 

The worst possible idea for towpath upgrades is to use either tarmac or concrete since if you give the cyclist a firm surface they will ride faster (a bit like building a motorway and then being surprised that people travel faster than 30mph on it). Again this isn't in support of idiot cyclists, it is just seeing things as they are rather than some airy fairy notion of how they should be.

[Paul C]

So what would you suggest as a solution to this problem?

 

 

Regards Kris

 

One solution would be to "do nothing" - ie instead of developing the towpaths to be flatter and wider, leave them as grassy/muddy and somewhat narrow (yes I know the width varies a lot nationally). Thus, the keener cyclists can still use them albeit at a slower pace, there won't be such an upsurge of cycling on the towpaths and other users eg dogs and their walkers; joggers; fishermen; and even the occasional boater (when they're not on the boat) are able to share the public facility.

 

There's definitely some places where cycling needs to be restricted (possibly to cyclists pushing their bikes, so they can transit the route without diversion) but these are the exception not the rule and items such as kissing gates, signage, etc should be adequate for all except the most determinedly antisocial cyclists.

[Richard Fairhurst]

you could see if Sustrans has given crt any money. After the initial 6million or so they gave, just after crt had been formed

 

Could you point to that £6m that "Sustrans gave CRT", please?

[metanoia]

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

Greenie

[metanoia]

One solution would be to "do nothing" - ie instead of developing the towpaths to be flatter and wider, leave them as grassy/muddy and somewhat narrow (yes I know the width varies a lot nationally). Thus, the keener cyclists can still use them albeit at a slower pace, there won't be such an upsurge of cycling on the towpaths and other users eg dogs and their walkers; joggers; fishermen; and even the occasional boater (when they're not on the boat) are able to share the public facility.

 

There's definitely some places where cycling needs to be restricted (possibly to cyclists pushing their bikes, so they can transit the route without diversion) but these are the exception not the rule and items such as kissing gates, signage, etc should be adequate for all except the most determinedly antisocial cyclists.

Quite agree - so really disappointed to see the current "upgrading" of the towpath between Skipton and Bradley on the L&L - a lovely though busy stretch - if it is upgraded to their terms it will be the end for the family outings, Sunday walkers etc - already witnessed signs (Jue 2015) stating "towpath unsuitable for cyclists" presumably hoisted by desperate locals?

[dmr]

 

 

My intention was not to try and justify or defend a situation, although I stand by my statement that I personally have visited many many miles of tow-path, and generally have not had many major issues with cyclists outside of the biggest conurbations.

 

Clearly there is the potential for conflicts about usage, nobody I think disputes that, but from my observations one of the primary sources of funding for tow-path upgrades is organisations that are in some way promoting cycling. I don't see anything like the same levels of funding coming from associations promoting walking or dog walking.

 

CRT will not generally turn down external funding if it is offered - they see it as a lifeline to being able to do things they can not otherwise possibly find budget for.

 

CaRT think they are getting a very good deal out of Sustrans, and other cycling groups, because they are funding the development of the towpaths.

So, tongue in cheek, I have a proposal for CaRT: I have found a nice bit of towpath on the K&A, if you give me permission I will build a house for myself there and will pay the building costs myself. It might cause some inconvenience to other towpath users but I have paid for it and so I expect you to fully support me in any disputes. I also expect you to help me to maintain my house in the future.

 

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

[peterboat]

As a boater, pedestrian and cyclist I would suggest that the most effective way of slowing the cyclists down is by some means that does not require any enforcement. When upgrading the towpaths they should be made into gravel paths. This is a surface that is comfortable for walkers, wheelchairs with thicker tyres can use them without too much difficulty as can mobility scooters and mountain bikes would be able to use them and since they travel slower than road bikes they are less of a problem. What would have difficulty using them would be the general purpose road bikes since, with narrower tyres, they will sink into the gravel which will make their progress slower. There is no point in talking of any form of enforcement because there is no legislation to support it

 

The worst possible idea for towpath upgrades is to use either tarmac or concrete since if you give the cyclist a firm surface they will ride faster (a bit like building a motorway and then being surprised that people travel faster than 30mph on it). Again this isn't in support of idiot cyclists, it is just seeing things as they are rather than some airy fairy notion of how they should be.

best idea to be honest plus the gravel would produce a drier surface

[The Lockie]

How about rumble strips??? Any new resurfacing work could have these set at a distance that makes say anymore than 4MPH jolly uncomfortable for the nether regions of speeding cyclists :-) :-)