Cyclists Rant

[Wanderer Vagabond]

.As I suggested earlier volunteers with speed guns to identify if/where there is a problem then CRT respond by a bit of policing trying to educate cyclists (and possibly runners). When that fails install "cycle calming features, which I am certain can be made and installed in such a way as to be vandal proof.

 

I suspect when this had happened in a few places the message would soon spread.

The enforcement of any supposed speed limit is, I'm afraid a total non starter in the real world. To begin with you'd need to bring in legislation with a speed limit on the towpaths, who'd be responsible for any enforcement? The Police? not a chance they've got a lot bigger fish to fry with a lot less manpower to fry them with so don't even bother asking. CRT? as has repeatedly been stated on these threads they don't even have any power to enforce overstaying charges so what is the remote chance of them being able to enforce any penalties for cycling too fast? On the other hand if they were bringing in new legislation to enforce such cycling speed limits they could bring in other penalties on the back of that (correct me if I'm wrong but they cannot charge penalties at the moment, merely try to enforce civil charges with varying amounts of success). You may need to be careful what you wish for since, if CRT were going to the government to bring in new canal related legislation, who knows what else they might tag onto it? Criminal offence of overstaying?

[Jerra]

The enforcement of any supposed speed limit is, I'm afraid a total non starter in the real world. To begin with you'd need to bring in legislation with a speed limit on the towpaths,

Why can't CRT just have a rule/regulation call it what you will which says the speed limit is x. I think the canal I referred too in Edinburgh has a 6 MPH limit but I am not certain. I doubt they have separate legislation. I explained how I would enforce it.

[magnetman]

The CRT have to make it clear before they go into any arrangements with the likes of Sustrans that there must be cyclist calming measures. Something will have to be done eventually or CRT will end up not attracting the wide range of the public they are supposed to be attracting.

So anyway...

 

This is a good point. Nobody knows how many people decide 'on balance' not to visit the towpath because of a perceived danger from other users (even if cyclists don't actually injure people the 'threat' level can appear significant in some areas). This is an invisible group of people who would otherwise love to use the towpath for pleasure.

 

 

Its just not relaxing to have to be on guard all the time while walking down a path beside a canal

[Jerra]

So anyway...

 

This is a good point. Nobody knows how many people decide 'on balance' not to visit the towpath because of a perceived danger from other users (even if cyclists don't actually injure people the 'threat' level can appear significant in some areas). This is an invisible group of people who would otherwise love to use the towpath for pleasure.

 

 

It isn't just the thought of being injured as I said earlier trying to enjoy a wlk in Edinburgh with my wife and daughter was impossible as we couldn't keep a conversation going owing to having to keep going into single file. We will walk in the park in future.

[magnetman]

I'm also part of the invisible group

 

Been living on the cut since 1994 but now have small children and living on an offside mooring in London I rarely walk on the towpath and take the children to parks instead. In theory a walk by the canal should be relaxing. In reality it isn't. This is subject to location obviously.

[Wanderer Vagabond]

Why can't CRT just have a rule/regulation call it what you will which says the speed limit is x. I think the canal I referred too in Edinburgh has a 6 MPH limit but I am not certain. I doubt they have separate legislation. I explained how I would enforce it.

If there is no sanction to people who choose to ignore it, what is the point of any regulation? It sounds a bit like the 'something must be done' argument without any real thought of what . A bunch of volunteers 'enforcing' a regulation that CRT do not have the power to enforce, how does that work?

 

The only way of enforcing a speed limit is by the design of the towpath, talk of any other sort of enforcement is just hot air. Having a rough and uneven towpath (like when the horses used to use it) is one way but then people want it to be tarmacked to allow access to motability scooters, if you tarmac the towpath the speeds will increase. It seems that we are wishing for the impossible here.

[Drayke]

Moored up not far from Doveney lock on the Thames today, took a short walk along the Thames path and noticed that a way maker post has three pictograph ‘NO CYCLING ‘signs on it, yes you guessed it lots of them.

[Jerra]

If there is no sanction to people who choose to ignore it, what is the point of any regulation?

I suggested a sanction but everybody seems to scared of sustrans and the like to think it is possible.

[Cheshire cat]

The Bridgewater canal used to have iron mongery to prevent cycling but this was all taken away when sustrans provided the money for the towpath to be upgraded. It has turned into a commuter route much to the dismay of walkers.

 

People walking along listening to their ipods or phones are moving targets for the commuters, I'm a moving target even at jogging speed. I do cycle the towpath too but I'm not in any rush to get anywhere.

[Rendelf]

RFID cards (like the ones on toll roads)would be a realistic way to measure average speed... but the cost of installing sensors is high, and the cyclists could just not carry the card. A license scheme for bikes must have similar issues.

 

How about building the aforementioned raised track directly on top of the towpath? Added advantage is that boats can moor directly to the gantry, and bikes can be ridden directly from boat roof to cyclehighway. Ambulators and other unevolved creatures can travel at their slow speeds beneath, out of the sun.

[Rendelf]

I suppose and RFID scheme could be trialed on particularly troublesome urban stretches?

 

CRT volunteers could be gatekeepers, using sensors that identify those who don't yet have a card....those with cards cruise straight past.

 

Cyclists might have to pay a small fee for using the path. If their average speed is over the agreed limit, they get a week of no access?

 

I suppose they could then just pretend to not have a card again, and biometrics don't go down well....but...a system like this would probably have a massive effect on the majority of users.

 

Only problem is, even if they slow down, pedestrians will still need to get out of their way, so no real solution to having a nice famy walk.

 

Separate infrastructure...but who pays?

 

We could always elect a government which focuses on quality of life rather than weapons, offshore bank accounts, embezzlement and inequality.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Rendelf

[Rendelf]

Are we saying roughly a third of the entire UK population cycles...or that roughly one third can claim to have touched a 'bicycle'?

[wishful]

Are we saying roughly a third of the entire UK population cycles...or that roughly one third can claim to have touched a 'bicycle'?

The former, see post 205.

[Jerra]

Are we saying roughly a third of the entire UK population cycles...or that roughly one third can claim to have touched a 'bicycle'?

It depends which set of figures you use some are as low as 6 million and some as high as 17 million. I introduced 19,999,999 as a figure that had to exceeded before you got a double number of tens which you could than say "tens of millions".

 

I suspect the real figure of those who cycle sometimes is somewhere about mid way between the 6,000,000 and 17,000,000

[Locksprite]

Here's the reality. From the early 1960s when hire purchase made cars available to the hoi polloi, cycling was no longer a form of mass transport. For the next forty years it became the pastime for a small band of racing club members, tourists and commuters, at least outside traditional hotspots like Cambridge. Two generations grew up having never ridden a bike past childhood.

 

The new millennium saw increased cycle use, partly because councils removed most street parking in cities and work parking was taxed, and partly because cycling became fashionable for the aspirational middle classes who saw its health benefits combined with the higher sporting status of UK cycling. Unlike their working class predecessors, the doctors, lawyers and other middle class adopters had no intention of cycling in gutters and being grateful for any avoidance car drivers might offer (they knew the game in their own Porsche and Mercs), and didn't perceive themselves as an underclass in any way. They were determined to lobby for their rights and when those rights were impinged upon, seek retribution through the legal system.

 

This is the scenario today. Leisure and transport cycle use will only increase, and drivers will have to get used to sharing the road with cycles, or donate part of the road to cycle use. Towpaths have taken some of the fallout of mass cycle use. The sensible decision is to adopt the system of responsibility seen elsewhere, where the stronger party (cars in bike/pedestrian conflict, bikes, in pedestrian conflict) is assumed to be at fault.

[wishful]

It depends which set of figures you use some are as low as 6 million and some as high as 17 million. I introduced 19,999,999 as a figure that had to exceeded before you got a double number of tens which you could than say "tens of millions".

 

I suspect the real figure of those who cycle sometimes is somewhere about mid way between the 6,000,000 and 17,000,000

 

No.2 is interesting. I had to read it several times to work it out

 

..deluding themselves in thinking that cycling is not a valid form of transport...

 

I thought the whole point was these 20 million think it IS a valid form of transport.

 

Precisely. And with this weight of numbers even the non-cyclist should begin to recognise its validity as a means of transport.

[Captain Pegg]

No, it is perfectly clear as it stands.

 

I mentioned towpaths, at the risk of stating the obvious, because you will find at the top of the page reference to canalworld.

 

What reliable evidence have you of your fanciful assertion that most of those 20 million have rarely ever seen a canal?

 

I look forward to seeing this...

Wishful,

 

I don't think you have helped your cause by making your statement in a very roundabout manner. I ain't daft and I struggle to understand it.

 

I also think you have unintentionally misrepresented the figures you display. Is it not the case that the total number of adults claiming to cycle is 6 million? The numbers suggest to me that each level of lesser frequency includes the numbers from the previous higher usage categories?

 

That seems to be a far more realistic outcome.

 

JP

[Airfix Kid]

. Unlike their working class predecessors, the doctors, lawyers and other middle class adopters had no intention of cycling in gutters and being grateful for any avoidance car drivers might offer (they knew the game in their own Porsche and Mercs), and didn't perceive themselves as an underclass in any way. They were determined to lobby for their rights and when those rights were impinged upon, seek retribution through the legal system.

 

 

In a city a car can either follow me because I will be in the centre of the lane or overtake if (as) safe to do so (as overtaking a car).

 

If cycle lanes are provided I will use those, otherwise I am the equal of a car.

[Jerra]

 

Precisely. And with this weight of numbers even the non-cyclist should begin to recognise its validity as a means of transport.

Sorry but a lot of the people i know who ride bikes see it as an exercise vehicle rather than transport. They use their car for transporting themselves from place to place and use the bike purely for exercise.

[wishful]

JP,

 

The data is said to be negatively skewed, which is to be expected given the nature of the survey and it is clear to me that each data range is not cumulative.

 

Have a look at this https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/458432/how-people-travel-cycling.pdf which shows, half way down on LHS, that 35% of population of England (53 million) of ages 5+ cycle at least annually. Extrapolating this across the population of the UK (64 million) indicates a total in excess of 22 million who cycle at least annually. Then add in the younger kids who cycle.

 

Why is this figure so hard to believe?

 

Here's a radical suggestion * (not one to which I subscribe and which I write with a degree of irony). Get some old paint and mark out a line little wider than a shoe along the worst bits of the towpath, really tight up to the hedge where all the rubbish, broken glass and mouldy dog turds lie. Chasten those walkers that dare to stray outside this line, perhaps aided by the use of garroting wires. We can call this a dedicated walking path! Encourage all pedestrians on the walking path to wear hi-viz, a helmet, lights and a cow-bell around their necks. Then we can blame any walker that is struck down and injured by a careless cyclist when outside the walking path. To pay for this magnificent infrastructure we can charge walkers to use the walking path. Problem solved!

 

* (These are all topics raised by others on this thread alone, modified to suit the above senario)

 

No, actually I still think it better to treat all towpath users with consideration and respect.

[Rendelf]

How about cycle tunnels? You could get a nice bank when cornering. Also, if connected to the cycling debate, riders could be propelled by all the hot air!

[Captain Pegg]

JP,

 

The data is said to be negatively skewed, which is to be expected given the nature of the survey and it is clear to me that each data range is not cumulative.

 

Have a look at this https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/458432/how-people-travel-cycling.pdf which shows, half way down on LHS, that 35% of population of England (53 million) of ages 5+ cycle at least annually. Extrapolating this across the population of the UK (64 million) indicates a total in excess of 22 million who cycle at least annually. Then add in the younger kids who cycle.

 

Why is this figure so hard to believe?

 

 

I think the issue is the significance you put on the figure. I do concede that the number who cycle at least annually exceeds 20 million and I can't even find the original post with figures in it but it did look to me from the numbers they were cumulative.

 

Probably the most useful figure in the link is the 18 journeys per person per year which equates to an average of 3 million cycle journeys per day. The purpose of those journeys is indeed irrelevant - people use many different modes of transport for many different reasons and transport planning has to cater for that.

 

I am largely in agreement with your sentiment; it was the manner of the argument that I struggled with.

[Linda Musgrove]

I think the issue is the significance you put on the figure. I do concede that the number who cycle at least annually exceeds 20 million and I can't even find the original post with figures in it but it did look to me from the numbers they were cumulative.

 

Probably the most useful figure in the link is the 18 journeys per person per year which equates to an average of 3 million cycle journeys per day. The purpose of those journeys is indeed irrelevant - people use many different modes of transport for many different reasons and transport planning has to cater for that.

 

I am largely in agreement with your sentiment; it was the manner of the argument that I struggled with.

[Jerra]

Using the figures from the link above it would seem to me that cycle tracks are going to be hellish expensive for the amount cycles are used - on average 58 miles per annum in an average of 18 trips. So that is about 3.2 miles every 3 weeks or so.

 

Are we really sure the country can afford such expensive infra structure for so little use.

 

Before anyone says yes I know a lot will cycle much more while a lot cycle much less but that then raises the question should the few have so much government expense dedicated to the?

[magnetman]

The best thing would clearly be if everyone behaved considerately to each other on the towpath, wishing each other good day and tipping their hats, giving way in a considerate way and generally being altogether rather pleasant in what is rather a pleasant combination of natural and man-made environment.

 

This would sort it out.

 

And they all lived happily ever after