Cyclists Rant

[Murflynn]

I don't think bells are helpful. I have a bell but I've stopped using it because I found that when I did people would leap to oneside in fear of their lives. These days I slowly sneak up and cough.

as a partially deaf old git who likes walking with the dogs that may scamper to and fro, the use of a bell is always appreciated, preferably an old fashioned ring-ring type, used from a reasonable distance (10 metres?).

 

a cough is not helpful and would likely be ignored.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Murflynn

[mayalld]

 

You're making a lot of assumptions here pal, if you don't instantly assume the worst possible intent behind my words you should see I'm not being un reasonable or a bully.

 

Nah, I had considered the approach time too, but for simplification I put is as 0.5 s.

 

Unfortunately we can't all please everyone, if someone gets upset about a bike going safely past them and it spoils there walk and means they won't ever go back there the`n I think they are in for a fairly miserable time of things.

 

I dont understand the pay lip service bit of your post.

 

I have grown up with bikes being hated everywhere to them slowly being more and more accepted. In other countries they and riders are viewed in a significantly better light in my experience. The towpath, like rural footpaths are about the most hostile I've experienced simply because one group feels they have more "right" to be there than the others. I expect opinions will change further as bikes become more and more of an accepted social past time / means of transport.

 

Not convinced about the cycle permits, it would put people off visiting.

 

 

Also, a rolling wheel causes less wear than foot traffic. Also also, water and the ground make mud - not bikes.

 

 

The fact that the bike gets past without any incident doesn't alter the fear and apprehension that was caused. Consider all the days where you ride along the roads. You don't get knocked off, but several times you felt vulnerable in the traffic. THAT is what you do to pedestrians on the towpath.

 

You pay lip service to priority for pedestrians, because you talk the talk, but when it comes down to it, you act from a position of power on your bike to encroach into their space by passing them more closely than they feel comfortable, and at a higher speed.

 

As to your final part about what causes most wear, I'm afraid that this is simply delusional!

 

What you suggest about what causes most wear is blatantly incorrect as any child who listened in a physic lesson can tell;

 

The contact area between bike an towpath is smaller than between foot and towpath, so the forces exerted per square inch are greater for the bike (unless the pedestrian is wearing stilettos, which isn't common on the towpath), which will naturally lead to a greater localised deformation and cracking to the surface. In addition, the bike exerts a more significant horizontal force which has a tendency to "scrub" the top layer of a compacted towpath away.

 

All that without even considering your skidding stop!

 

As for mud, I am well aware of how it is made. It requires water and loose soil. Water on a well compacted towpath will just run off. Once the surface is broken by a passing bike, we have loose soil that can form mud, and when bikes run through the mud, they cause further break up of the surface, which leads to ruts where water and mud can accumulate.

[spadefoot]

Maybe you should have progressed beyond childlike physics.

[Jerra]

 

I am well aware of how it is made. It requires water and loose soil. Water on a well compacted towpath will just run off. Once the surface is broken by a passing bike, we have loose soil that can form mud, and when bikes run through the mud, they cause further break up of the surface, which leads to ruts where water and mud can accumulate.

Also if there happens to be any slope (not common towpaths I know but they do exist) the groove created by the wheel makes a mini water course and this in turn creates greater wear.

Maybe you should have progressed beyond childlike physics.

Would you like to explain where he has gone wrong? Rather than posting a reply which may only be there to try to hide the fact he is correct.

[sirweste]

 

Indeed.

 

The reason I posted the information that was that "Sirweste" was complaining about his "hostile treatment" when he was (hopefuly unknowingly) breaking the law by riding his bicycle on a foot path.

Now he will know why.

 

No, I wasn't complaining, merely stating my experiences. Also, as per your later post, it's only breaking the law if it's in England or Wales so no I wasn't breaking the law when I have gotten grief from hikers / rambler / walkers.

I've grown up riding off-road in the Peaks, have never ridden a footpath there and got grief for it. I have however had drawing pins thrown down in front of me, had a few people put canes across my path (at their arms length) at the last moment (so assault basically) and had a fair few people go shouty - all on bridleways / green lanes. I have had a fair amount of grief from English people on footpaths in Scotland, but luckily I like to smile and tell them they are miserable in a truly joyfully (irritating to them) tone, rather than be aggressive.

 

This has stopped and bikers are now accepted as a species, the miserable gits who think that their chosen way to enjoy the great outdoors no longer seem to be a common problem. I expect this will happen with the towpath too.

 

Just to make you happy, when I do go back to the homeland, I always ride my bike on footpaths in the Peaks. They are the most enjoyable and natural trails to follow. I see nothing wrong with doing it, other than it breaking some arbitrary law, as I am very considerate and only ride once the tourons have gone home.

 

Anyhow, my point is, the miserable lot who despise bikes being ridden on the towpath will settle in time. Acceptance. The idiots that ride bike inconsiderately, will continue to be idiots. The idiots that demand vigilante justice against a whole group people due to the minority in that group, will continue to be idiots. Luckily as sensible people we can ignore the idiots and live happily knowing that if this is the worst thing that happens we aren't living in Syria and we are doing alright.

[sirweste]

mayalld has quite a bit of that wrong (not the skidding bit, that does erode quickly, but skids are fabulous fun aren't they). I used my energy on the previous post. Either way it's to do with the action of a foot step vs. a rolling circle. I'm fairly sure there was a study done on it some years ago.

 

I would also argue that walker contribute to great trail / path erosion due to their typical desire to walk around puddles rather than through them. Where as someone on a bike is more likely to ride through the centre unless they are willing to slow to a crawl to try and circumnavigate. In addition bikers are usually wet already so another puddle doesn't matter. This is purely my experience, could be wrong as I'm not that familiar with people that ride on towpaths.

 

The lip service bit is perverse

Edited July 28, 2016 by sirweste

[mayalld]

Maybe you should have progressed beyond childlike physics.

 

I have, thank you.

 

I merely offer the very simple physics, so as to point out how easy it ought to be for anybody who listened at school to understand that a bike causes more damage to a compacted earth surface than a pedestrian.

[mayalld]

mayalld has quite a bit of that wrong (not the skidding bit, that does erode quickly, but skids are fabulous fun aren't they). I used my energy on the previous post. Either way it's to do with the action of a foot step vs. a rolling circle. I'm fairly sure there was a study done on it some years ago.

 

I would also argue that walker contribute to great trail / path erosion due to their typical desire to walk around puddles rather than through them. Where as someone on a bike is more likely to ride through the centre unless they are willing to slow to a crawl to try and circumnavigate. In addition bikers are usually wet already so another puddle doesn't matter. This is purely my experience, could be wrong as I'm not that familiar with people that ride on towpaths.

 

The lip service bit is perverse

 

OK, if you claim that there is a peer-reviewed study, then produce it, and my argument is shot down. If you can't, then it is about as valid as the study that I'm fairly sure I saw that revealed that 86% of cyclists are actually aliens from the planet Zog.

 

The surface of most rural towpaths is compacted earth. A pedestrian walking along with a normal walking gait (but NOT a jogger or a runner) will tend to increase the compaction of the towpath surface, pressing any loose particles gently downward into the surface layer.

 

A bike brings a higher force, and even without skids is applies a significant moment of force horizontally, which will tend to destabilise the compacted top layer.

 

Your second paragraph is more about the effects on vegetation, which are not actually the point here. It is true that where a puddle is encountered, walkers will try to step round it, which may increase the compacted width of the path, and reduce the grassed area (whilst leaving the puddle to dry up over time, at which point they will walk on it and re-compact), but that doesn't actually cause significant damage. Riding through puddles is actually causing even more damage, and creating ever bigger puddles.

 

No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, cyclists are causing the damage to the towpath surface.

[Ssscrudddy]

I'd love to meet the OP on the tow path, hell I'd even go & buy some lycra to wear especially for the event, safe in the knowledge that he is going to deliberately get in the way even when there is no need to, & safe in the knowledge that he is going to launch an unprovoked assault with the potential to cause death by drowning.

What is amazing to me is how the vast majority on here seem to approve of his way of thinking.
The other thing that amazes me is where you find all these bad cyclists, because in my experience the vast majority of cyclists are well behaved. I've yet to come across a bad one on the towpath, I did experience one on the roads who blasted through a red light & crashed in to me & then started shouting at me for getting in his way.
But then I've only experienced 3 grumpy fishermen. 1 was in a competition where everybody else got their rods out of the way except for this 1 guy & he had seen me coming along on my boat, he didnt move his rod but he did lose his tackle. The next was a guy fishing from a lock landing in closed season stood in front of a no fishing sign, who got the ache when I pulled up to use the lock landing. The 3rd grumpy fisherman didnt like me faffing about backwards & forwards in front of him, but I pointed out to him I was trying to get alongside the fuel boat in order to fill up with diesel, he just sat their shaking his head giving me filthy looks & eventually moved to a different spot.

[spadefoot]

 

I have, thank you.

 

I merely offer the very simple physics, so as to point out how easy it ought to be for anybody who listened at school to understand that a bike causes more damage to a compacted earth surface than a pedestrian.

I'm not a teacher, so I won't try. All I'll say is, there is a big difference between static & dynamic forces. Static forces are quite simple to understand. I don't believe that you have properly considered all that is involved in the dynamic forces, let alone equated them reasonably.

[sirweste]

 

OK, if you claim that there is a peer-reviewed study, then produce it, and my argument is shot down. If you can't, then it is about as valid as the study that I'm fairly sure I saw that revealed that 86% of cyclists are actually aliens from the planet Zog.

 

The surface of most rural towpaths is compacted earth. A pedestrian walking along with a normal walking gait (but NOT a jogger or a runner) will tend to increase the compaction of the towpath surface, pressing any loose particles gently downward into the surface layer.

 

A bike brings a higher force, and even without skids is applies a significant moment of force horizontally, which will tend to destabilise the compacted top layer.

 

Your second paragraph is more about the effects on vegetation, which are not actually the point here. It is true that where a puddle is encountered, walkers will try to step round it, which may increase the compacted width of the path, and reduce the grassed area (whilst leaving the puddle to dry up over time, at which point they will walk on it and re-compact), but that doesn't actually cause significant damage. Riding through puddles is actually causing even more damage, and creating ever bigger puddles.

 

No matter how much you try to pretend otherwise, cyclists are causing the damage to the towpath surface.

 

Mayalld, I can't be arsed to search for a study, if you're so interested go for it. To me it makes more sense that a wheel rolling over a surface will create less wear than the action of a foot step. I understand physics fairly well, though not my profession (I'm an internet blogger / tweeter).

 

The greater size of the puddle the more water damage will be caused. Wide and shallow is worse then narrow and deep.

 

Anyhow, this is all a pointless waste of electricity and materials, I don't really care about your opinions or changing them - you've argued against me and assumed the worst since I first posted, if you're ever near me feel free to knock on and we can discuss this together rather than tediously typing back and forth.

 

The key thing here is that bikes are here to stay so lets all get along, lets not be prejudice about user groups due to minorities and I hope non of maniacs assault me as I ride past you! insert light heartened smiley here.

[PeterG]

 

No, I wasn't complaining, merely stating my experiences. Also, as per your later post, it's only breaking the law if it's in England or Wales so no I wasn't breaking the law when I have gotten grief from hikers / rambler / walkers.

Just to make you happy, when I do go back to the homeland, I always ride my bike on footpaths in the Peaks. They are the most enjoyable and natural trails to follow. I see nothing wrong with doing it, other than it breaking some arbitrary law, as I am very considerate and only ride once the tourons have gone home.

 

Anyhow, my point is, the miserable lot who despise bikes being ridden on the towpath will settle in time. Acceptance. The idiots that ride bike inconsiderately, will continue to be idiots.

 

The point you are choosing to ignore is that by admiting to riding on footpaths you are riding your bike inconsiderately giving other riders a bad name.

[FadeToScarlet]

 

The point you are choosing to ignore is that by admiting to riding on footpaths you are riding your bike inconsiderately giving other riders a bad name.

Are towpaths footpaths, though?

[Jerra]

Are towpaths footpaths, though?

If they are as I understand it cycling isn't permitted on footpaths!

[mayalld]

 

Mayalld, I can't be arsed to search for a study, if you're so interested go for it. To me it makes more sense that a wheel rolling over a surface will create less wear than the action of a foot step. I understand physics fairly well, though not my profession (I'm an internet blogger / tweeter).

 

 

So, I have explained the science of why a rotating wheel will cause more damage.

 

Pressing down on compacted earth with a moderate force over a reasonable area will improve the compaction and consolidation. Applying a force horizontally over a limited area will cause the surface layer to break up, and shift a short distance backwards (and be carried upwards, leaving that attractive splatter up the cyclists back).

 

You have offered nothing more in return than that "it makes more sense". That isn't a reasoned argument! Your counter argument to an explanation of why a wheel breaks up the surface, whilst a foot consolidates it is just blind faith that bikes are best. You have decided that you want the answer to be whatever suits what you want to do, and the last thing you want is facts getting in the way.

[Jim Riley]

Do cyclists cycle on footpaths because, even though now they've had the training wheels taken off, their mums' still won't let them ride on the road?

[sirweste]

 

The point you are choosing to ignore is that by admiting to riding on footpaths you are riding your bike inconsiderately giving other riders a bad name.

 

Nah not at all, I do understand that the next day a walker might see tyre prints in the peat and think "damn generic cyclists riding where they shouldn't". However I don't worry too much what that person thinks, as I expect they're view is skewed by the requirement to adhere to an arbitrary or perhaps draconian law.

Like I keep saying I'm sure that the future will see more and more access open up as people realise that everyone just wants to enjoy the outdoors, and if you're not destroying the ecosystems by doing it then why shouldn't you be allowed?

 

So, I have explained the science of why a rotating wheel will cause more damage.

 

Pressing down on compacted earth with a moderate force over a reasonable area will improve the compaction and consolidation. Applying a force horizontally over a limited area will cause the surface layer to break up, and shift a short distance backwards (and be carried upwards, leaving that attractive splatter up the cyclists back).

 

You have offered nothing more in return than that "it makes more sense". That isn't a reasoned argument! Your counter argument to an explanation of why a wheel breaks up the surface, whilst a foot consolidates it is just blind faith that bikes are best. You have decided that you want the answer to be whatever suits what you want to do, and the last thing you want is facts getting in the way.

 

No Mayall, you have explained your view based on a specific set of conditions, I am not adverse to facts at all, and most importantly I just simply cannot be arsed to argue to infinity to change one persons mind. I have enough of that to deal with in my professional life. Doing it over a keyboard is massively inefficient.

[Murflynn]

mayalld has quite a bit of that wrong (not the skidding bit, that does erode quickly, but skids are fabulous fun aren't they). I used my energy on the previous post. Either way it's to do with the action of a foot step vs. a rolling circle. I'm fairly sure there was a study done on it some years ago.

 

I would also argue that walker contribute to great trail / path erosion due to their typical desire to walk around puddles rather than through them. Where as someone on a bike is more likely to ride through the centre unless they are willing to slow to a crawl to try and circumnavigate. In addition bikers are usually wet already so another puddle doesn't matter. This is purely my experience, could be wrong as I'm not that familiar with people that ride on towpaths.

 

 

May I ask how much time and effort you volunteer to the groups who have the unenviable task of maintaining and repairing the footpaths you use?

 

............... and as a qualified engineer I can assure you that a bike does (much) more damage than a pedestrian on hard and soft/muddy surfaces.

 

The National Trust manages many country parks and forests where bike paths are well marked, and signs are erected where cyclists are forbidden, these signs explain that it is because of the disproportionate damage done by a bike. In my local NT wood (Leigh Woods) there are gravel bike tracks properly marked, which walkers avoid. Unfortunately there are often rogue lycra-clad bikers who insist on pioneering new tracks across the forest floor, often shouting at casual walkers as they go.

 

All cyclists suffer from the reputation earned by the *****hole brigade. Casual walkers almost universally resent all bikers as a result.

[FadeToScarlet]

If they are as I understand it cycling isn't permitted on footpaths!

If they are....

 

I've not seen any evidence yet that they are. Certainly Sustrans, putting money into surfacing, wouldn't do it if their members couldn't legally use them.

 

I'd argue that, with no legal definition either way, towpaths are shared use paths, rather than footpaths.

 

Edit: or perhaps different parts have different legal status.

Edited July 28, 2016 by FadeToScarlet

[sirweste]

May I ask how much time and effort you volunteer to the groups who have the unenviable task of maintaining and repairing the footpaths you use?

 

............... and as a qualified engineer I can assure you that a bike does (much) more damage than a pedestrian on hard and soft/muddy surfaces.

 

The National Trust manages many country parks and forests where bike paths are well marked, and signs are erected where cyclists are forbidden, these signs explain that it is because of the disproportionate damage done by a bike. In my local NT wood (Leigh Woods) there are gravel bike tracks properly marked, which walkers avoid. Unfortunately there are often rogue lycra-clad bikers who insist on pioneering new tracks across the forest floor, often shouting at casual walkers as they go.

 

All cyclists suffer from the reputation earned by the *****hole brigade. Casual walkers almost universally resent all bikers as a result.

 

You may, as I'm sure you suspected I do not volunteer on any path work where I'm from. The footpaths I ride are rarely used, most tourists use the atrociously sanitised bridleway, so they actually haven't really changed in the years I've been riding them. I do however do quite a bit of work on trails if I see that they are not sustainable.

 

I am (or was) one of the rouge bikers you refer to (though not in lycra). The unmarked bike trails in Leigh Woods have existed for many many years. Due to the weather the tracks are / were built (unofficially by local riders) with drainage in mind. Either way, SSSI status of the area means no trails should be built but existing ones can be ridden. The trail built by Architrail should not mean that all existing trails in the woods are closed, I'm not suggesting that this is your view but I do know it is a view of some people. There is a fair bit of malicious behaviour by a minority (or was) putting sticks across trails, sometimes purposely in a location to attempt to cause the rider to crash rather than to just hamper progress. I have never, in a few years riding there, actually been met by any animosity riding my bike in Aston Court or Leigh Woods.

I do not disagree that a bike creates more erosion than a walker in steep terrain, where locked wheels are required for turning / slowing. And as you're a qualified engineer I assume I have to accept your words as fact? What if I'm a qualified engineer though...?

 

This is a very interesting topic, completely different to the original post though. I do like discussing this.

[Locksprite]

The next was a guy fishing from a lock landing in closed season stood in front of a no fishing sign, who got the ache when I pulled up to use the lock landing.

If he was fishing on a canal in the closed season, the incident must have happened in the 1970s as canals have been classed as an enclosed water and 12 month fishing permitted for decades. No Fishing signs are associated with the immediate vicinity of locks, or overhead power lines. As tow paths have always been dedicated to horses and people, the only obvious classification is bridleway, which are also available to cyclists. Cyclists used to require a license to ride towpaths, I forget the exact date this requirement expired but it was sometime in the 1980s IIRC, as enforcement was futile and the political mood to get people out of cars increased.

 

People shouldn't underestimate the aggressive nature of crowds involved in the same activity, whether they be car drivers, horse riders, cyclists or walkers. I recall one large group of hikers, all of pensionable age, who deliberately blocked me on a Peak District Trail while cycling. There was ample room for me to pass even if they'd been three abreast, but they were queueing to cross an adjoining stile and wanted to make it clear what they thought of cyclists, even ones using the trail legitimately. The tail enders lingered, sniffed the air, did their laces, anything but let me through. Perhaps I should have felt upbraided but I found the whole incident hilarious, and an example of how petty people with apparent life experience could be when they felt they were in a moral majority.

[Jim Riley]

 

 

You may, as I'm sure you suspected I do not volunteer on any path work where I'm from. The footpaths I ride are rarely used, most tourists use the atrociously sanitised bridleway, so they actually haven't really changed in the years I've been riding them. I do however do quite a bit of work on trails if I see that they are not sustainable.

 

I am (or was) one of the rouge bikers you refer to (though not in lycra). The unmarked bike trails in Leigh Woods have existed for many many years. Due to the weather the tracks are / were built (unofficially by local riders) with drainage in mind. Either way, SSSI status of the area means no trails should be built but existing ones can be ridden. The trail built by Architrail should not mean that all existing trails in the woods are closed, I'm not suggesting that this is your view but I do know it is a view of some people. There is a fair bit of malicious behaviour by a minority (or was) putting sticks across trails, sometimes purposely in a location to attempt to cause the rider to crash rather than to just hamper progress. I have never, in a few years riding there, actually been met by any animosity riding my bike in Aston Court or Leigh Woods.

I do not disagree that a bike creates more erosion than a walker in steep terrain, where locked wheels are required for turning / slowing. And as you're a qualified engineer I assume I have to accept your words as fact? What if I'm a qualified engineer though...?

 

This is a very interesting topic, completely different to the original post though. I do like discussing this.

Rouge biker eh! I hope the colour matches your outfit.

 

As for wheels and damage, metal tyres on wagon wheels compacted the old stone paved roads, pneumatic tyres suck the dust out and loosen the surface. Perhaps you are riding a hobby horse? Wheels also dig in more, the weight of body and bike resting on smaller surface area that 2 feet.

 

Auto text edit.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Jim Riley

[sirweste]

Locksprite, that is the attitude I've seen disappear from the peaks. Several times I've had large groups force me to stop or dismount despite being on a large bridleway (pennine trail) which you could get 3 people, a bike and a landrover abreast on. I've once had to run mu bike around a large group who wouldnt let me past even though I was walking my bike behind them, a few attempts to walk past them off the trail resulted in them increasing speed and spreading wider. Luckily they we old so I could out ru them the long way around!

 

Like I said though this attitude seems to have gone (though I don't ride there when tourists are about anymore).

 

In wet conditions they do dig in more in most circumstances, though footprints are also fairly deep at times. As for contact patch I don't think there is as much of a difference as you think. Especially when considering someone toeing their way up hill. As I've said the rolling action is less abrasive than the stepping action. If you think about it, dynamically is where it's crucial.

[Captain Pegg]

Still ranting folks?

 

I may have to settle this argument once and for all by 'turnin up wi me oss' because you're all wrong about about who owns the towpath.

 

In essence walkers and cyclists are all modern interlopers. Of course someone had to lead the horse but cycling on the towpath also has a place in the history of canals as working boat crews lock wheeled flights.

 

Society moves on and custom and practice goes with it. It's a shared space - until the 'oss turns up.

 

JP

[bag 'o' bones]

'Mountain bikes don't do any damage'

 

They do according to this magazine:

 

Backpacker magazine 'Mountain Bikes - the gnarly question of knobbly tires' January 1987

 

Google 'bike or footsteps do more damage' and a google books link should come up

 

According to the owner of the company that build mongoose bikes, Bikes do more damage than walkers.