Cyclists Rant

[Rendelf]

Little sis cycling from Amsterdam to Vienna along mainly cycle routes..she says continent have got it right.

 

Too true, good job we stuck it to those *!&£$&s isn't it!

[Murflynn]

 

 

Yes, I have noted as a boater, pedestrian and a cyclist it is becoming increasingly common for local authorities to create 'shared space' cycle lanes on the footpaths.

Yeah, I wasn't thinking about designated shared space cycling areas.

 

I was thinking about yoofs who weave in and out of shoppers and commuters on your average pavement.

 

They do it because they know they can get away with it unless the police have bikers patrolling the area. High time that bikers should have to register and display a numberplate so they can be identified without having to catch them first.

[Rendelf]

Couple that with costs would the modern day cyclist be prepared to have a "bike number" (like a car number) and pay towards these cycleways as the system of "Car Tax" originally was supposed to do?

 

Despite having been a keen cyclist all my life until health and age caught up I feel the modern cyclist rather wants things handed to them on a plate. A sort of "I have started cycling and I don't like the conditions I have to cycle in, somebody should do something about it" attitude.

 

I'd have no problem with adding funds to the pot to create better infrastructure. Of course, road tax isn't for raising funds to pay for the construction and maintenance of roads.... (Edit: you said 'originally', which indeed it was, circa...30s?)

 

Depending on what happens with electric vehicles, I think we might start to see significant changes here, with less cars in central areas, and more 'exposure' to cycling (As in - it being the new golf, it's only a matter of time before the movers and shakers have a vested interest in pushing that agenda). There already has been, and continues to be an explosion in the numbers riding bikes, which is I suppose why we're having this discussion.

 

MAMILs (Middle Aged Men In Lycra) still mystify all concerned though.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Rendelf

[mayalld]

Cycling on the road is stressful and dangerous. The cyclist is exposed to some quite real risks, and depending on where the road is, some ridiculous ones. There are 'cycle lanes' on dual carriageways....simply because there is no other route.

 

As someone who's been riding as a main form of transport for 20 years, I will always chose the path that involves the least cars, or failing that, the lowest speed limit. This includes towpaths, which are an absolute pleasure to ride along, without the constant need for vigilance on what's about to knock you down on this corner, or fail to give way to you at that roundabout.

 

 

So, you don't like riding on roads where the traffic is a danger to you, but you are happy to ride on paths where you are equally a danger to others?

[Alan Taylor]

 

So, you don't like riding on roads where the traffic is a danger to you, but you are happy to ride on paths where you are equally a danger to others?

 

Do you have some statistics to back that up?

 

Most interesting would be deaths and serious injuries to cyclists on roads compared to deaths and injuries to pedestrians from cyclists on paths and pavements.

 

Without them your argument lacks weight and the word 'equally' is simply wrong.

Edited July 18, 2016 by Alan Taylor

[Trillian]

When moored in Sale recently we experienced the huge number of commuting cyclists heading for Manchester at rush hour.

 

It's not the sheer number or speed of the cyclists that is the issue. It's the fact that as they approach you from behind, the "Ting" that they give you, gives you about half a second to turn, choose which way to move and then actually do it.

 

Why do they wait til they're 5 metres behind you?

 

Signs at every entrance to the Bridgewater make it very clear that it is a shared pathway and that cyclists should give way. As a commuter cyclist on the towpath there I agree that pedestrians shouldn't give way. I always call out before passing to let them know I am there and which side I am passing them on and I never go fast. I worry sometimes that the people who seem to think towpaths are cycle paths will get me banned along with them and I would so miss my daily rides. I get to see herons, kingfishers, swans, geese and ducks (ok, the swans geese and ducks are also visitors to the boat!) and have found some delightful new acquaintances that say hi, how are you as I am passing. I would hate to lose that.

[Rendelf]

So, you don't like riding on roads where the traffic is a danger to you, but you are happy to ride on paths where you are equally a danger to others?

I like to keep risk to a reasonable minimum (happy to cruise in bare feet with a nice wine on back of trad of course)

 

I also like to take pleasure in my life. I ride on the roads, and take care when I do...but it invokes a never-ending vigilance on the part of all road users; I suppose that's a definition of being a road user.

 

The towpath is / should be a pleasure, as previously stated, you get to se weird dinosaur throwbacks. You don't need a helmet, or constant shoulder-checks or defensive positioning.

 

It's a shared space, and a public right of way. I often use it to cycle home, sometimes many miles. The alternative would be country A roads where I am a danger to everyone!

 

If I were a dictator, a quick ban on vehicles in city centres and repatriation of the road surfaces would ensue...I'm probably I'm the minority - shouldn't matter if I'm a dictator though.

 

There is a problem in built up areas. A speed limit seems sensible, but is impossible to enforce. Could suggest no cycling on busy stretches between certain hours? Oxford city centre does that (but it allows busses to move through that area all day... :/

 

It sounds a bit like catcalling. As a person with testes, I almost never witness it, however, it happens all the time to people with ovaries. The general wisdom is to call the idiots out on it (if safe to do so). So that harks back to a license scheme, and that is fraught with problems.

 

Oh dear, am I still writing?/Had better stop. I suppose my point this that a creative and peaceful direction needs to be taken, as in catcalling, to stop a minority of numpties. Beheading them with centre lines might look cool, but is no real solution...this is supposed to be civil!

Edited July 18, 2016 by Rendelf

[Jerra]

It's a shared space, and a public right of way.

 

Is it a public right of way or a permissive path?

[zenataomm]

If a cyclist can understand that the moment they climb on a bike and ride up the road they are in danger of being hit by other drivers.

Thus causing them to ride defensively.

 

Why doesn't that experience highlight to them that by riding on a towpath littered by pedestrians & animals now makes them the aggressor?

 

Got to shoot now, I'm just off to run my Steam Traction Engine around a children's playground. I hate taking it on the road, other drivers cut me up and shout at me.

[Rendelf]

...makes them the aggressor.

Yep,clearly all my previous wittering was aggressive.

 

I admit, I want to fit etro thrusters and axle lasers and chop your legs off at the shin as I hurtle by, slicing your dog in twain. (Dogs leave poo all over the place and make an awful noise, why are they allowed on the path?). I want the countryside to be full of blood, death, carnage....and anglers.

 

Interesting point on permissive vs public right of way. Apparently the land owner needs to close permissive routes once a year, or after 20 they default to public. I don't think the CRT does this, so presume public (also based on signage)?

 

Didn't BW require licences for cycling in the past?

[Locksprite]

It's interesting how often lycra occurs as an internet meme in these anti-cyclist rants. It's as though elasticated clothing in itself is offensive. From personal experience I'd say anyone in specialist cycling clothing, especially road bike gear (lycra), is less likely to be riding aggressively on shared use facilities than lads on old mountain bikes and BMXs, who are more likely to be wearing hooded sweatshirts and similar casual attire.

 

Careless riding is annoying and sometimes dangerous, but there seems to be more psychological business going on than at first appears. I find a substantial minority of canal boaters to be high blood pressure types with knee jerk reactions trying to get away from the world, but I wouldn't for one moment suggest boating should be banned.

[magnetman]

Cycling on the road is stressful and dangerous. The cyclist is exposed to some quite real risks, and depending on where the road is, some ridiculous ones. There are 'cycle lanes' on dual carriageways....simply because there is no other route.

 

As someone who's been riding as a main form of transport for 20 years, I will always chose the path that involves the least cars, or failing that, the lowest speed limit. This includes towpaths, which are an absolute pleasure to ride along, without the constant need for vigilance on what's about to knock you down on this corner, or fail to give way to you at that roundabout.

 

I think the main problem isn't the weird combination of a desire to wear lycra and a lack of sense/empathy to other people, but one of infrastructure. There simply isn't anywhere to ride a bicycle as soon as you leave city centres. And even in the centres, its perilous (for motorists as well as cyclists).

 

Have any of you ridden in Melbourne? They have a wonderful, purpose-built network of off-road paths. So relaxing to use, with no fear. Quick too, you can travel across most of the city without being on a road - better for everyone involved. Of course, the Aussies have spare cash, and they also have modern, spaced out cities....but still.

So what happens in reality is by using a towpath rhe cyclists choose to transfer the risk from themselves (car hits bike) to others (bike hits child) such as elderly or children enjoying a walk down what is in theory a public amenity space ie the towpath. Fair enough for the cyclist to eliminate the risk to themselves but somewhat sad that those who wish to just take it easy have the risk of injury directly transferred to them. I know injuries are fairly rare but you have to be on your guard so much as to make it unpleasant to walk on some towpath areas with children because the idea is (according to cyclists) to reduce the risk of injury.

 

This constant lookout makes the whole thing stressful.

 

I would advocate a complete ban on cycling on towpaths. What's so terrible about walking ??

 

It depends on what you think a towpath is. In this day and age I think it is a valuable public amenity where anything above about 5mph is unacceptable.

Edited July 18, 2016 by magnetman

[Jerra]

It's a shared space, and a public right of way.

Having had a look at CRT's FAQs for cyclists they say:

 

Is the towpath a public right of way?

Most towpaths are not public rights of way. Instead, the majority of our towpaths are ‘permissive paths’ as we allow members of the public to use them. Occasionally we need to close towpaths to carry out maintenance work.

[Locksprite]

So what happens in reality is by using a towpath rhe cyclists choose to transfer the risk from themselves (car hits bike) to others (bike hits child) such as elderly or children enjoying a walk down what is in theory a public amenity space ie the towpath. Fair enough for the cyclist to eliminate the risk to themselves but somewhat sad that those who wish to just take it easy have the risk of injury directly transferred to them. I know injuries are fairly rare but you have to be on your guard so much as to make it unpleasant to walk on some towpath areas with children because the idea is (according to cyclists) to reduce the risk of injury.

 

This constant lookout makes the whole thing stressful.

 

I would advocate a complete ban on cycling on towpaths. What's so terrible about walking ??

 

It depends on what you think a towpath is. In this day and age I think it is a valuable public amenity where anything above about 5mph is unacceptable.

A blanket ban is silly, the problem depends on the location. I walk tow paths more than I cycle, but when I do I'm likely to see someone every twenty minutes on my nearest cut. I slow to their pace, wish them a good morning, they stand to one side and we both go on our way. Weekends are a different matter, the tow path is a leisure facility with boaters, anglers and crowds of walkers making cycling impossible.

Problems arise in urban and suburban areas with ignorant people, or commuters who use the tow path as a rat run and leave insufficient time for hold ups.

[zenataomm]

Yep,clearly all my previous wittering was aggressive.

 

 

How presumptuous of you, I didn't quote you nor did I refer to anything you've wittered.

[magnetman]

A blanket ban is silly, the problem depends on the location. I walk tow paths more than I cycle, but when I do I'm likely to see someone every twenty minutes on my nearest cut. I slow to their pace, wish them a good morning, they stand to one side and we both go on our way. Weekends are a different matter, the tow path is a leisure facility with boaters, anglers and crowds of walkers making cycling impossible.

Problems arise in urban and suburban areas with ignorant people, or commuters who use the tow path as a rat run and leave insufficient time for hold ups.

I do think a ban would be a good idea but perhaps based on location and with some "curfew" times.

You suggest that cycling when there are lots of walkers is impossible.

 

This is obviously not a very common view as there are a lot of aggressive cyclists who are quite happy to carve their way through crowds of walkers ding ding dinging their bells as they go as if they have some sort of police car like priority.

 

Sadly the only ways to deal with these people is policing or a ban. In my opinion.

[Rendelf]

 

How presumptuous of you, I didn't quote you nor did I refer to anything you've wittered.

 

 

So, as the paths are permissive paths, the landowner can set the rules...

 

How hard would it be to get the CRT to implement a speed limit (no speedometers, so an arbitrary "walking pace") or some other signage in busy areas?

 

Could they just put up signs asking for common sense? Could we put common sense in the eater supply?

 

Danger isn't the only reason I cycle on the towpath: it's really pleasant. I like to take my nephew cycling there too. Much better he sees herons, boats and ducks than motorcycles, buses and trucks...

[Murflynn]

How hard would it be to get the CRT to implement a speed limit (no speedometers, so an arbitrary "walking pace") or some other signage in busy areas?

 

What do you mean by 'implement'?

 

In our local country park administered by Bristol City Council there is a speed limit for bikes of 10mph.

 

The main path follows a stream that runs steeply down hill; bikers do up to 20mph down the shared footpath, racing through groups of walkers and dogs on a regular basis. How should the council enforce the limit?

[cuthound]

How should the council enforce the limit?

See post #3

[furnessvale]

Didn't BW require licences for cycling in the past?

Yes they did, but mass civil disobedience by cyclists meant that BW gave up on the idea.

 

I have long advocated that boaters do the same with regard to licences but sadly there is no unanimity.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Murflynn]

See post #3

unfortunately that doesn't discriminate between fast and slow bikers.

 

several regular walkers have suggested casting carpet tacks across the path, but that is also nondiscriminatory and endangers the dogs.

[Jerra]

What do you mean by 'implement'?

 

In our local country park administered by Bristol City Council there is a speed limit for bikes of 10mph.

 

The main path follows a stream that runs steeply down hill; bikers do up to 20mph down the shared footpath, racing through groups of walkers and dogs on a regular basis. How should the council enforce the limit?

The same way that it is enforced for cars in some villages. Volunteers with speed guns. When they show a problem then the police or in this case the council attend regularly and single out the problem users.

 

I am sure there must be some regulation/law that a speeding cyclist can be deemed to be breaking.

[cuthound]

 

I am sure there must be some regulation/law that a speeding cyclist can be deemed to be breaking.

Road Traffic Act 1988 (as ameded). See here.

 

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-offences-riding-dangerously-recklessly-carelessly-or-inconsiderately

[furnessvale]

Road Traffic Act 1988 (as ameded). See here.

 

http://www.cyclelaw.co.uk/cycling-offences-riding-dangerously-recklessly-carelessly-or-inconsiderately

The first two offences refer to a road, which the towpath (mostly) isn't.

 

The third offence (drink/drugs) refers to road or public place. Is the towpath a public place? In order to protect their position, I could see CRT giving evidence for the defence insisting it is not.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

[Wanderer Vagabond]

The first two offences refer to a road, which the towpath (mostly) isn't.

 

The third offence (drink/drugs) refers to road or public place. Is the towpath a public place? In order to protect their position, I could see CRT giving evidence for the defence insisting it is not.

 

George ex nb Alton retired

One could always go for the offence under Section 35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and then argue whether seriously frightening someone constitutes bodily harm.