Cyclists Rant

[magnetman]

Indeed. But nonetheless river towpaths, where they survive, are usually rights of way.

Interesting. I am under the impression that quite a bit of the Thames Path consists of "permissive paths" which involve an agreement between and land owner and a local authority. I could be completely wrong and I admit I have not looked into it closely.

[Rendelf]

Not comparable.

 

If I'm boating and come up behind you I'll follow you hoping you'll notice me and pull over to let me pass, likewise if you're waddling down the towpath and I walk up behind you I'd do the same.

 

In either circumstance what I wouldn't do is approach at five times your speed, putting the onus upon you to get out of my way.

I wouldn't leave you frightened, startled or even 4 teeth less and needing 12 stitches. My only defence being that it's more dangerous for me on a road.

 

There's too much taking from cyclists I have yet to see what they give to canals apart from towpaths that are dificult to put a pin into.

It sounds like you are travelling almost five times as fast as the fat knackers when you walk behind them!

 

I think the way you describe passing slower path users is how most path users do it. Sad that you ended up with stitches.

 

My wife is terrified of dogs. Occasionally we meet one off the lead which the owner has limited control over. She hates it. I'm unafraid - no bad experiences. We both dislike the shit all over the place...

 

On a side note...why do people bag up the poo,and then throw it in a tree or hedgerow so it dangles like a stinky Christmas bauble?

 

Anyway, should we ban them? Why aren't they walking the dogs in a field? What are they giving to the canals?

 

 

No one has claimed that dangerous roads are the reason they are on the path...

 

What's the end-game here?

 

A blanket ban, as previously suggested, isn't workable.

 

Speed limits hard but not impossible to enforce (£££) in urban areas, impossible elsewhere.

 

How about a rota? Bipeds could have Mondays and Wednesdays. Anglers and flashers Thursdays. Cyclists Tuesdays and Fridays. Pensioners Saturdays, and a free-for-all Sunday?

 

Cycling infrastructure is needed.

Edited July 19, 2016 by Rendelf

[Richard Fairhurst]

Interesting. I am under the impression that quite a bit of the Thames Path consists of "permissive paths" which involve an agreement between and land owner and a local authority. I could be completely wrong and I admit I have not looked into it closely.

 

The great majority of the Thames Path is PRoW. Some of the central London sections are permissive, I believe, and there have been permissive sections in some of the leafy, wealthy reaches of the middle Thames, but they don't amount to much. The Severn Way is mostly PRoW too - I think the main exceptions are when it follows the Montgomery and G&S towpaths rather than the river!

[Graham Davis]

 

The great majority of the Thames Path is PRoW. Some of the central London sections are permissive, I believe, and there have been permissive sections in some of the leafy, wealthy reaches of the middle Thames, but they don't amount to much. The Severn Way is mostly PRoW too - I think the main exceptions are when it follows the Montgomery and G&S towpaths rather than the river!

 

The term PRoW covers too many classifications and can include Permissive Paths.

You need to specify exactly what is in use.

[magnetman]

Deleted as got confused again

Edited July 20, 2016 by magnetman

[Richard Fairhurst]

The term PRoW covers too many classifications and can include Permissive Paths.

You need to specify exactly what is in use.

 

No, a PRoW is a Public Right of Way, not a permissive path. If it's "permissive" then it's not a "right". (Citations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.)

[vicafloat]

My experience,for what it is worth,is that all cyclists,even the pleasant ones,travel far too quickly to mix with other

towpath users. CRT seem blind to the fact that most towpaths are just not wide enough to accommodate all the

users they now encourage to use them. Matters can only get worse until there is a major incident and speed humps/restrictors

are introduced,especially at bridge holes

[Wanderer Vagabond]

My experience,for what it is worth,is that all cyclists,even the pleasant ones,travel far too quickly to mix with other

towpath users. CRT seem blind to the fact that most towpaths are just not wide enough to accommodate all the

users they now encourage to use them. Matters can only get worse until there is a major incident and speed humps/restrictors

are introduced,especially at bridge holes

You say that all cyclists travel far too quickly, but what is 'too quickly', faster than a pedestrian? in that case we need to ban jogging and running on the towpath as well (I've seen fast runners going a lot quicker than slow cyclists).

 

Your comment,"....Matters can only get worse until there is a major incident....." does seem to summarise things, we haven't had a 'major incident' or else the proposals you suggest would have come into play.

 

As I have said before, a lot of the problem is as a result of the unintended consequences of some of the policies pursued. A rough towpath (like the horses used to use) would only permit fairly robust mountain bikes to travel along them. Since we want to encourage everyone out into the countryside, including the disabled using motability scooters, decisions have been made to improve the surface of some towpaths by tarmacking them. The unintended consequence of this is cyclist are now able to ride faster on them. To counter this chicanes, bumps and a variety of other methods are then used to slow them down again.

 

As an analogy, a lot of people complain about lack of depth on the canals. If CRT suddenly had an unlimited budget (hypothetical argument ) and were able to dredge ALL canals to a depth of 8 feet what would be the result? Most boats would then go a lot faster and the resultant wash would damage the canal banks requiring more money to be spent re-inforcing the canal banks, just another example of unintended consequences.

[Tony Brooks]

Even apparently responsible cyclists can be pratts and put walkers/boaters in danger.

 

Twice today while walking through the horse tunnels on the Saffs & Worcester to work the locks I have had cyclists riding down the tunnel so I had to get against the wall to save being run down. Their speed, for the towpath was not excessive but coming downhill in a low restricted tunnel with a sharpish bend in it making them blind it was excessive.

 

Pity they are so stupid they do not realise that it would be safer for all if they walked through. I have also had the same thing on the Hertford Union Canal but there at least there is a chance the cyclists will get very wet.

[GUMPY]

Cyclists are the lowest of the low, even below fishermen

[magnetman]

I'd definitely ban jogging on the towpath as well. One of my daughters nearly had a jogger fall on her due to stupid jogger behaviour. The child didn't do anything unusual but was possibly obscured by one of her parents.

 

Dangerous. Towpaths are for walkers. And slow moving hanimals

[wishful]

I'd definitely ban fast walkers too. I was out yesterday bimbling along the towpath when a speeding walker nearly shoulder-charged me into the hedge. The hedge, mind, was full of prickly stuff that pricks. Something really should be done about fast walkers as they are a genuine menace. Imagine if I had been struck to the ground and suffered broken bones. Walking should be limited to a speed that I find comfortable and anyone with long legs and a brisk gait, with or without a ski-pole, should not be permitted to use the towpath at all. And as for people who walk side by side, blocking the whole width of the towpath, well don't get me started. Don't they realise that the towpath doesn't belong exclusively to them? And people who wear headphones whilst walking and getting in my way, hanging is too good for 'em I say. And people who suddenly stop and pretend to stare at something should be tarred and feathered, damned nuisance in my book. In fact, let's ban everyone who isn't me or who doesn't behave like me.

 

I think we should start a petition and write to the Daily Mail.

[gazza]

Cyclists are the lowest of the low, even below fishermen

Lower than whale shit?

[cuthound]

Lower than whale shit?

Only if they cycle into the sea!

[magnetman]

I'd definitely ban fast walkers too. I was out yesterday bimbling along the towpath when a speeding walker nearly shoulder-charged me into the hedge. The hedge, mind, was full of prickly stuff that pricks. Something really should be done about fast walkers as they are a genuine menace. Imagine if I had been struck to the ground and suffered broken bones. Walking should be limited to a speed that I find comfortable and anyone with long legs and a brisk gait, with or without a ski-pole, should not be permitted to use the towpath at all. And as for people who walk side by side, blocking the whole width of the towpath, well don't get me started. Don't they realise that the towpath doesn't belong exclusively to them? And people who wear headphones whilst walking and getting in my way, hanging is too good for 'em I say. And people who suddenly stop and pretend to stare at something should be tarred and feathered, damned nuisance in my book. In fact, let's ban everyone who isn't me or who doesn't behave like me.

 

I think we should start a petition and write to the Daily Mail.

 

Not sure what its got to do with newspapers

 

People moving at significantly different speeds does not work. That is why cycle paths are built.

 

Note the word "significantly". If I am walking and someone stops in front of me to look at an Egyptian goose or something I do not crash into them as I am also walking.

 

Its basic physics innit

 

Typo edit

Edited July 21, 2016 by magnetman

[mayalld]

In the greater scheme of things cycling is a good thing and cyclists mixing with pedestrians is better for society as a whole than cyclists mixing with HGVs.

 

Well it is certainly better for the cyclists.

 

It is less that obvious that it is better for the pedestrians.

[gazza]

Only if they cycle into the sea!

Not a bad place for the lycra clad Muppets TBH

 

The Tour de France has flushed a load of the keen cyclists out of the woodwork, the type that want to go like the clappers and shun the cycle paths put in for their benefit in pursuit of that goal.

The worst roads round my way for that are the A43 Kettering to Geddington, A6116 Stanion to Brigstock and the A510 Finedon to Wellingborough.

All are narrowish A roads leading to the A14, all three have excellent cycle paths, all 3 have had cyclists killed on them.

 

Bloody idiots.

Edited July 21, 2016 by gazza

[Richard Fairhurst]

I presume you're referring to this:

 

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/northampton-woman-who-caused-death-of-cyclist-jailed-for-five-months-1-7080922

 

 

A Northampton woman has been jailed for five months after she admitted causing the death of a cyclist after she crashed her car into him.

Angela Willshire, aged 32, of Thatchwell Court, Standens Barn, appeared at Northampton Crown Court after pleading guilty to a charge of causing death by careless driving.

The court heard Anthony Ashcroft, aged 76, was cycling along the A510 between Wellingborough and Finedon at 11pm on Friday, March 13, when he was involved in a collision with a green Citroen Saxo, being driven by Willshere, close to Sidegate Lane.

Mr Ashcroft, who had been wearing a high-visibility jacket and had lights on his bike, died in hospital the following day as a result of his injuries.

The court heard that a collision investigator estimated that Mr Ashcroft would have been visible to Willshere for at least five seconds before the collision.

The court heard that Willshere was also uninsured at the time of the crash as her licence had been revoked by the DVLA but the defendant was unaware of the issue with her licence.

 

And yet you choose to call the 76-year old cyclist who died a "bloody idiot", rather than the uninsured, unlicensed driver?

 

Words fail me.

[gazza]

I presume you're referring to this:

 

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/northampton-woman-who-caused-death-of-cyclist-jailed-for-five-months-1-7080922

 

 

And yet you choose to call the 76-year old cyclist who died a "bloody idiot", rather than the uninsured, unlicensed driver?

 

Words fail me.

No, try putting words in my mouth a little harder next time.

 

Any one who chooses to mix it with motorists over a cycle path is an idiot, dead or alive, that the stupid cow that hit her was also committing other offences is neither her nor there.

Had the cyclist been on the cycle path the reckless cow in the car would never have come into contact with him.

 

The roads I mentioned are heavily used to get to and from the A14.

They have cycle paths for a bloody good reason.

My main grip is the MAMAILS BTW.

Edited July 21, 2016 by gazza

[wishful]

No, try putting words in my mouth a little harder next time.

 

Any one who chooses to mix it with motorists over a cycle path is an idiot, dead or alive, that the stupid cow that hit her was also committing other offences is neither her nor there.

Had the cyclist been on the cycle path the reckless cow in the car would never have come into contact with him.

 

The roads I mentioned are heavily used to get to and from the A14.

They have cycle paths for a bloody good reason.

My main grip is the MAMAILS BTW.

 

An idiot in your opinion, which carries little weight with those of a more erudite background.

 

Had the driver been not been careless then there would have been no collision. Blame the victim, why dontcha?

 

You like to grip men in lycra? Well, I'm sure some would not object, but please keep the photographs to yourself.

 

Perhaps you should think before posting. Or indeed, think before doing anything.

[gazza]

 

An idiot in your opinion, which carries little weight with those of a more erudite background.

 

Had the driver been not been careless then there would have been no collision. Blame the victim, why dontcha?

 

You like to grip men in lycra? Well, I'm sure some would not object, but please keep the photographs to yourself.

 

Perhaps you should think before posting. Or indeed, think before doing anything.

And the need for that?

 

Gripe, grip, it all fits, if you think it's humourous to twist an obvious typo good luck to you.

 

Had the cyclists been on the cycle path there would have been no collision, don't overlook that fact....

[Wanderer Vagabond]

No, try putting words in my mouth a little harder next time.

 

Any one who chooses to mix it with motorists over a cycle path is an idiot, dead or alive, that the stupid cow that hit her was also committing other offences is neither her nor there.

Had the cyclist been on the cycle path the reckless cow in the car would never have come into contact with him.

 

The roads I mentioned are heavily used to get to and from the A14.

They have cycle paths for a bloody good reason.

My main grip is the MAMAILS BTW.

This seems to be a rather despicable example of 'victim blaming'. The 76 year old was killed by an incompetent motorist and it was still his fault, why? Your mythical cycle paths do not exist on that stretch of road , having looked on Google Earth (what you can see in some sections is a 'footpath' you know, the thing that pedestrians use ), so where was the cyclist supposed to be riding? If you have some fallacious 'argument' that he should have gone by some (longer) route that had a cycle path, don't waste it here since the same 'argument' can be used against the incompetent motorist who could also have gone by a different route.

 

The level of incompetence of the driver is truly shocking and,personally I'd have sentenced her to re-take her driving test as well since as a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian I'd rather idiots like that were taken off the road altogether. Generously assuming that she was driving at only 30mph on that section of road (44 feet per second) although the majority of it is National speed limit, would mean that if the cyclist was in her visibilty for over 5 seconds before she ran him down, he would have been 220 feet away from her when she should have first seen him. Any motorist who cannot take the necessary action in that distance (it would have been a greater distance if she had been travelling faster) has no right to be on the road. And yet you still blame the cyclist, frankly disgraceful

[gazza]

This seems to be a rather despicable example of 'victim blaming'. The 76 year old was killed by an incompetent motorist and it was still his fault, why? Your mythical cycle paths do not exist on that stretch of road , having looked on Google Earth (what you can see in some sections is a 'footpath' you know, the thing that pedestrians use ), so where was the cyclist supposed to be riding? If you have some fallacious 'argument' that he should have gone by some (longer) route that had a cycle path, don't waste it here since the same 'argument' can be used against the incompetent motorist who could also have gone by a different route.

 

The level of incompetence of the driver is truly shocking and,personally I'd have sentenced her to re-take her driving test as well since as a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian I'd rather idiots like that were taken off the road altogether. Generously assuming that she was driving at only 30mph on that section of road (44 feet per second) although the majority of it is National speed limit, would mean that if the cyclist was in her visibilty for over 5 seconds before she ran him down, he would have been 220 feet away from her when she should have first seen him. Any motorist who cannot take the necessary action in that distance (it would have been a greater distance if she had been travelling faster) has no right to be on the road. And yet you still blame the cyclist, frankly disgraceful

Um nonsense mate.

 

I've lived here all my life, there 100℅ is a cycle path on all the roads I quoted, particularly the one with the incident you refer to.

I travel the A510 most days BTW....

Wellingborough_Cycle_Map_2.pdf

 

Top right-hand corner incase you wondered.

Edited July 21, 2016 by gazza

[Airfix Kid]

If your assertion is true, it seems a little odd that 1. the cyclist wasn't using it and 2. the motorist didn't use its presence as a mitigating circumstance.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Airfix Kid

[Richard Fairhurst]

Here is the alleged "cycle path" in question, in a picture taken the same year as the accident. It's worth looking at the hi-res picture to see exactly what quality of path we're talking about:

 

http://www.geograph.org.uk/more.php?id=4543335

 

Note the grass overgrowth at the bottom of the dip, resulting in a path width of (I'd estimate) <1m; the uneven colouring (over and above the shadows) indicating an uneven surface; and the poor sightlines at the brow of the hill, so you don't know whether there's someone coming in the opposite direction on this narrow path. The only thing that makes this a cycle path rather than a footpath is the blue sign with a picture of a bike on it.

 

This is why people cycle on the road. But according to you, despite all that, the dead guy was still an "idiot". I hope you'd have the guts to say that to his children and grandchildren.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Richard Fairhurst