Two Tings

[mayalld]

plenty of people take their motorbikes onto towpaths,

 

Hmm, the "lots of other people break the rules" argument - nope, unimpressed.

 

I was parking my bike next to the road until another boater ( with a bike) said he had had two bikes stolen from there and now kept his bike next to his boat and suggested i do the same.

 

If the only solution that you can find to the problem involves breaking the law, it isn't a solution.

[buccaneer]

But if the law says no motor-bikes thats it.Even if you are considerate and careful your actions might be looked on by underage teenagers who think by your example is that its Ok to ride on the towpath unliencsed motor bikes possibly in poor repair with a passenger on the back goung as fast as they can.

It does happen I have seen it,the same as air-guns and assults on the towpath.

[carlt]

What sort of motorbike do you ride that's dangerous & unstable at low speeds?

All of them, it's a simple law of physics.

 

"The way we stay upright on a moving bike is by active control through steering. This is why we have to learn to ride a bike. If, as learners, we find ourselves falling over to the left then we learn to steer the bike to the left, which generates forces that tilt us back upright again, thereby putting the wheels back under our centre of gravity. Beginners are very wobbly, but as we become expert the corrections become smaller and we can ride in a straight line.

 

The faster we ride, the smaller the steering adjustment needs to be, simply because the bike moves much further in a given time. When riding very slowly the steering adjustments required are very large. When completely at rest, active steering can do nothing for us."

Hugh Hunt, Dynamics and Vibration Research Group, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, UK

[WJM]

"When completely at rest, active steering can do nothing for us"

 

Feet?

[honey ryder]

How on earth can the sight of some lady pushing a motorbike or riding it very slowly a few meters along a quiet stretch of towpath, then chaining it and covering it next to a boat.. spark a local crime wave with youths riding unroadworthy bikes along the towpath, possibly mugging other boaters while they are at it?

 

you're all mental!

 

thats why i try to stick to my pushbike... but that was stopped when some drunken bloke had that away when he left the pub.

[buccaneer]

How on earth can the sight of some lady pushing a motorbike or riding it very slowly a few meters along a quiet stretch of towpath, then chaining it and covering it next to a boat.. spark a local crime wave with youths riding unroadworthy bikes along the towpath, possibly mugging other boaters while they are at it?

 

you're all mental!

 

thats why i try to stick to my pushbike... but that was stopped when some drunken bloke had that away when he left the pub.

 

 

Crimewave was not mentioned the other items re guns and assults was stated because some other threads said some people had never heard or seen them.

If you have laws thats it no motorcycles on towpath thats it, and as i said once teenagers see an adult who may or may not be able to reason then they will think that its Ok to do same but as all youths they do not have the same sense of danger as an adult.

 

so your interpretation of laws is I can do what I want.

 

Any law or sign that that says do not do this or that are generally for the people that in the first place do not obey them.

Maybe now like British Rail Police we should a special division of police on the canal

[carlt]

"When completely at rest, active steering can do nothing for us"

 

Feet?

I think that's the obvious next sentence most people don't need.

 

"When completely at rest, active steering can do nothing for us"....so you have to put your feet down.

[WJM]

Feet:

 

Glad we got that out in the open then - I was worried all these illegal Hells Angel towpath thugs would start toppling into the canal and foul my prop! Even Bargee Bill's Medieval Propellor Pike might struggle to remove a snagged Harley-Davidson!

[honey ryder]

all it takes is a bit of commonsense

 

if you apply blanket laws with no flexibility then we become a police state.

lighten up a bit people, you all seem to be taking life far far too seriously.

 

if you want to come and arrest me under the powers of your citizenship then please do.

You will find me wearing a big smile rowing my "unlicenced on the canals" dinghy to fetch water, not far from a motorbike chained up next to the towpath, near to a boat running its engine after 8pm.

Im also guilty of the crime of wearing a red t-shirt on a friday, when clearly everyone knows white t-shirts are for fridays and I am also very guilty of the serious crime of not brushing my hair this morning.

 

You cant miss me.

[WJM]

Go Girl!!!!!!!!

[carlt]

Feet:

 

Glad we got that out in the open then - I was worried all these illegal Hells Angel towpath thugs would start toppling into the canal and foul my prop! Even Bargee Bill's Medieval Propellor Pike might struggle to remove a snagged Harley-Davidson!

No, I'm sure the majority of them are no more harmful than the majority of licence dodgers or bridgehoppers. It's still against the law though.

[mayalld]

all it takes is a bit of commonsense

 

if you apply blanket laws with no flexibility then we become a police state.

lighten up a bit people, you all seem to be taking life far far too seriously.

 

if you want to come and arrest me under the powers of your citizenship then please do.

You will find me wearing a big smile rowing my "unlicenced on the canals" dinghy to fetch water, not far from a motorbike chained up next to the towpath, near to a boat running its engine after 8pm.

 

None of your crimes are arrestable.

 

They could, however, get you a criminal record.

 

Applying laws in a consistent manner isn't a police state.

 

Allowing people to decide that certain laws don't apply to them is anarchy.

[Lesd]

all it takes is a bit of commonsense

 

if you apply blanket laws with no flexibility then we become a police state.

lighten up a bit people, you all seem to be taking life far far too seriously.

 

if you want to come and arrest me under the powers of your citizenship then please do.

You will find me wearing a big smile rowing my "unlicenced on the canals" dinghy to fetch water, not far from a motorbike chained up next to the towpath, near to a boat running its engine after 8pm.

Im also guilty of the crime of wearing a red t-shirt on a friday, when clearly everyone knows white t-shirts are for fridays and I am also very guilty of the serious crime of not brushing my hair this morning.

 

You cant miss me.

 

 

Disgraceful behaviour !!!

This thread is classic stuff, love it !!!

[honey ryder]

then it was flippin anarchy on the M25 this morning... not a single vehicle was abiding by the speed limit.

 

shall we arrest them all and give them all a criminal record?

 

lets go... we might need a big note pad though

Edited May 11, 2007 by honey ryder

[CanalWalker]

1) How is it impractical or unworkable? You set a fee, put up notices to let people know that a permit is required, sell permits centrally and/or from post offices, and you set up a few anti-evasion checks. Anybody caught without a permit either pays a £50 charge, or is taken to court.

2) Cyclists are a minority of users. Discouraging all of them wouldn't reduce usage appreciably.

3) In areas where cyclists are more numerous, the presence of cyclists hurtling about discourages pedestrians, and actually reduces the overall number of users.

4) Cycling creates significant wear on the towpath surface that has to be paid for.

 

LOL! I'd love to see your evidence!

[buccaneer]

I wanted to post a reply but have had 2nd thoughts as its not very PC as I might be called a MCP as its was a anti feminst remarke.

I do not want to break any laws or site rules!!

[honey ryder]

I wanted to post a reply but have had 2nd thoughts as its not very PC as I might be called a MCP as its was a anti feminst remarke.

I do not want to break any laws or site rules!!

 

go ahead make my week... ive already been disappointed when I read about patrick moores opinions in the press. ( I previously held him in fairly high esteem)

 

one more wont do any harm.

[Machpoint005]

Just come to this thread (working away for a couple of days). For pete's sake, what's up with you lot? Whatever happened to tolerance and relaxation? Presumably the reason for a Code of Conduct is so that responsible, considerate cyclists (and boaters, and anglers, and joggers) have some basis for deciding what is, and is not, responsible and considerate behaviour. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a cyclist to give two polite 'tings' and wait for a response: the 'thank you' almost invariably comes next.

 

No, a code of conduct is never going to stop a pillock behaving like a pillock, but get a grip! I use the waterways, as a boater, as a means of relaxation, and I welcome the increased awareness of the waterways that follows from more people using them - whether walking, running, cycling, fishing or gongoozling.

 

As for the 'we pay our licence fee so it's our right' brigade, everyone pays for the waterways (through taxation, whether on fuel, VAT or income tax) but boaters pay a bit more: after all, we are the only ones who need a constant supply of enough water. An angler will happily drown worms in a stagnant pond, but that's no good to a boater. Similarly, a cyclist will trundle up the towpath of a derelict canal, but we can't navigate without water and operational infrastructure (locks to you).

 

If there were an accident on the towpath, and a cyclist (say) caused it by not following the code of conduct, it becomes more likely that he or she would be successfully sued for damages (could be important if it involved loss of earnings, alleged contributory negligence, counter-sueing and so on).

 

I welcome the idea, and think BW should carry on promoting the idea that on the canals, we are nice to each other, by mutual consent.

 

A speeding and inconsiderate cyclist is just asking to be tipped into the cut accidentally on purpose, though (sorry, reverted to type there!).

 

Finally, I'm no supporter of the New Tories (sorry, New Labour) but the removal of the derogation for red diesel was nothing to do with UK government - they fought to keep it, but failed. There are more important issues...

[buccaneer]

What has patrick moores said?

[honey ryder]

I refer you to a link on the BBC website

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6634255.stm

 

sorry this is off topic

[buccaneer]

Well it his opinion and he is not always right,I remember in the late 1950's watching the sky at night and he said man would never land on the moon.

 

Then again did they? maybe he was right?

[mayalld]

then it was flippin anarchy on the M25 this morning... not a single vehicle was abiding by the speed limit.

 

shall we arrest them all and give them all a criminal record?

 

lets go... we might need a big note pad though

 

They have things on the M25 called "speed cameras" which will avoid the need for a notepad.

 

And quite a lot of people *are* prosecuted for exceeding the speed limit.

 

As for the 'we pay our licence fee so it's our right' brigade, everyone pays for the waterways (through taxation, whether on fuel, VAT or income tax) but boaters pay a bit more: after all, we are the only ones who need a constant supply of enough water. An angler will happily drown worms in a stagnant pond, but that's no good to a boater. Similarly, a cyclist will trundle up the towpath of a derelict canal, but we can't navigate without water and operational infrastructure (locks to you).

The point that I made earlier is that a cyclist using the towpath causes wear to that towpath. Unless money is expended on the towpath, the resulting wear will cause the towpath to become unusable by pedestrians.

 

So, IMHO, the cyclists should be allowed to use the towpaths FOC, provided they leave their bikes at home.

 

If they want to bring their bikes, they should pay for the damage that they cause.

 

LOL! I'd love to see your evidence!

Which point would you like me to provide evidence for?

[Machpoint005]

The point that I made earlier is that a cyclist using the towpath causes wear to that towpath. Unless money is expended on the towpath, the resulting wear will cause the towpath to become unusable by pedestrians.

 

Pedestrians cause towpath wear too: never been up a popular hill in the Dales?

 

My point was that cyclists and pedestrians alike have made a contribution to the coffers (albeit unwittingly) so there's no reason why they should not use the towpath at no further cost - in a responsible manner.

[CanalWalker]

we already do pay for the canals, cyclists and pedestrians pay tax too you know! I doubt my bike causes the concrete, gravel and tarmac any more damage than my boots do.

[mayalld]

Pedestrians cause towpath wear too: never been up a popular hill in the Dales?

 

My point was that cyclists and pedestrians alike have made a contribution to the coffers (albeit unwittingly) so there's no reason why they should not use the towpath at no further cost - in a responsible manner.

 

Their contribution is alike.

 

The wear that they cause is not.

 

A bike causes FAR more wear on the surface than a foot.

 

we already do pay for the canals, cyclists and pedestrians pay tax too you know! I doubt my bike causes the concrete, gravel and tarmac any more damage than my boots do.

 

Most towpaths are not tarmac or concrete.

 

They are compressed earth, shale or limestone.

 

And I can assure you that whilst boots cause minimal wear to such surfaces, cycling causes considerable wear.

 

So, cycling means one of three things happens;

1) The towpath becomes impassible to pedestrians

2) BW have to repair it more often - costing money

3) BW have to install a durable surface - costing money.