Cyclists and CRT Code

[Heartland]

I notice the sign at Trent Lock has wording that is quite specific. Pedestrians have priority over cyclists. Such a wording does not stop them remaining mounted, though if the towpath is busy they should dismount and that also goes for locks and this is also the case at Cranfleet Lock on the Trent.

 

 

[Heartland]

The sign...

 

 

[jds_1981]

On 28/06/2018 at 10:40, Heartland said:

 

 

I sat on a bench yesterday for half an hour, at Farmers Bridge Junction, by the Arena, 1715-1745 and counted the number of persons passing me

 

Pedestrians alone -   8

Pedestrians in groups-  3

Cyclists travelling fast-  12

Cyclists travelling slow- 6

Cyclists passing each other in front of me on the narrow curved path -2

 

 

 

Lots of cyclists, perhaps cart should start looking at ways to assist them?

[mrsmelly]

36 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

Lots of cyclists, perhaps cart should start looking at ways to assist them?

A good idea. CART charge me about a grand a year to use my boat which is a bargain. I suppose 500 quid a year for a bike would be a good  start? and of course same as me compulsory insurance and a vehicle check?

[Heartland]

In view of declining CRT finances, it would be reasonable to make an charge for a licence. Central Birmingham has become a crossroads of cycling routes and is perhaps the reason for the concentration to be found there. These routes include the Birmingham & Fazeley and links to the Warwick & Birmingham, the BCN main lines and the Worcester and Birmingham Canal. The numbers of cyclists that meet here, as well as the option for cycle hire, have increased in recent times aided by the opening of the towpath barriers.

[KevMc]

35 minutes ago, Heartland said:

In view of declining CRT finances, it would be reasonable to make an charge for a licence. Central Birmingham has become a crossroads of cycling routes and is perhaps the reason for the concentration to be found there. These routes include the Birmingham & Fazeley and links to the Warwick & Birmingham, the BCN main lines and the Worcester and Birmingham Canal. The numbers of cyclists that meet here, as well as the option for cycle hire, have increased in recent times aided by the opening of the towpath barriers.

In order to cover the cost of providing the licence... and enforcing it .. I imagine it would have to be quite a hefty charge

[jds_1981]

11 minutes ago, KevMc said:

In order to cover the cost of providing the licence... and enforcing it .. I imagine it would have to be quite a hefty charge

Indeed, one of those things where the cost of running it would more than consume all revenues gained.

[jds_1981]

18 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

A good idea. CART charge me about a grand a year to use my boat which is a bargain. I suppose 500 quid a year for a bike would be a good  start? and of course same as me compulsory insurance and a vehicle check?

Sounds reasonable, but... Unpowered crafts as I'm sure you know are £50/year.

Think allowance would need to be made for the fact a bike isn't going to be using the canal much of the time (5 hours a week - 260 hrs /year?) While a boat would be 8760 hrs/year. So bike 3% of the time. £1.50/year. Maybe want to make further allowance that no need to provide and maintain expensive services. So, what, 50p/year? Same fee for pedestrians too I guess.

[mrsmelly]

1 minute ago, jds_1981 said:

Sounds reasonable, but... Unpowered crafts as I'm sure you know are £50/year.

Think allowance would need to be made for the fact a bike isn't going to be using the canal much of the time (5 hours a week - 260 hrs /year?) While a boat would be 8760 hrs/year. So bike 3% of the time. £1.50/year. Maybe want to make further allowance that no need to provide and maintain expensive services. So, what, 50p/year? Same fee for pedestrians too I guess.

A typical lycra reply. I can assure you that cyclists destroy more expensive towpath surfaces than boaters ever do. Why do you think 5 hours a week? I know thousands of boats that sit paid for in a marina and never use any of the system so thats cows droppings. I dont think pedestrians should pay as we all donate through taxes to the system anyway its just the likes of boaters, cyclists and anglers that should pay as we all have extra use. Consider it a bit like using the road where all motorists who abide by the law have insurance in  case just as a for instance they run in to  a cyclist and of course all cyclists have insurance for when they are the casue of  an accident.

[jds_1981]

21 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

A typical lycra reply. I can assure you that cyclists destroy more expensive towpath surfaces than boaters ever do. Why do you think 5 hours a week? I know thousands of boats that sit paid for in a marina and never use any of the system so thats cows droppings. I dont think pedestrians should pay as we all donate through taxes to the system anyway its just the likes of boaters, cyclists and anglers that should pay as we all have extra use. Consider it a bit like using the road where all motorists who abide by the law have insurance in  case just as a for instance they run in to  a cyclist and of course all cyclists have insurance for when they are the casue of  an accident.

I suspect that for cyclists, like pedestrians, damagecaused to tarmacked surfaces is essentially unmeasurable, and orders of magnitude below that of natural weathering.

However please see picture of knackered edging stones due to mooring spikes. I'd estimate tens of thousands to fix that.

Also see picture of mooring spike driven directly into path.

 

Not sure what 'extra use' cyclists get over pedestrians? 

 

Ultimately, I was agreeing with you that it might be reasonable to argue that cyclists, like all other users should pay a fee to use canals, but that the sum was likely to be very low, indeed, low enough that it would be pointless to collect. Certainly no more than the £50 that allows one to keep an unpowered craft for a while year on the canal, probably nearer the amount of ved a no-emissions vehicle pays to use the road...

[haggis]

Whenever I read about cyclists on towpaths I recall a very scary experience I had on the Caldon last October. We moored at the Hollybush and after enjoying a meal there I took the dogs for their final comfort break of the evening. I walked along the towpath with both dogs on the lead and a torch in my hand. The towpath there is narrow and has a bend with a hedge along  the side. Suddenly 4 or 5 lycra attired cyclists came round the bend at speed and only by pushing myself back into the hedge and pulling both dogs in after me did I escape being hit. None of the cyclists slowed down or spoke and I got the impression from their speed that they were doing some sort of time trial. The one in front (and perhaps others) had a head torch but because of the bend in the towpath I didn't see the light till they were just feet from me. 

The next morning in the daylight I had a look at the towpath and not only is it narrow there it is also a bit uneven and in all honesty it was the last place I would expect to see cyclists doing time trials. 

If the dogs hadn't been on the lead or if I hadn't managed to push myself into the hedge I wonder what would have happened as there was no way they could have stopped. Hopefuly if anyone had ended up in the canal it would have been them :-) 

haggis

[Johny London]

I was knocked down by a cyclist on the Stort last year. Part of a group that came hareing past, a mooring spike caused him to swerve a bit and he collided with me then careered off the towpath - he was saved from a watery end by a soft landing in nettles

I only suffered a bruised arm but the cyclist accepted he had been going too fast. He was part of a group of what I would describe as sensible. mature cyclists, so I took it no further.

I dislike cyclists in general - they are a nuisance on pavements, towpaths and roads. Basically, wherever you find them. I walk a lot, and on towpaths, every five minutes there is a bell or a "scuse me" (if you are lucky) constantly being made to get out of the way. 

There are just a very few that are truly courteous to pedestrians, and I always thank them when they are.

Cyclists definitely should have tax/ins/plates. 

[Jerra]

21 hours ago, jds_1981 said:

Not sure what 'extra use' cyclists get over pedestrians? 

Because of speed of travel cyclist must cover more miles than a walker so extra use.

5 minutes ago, Johny London said:

Cyclists definitely should have tax/ins/plates. 

I couldn't agree more.  Being able to identify the rider (or at least the bike) might curb some of the excesses.

[jds_1981]

56 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Because of speed of travel cyclist must cover more miles than a walker so extra use.

 

But they spend less time on the canal, so less use

[Jerra]

7 minutes ago, jds_1981 said:

But they spend less time on the canal, so less use

Two things.  The first depends on your definition of use.  They use more towpath than a walker.

Second, what proof is there that they spend less time on the canal than a walker or is it just an assertion based on a belief?

[jds_1981]

34 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Two things.  The first depends on your definition of use. 

 

Indeed.

 

34 minutes ago, Jerra said:

 

They use more towpath than a walker.

Potentially, only if they travel farther doing the canal then a walker

34 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Second, what proof is there that they spend less time on the canal than a walker or is it just an assertion based on a belief?

None hence the wink, but I could have asked the same about your statement that cyclists must use more.

 

Anyway, back to original point, while one could reasonably argue that cyclists and walkers should pay to use the canals, it isn't going to happen & the fees involved would be minimal. Considering for instance that an angling license is £10 or £15 Indeed, for me I'd be quids in as I'd stop my donations so ?

[Stilllearning]

Look at any non hard surfaced path, be it towpath or country path, and one can always see the wear caused by a bicycle tyre, and often the groove cut by repeated use. Footsteps do create wear, but of a different order.

[Sir Nibble]

Let's not get dragged into an anti cyclist rant. The evidence of our eyes is that sometimes, some cyclists are a public menace. Not all, and not always. In the same way that motorcyclists, motorists, truckers, bus drivers and boaters are mostly safe and sensible, regulation is required in order to control the risk to the many from the actions of the few. The law and the regulatory regime recognises the responsibilities of those who are in charge of machinery that represents a potential danger to persons, or property around it. The time has come to oblige the few cyclists to recognise their responsibilities and the only way to do that is compulsory registration of all cycles used on the road and the usual number plate. Current cycles will have to Q plate, and new ones registered by the dealer when sold like a new car. From there on problems can be dealt with under existing legislation, and the chancellor can get his pound of flesh, which he would you can bet. Whilst they're at it, horses too.

[Chas78]

Roof tacks on the toe path but poor animals also cop it so its a case of accepting them me thinks ?

[alan_fincher]

32 minutes ago, Chas78 said:

Roof tacks on the toe path but poor animals also cop it so its a case of accepting them me thinks ?

They can also go right through the soles of shoes, and penetrate your feet.

 

Pretty daft suggestion, frankly, whatever your attitude to bikes.

 

Like so many you seem to want to punish all responsible cyclists for the poor behaviour of a relative few.  Extend that idea, and you would put "stingers" across country lanes to spite speed freaks, but presumably it would just be bad luck for anybody who drove over them at a sensible 30 mph?

Edited July 6, 2018 by alan_fincher

[rusty69]

Another who can't differentiate a serious comment to one made in jest. 

[alan_fincher]

12 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Another who can't differentiate a serious comment to one made in jest. 

I get very bored with comments of this type about a subject that needs serious consideration.

 

If you find them amusing, then please chuckle on.

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, rusty69 said:

Another who can't differentiate a serious comment to one made in jest. 

 

I have to say, if it was a jest it didn't have me cracked up on the floor laughing. Perhaps my sense of humour needs a new set of batteries. 

[rusty69]

Just now, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

I have to say, if it was a jest it didn't have me cracked up on the floor laughing. Perhaps my sense of humour needs a new set of batteries. 

I didn't suggest it was funny! 

[Chas78]

Yet again a comment taken way too serious I wouldn't and couldn't put roofing tacks on the tow path for a start I would need thousands and that would cost a lot of £££ this post is meant  to be humorous and does not aim to hurt any people or animals ?