Daz555

Indeed. Still the more people that get on their bikes as a result of not worrying so much about being killed to death, the better for traffic flow as there will be fewer cars....which in turn reduces further the danger to cyclists and encourages even more people onto two wheels.

Yes but stopping use of ropes does not seem viable whereas pulling up fenders does.

We hired from Anglo Welsh earlier in the summer and although they only offer 1GB per week if they notice you have run out they will add a new data allocation onto your boat free of charge if other boats have finished their trip without using all their data. Nice touch I thought. We did not need this in the end but it was nice to hear them offer it.

Ooh thrusters.....I'm going to assume they cause come 'debate' in the narrowboating world!

I recently returned from a 2 week trip on the Avon ring - began as a complete novice but felt by the end I had begun to get the hang of things - did not hit anyone at least during the trip. On thing that soon became obvious to me was the lack of control you have in reverse with the traditional prop & rudder arrangement you have on a narrowboat. Very different to the steerable prop (not sure if that is the right term) I was used to when driving RIBs etc when on SCUBA diving days. Do any narrowboats have a steerable prop rather than a rudder? Just curious that's all. Would be nice to know why narrowboats don't generally have them if people have an opinion on it - I'm guessing it is down to reliability/complexity or likelihood of damage etc. Or is it just tradition? Thoughts?

I noticed very early on that you do lose steering in reverse and the bow can swing sometimes. I really meant that whilst approaching a narrow section for example - going slowly and finding you have still managed to mess it up I felt it was best to slow down or stop completely rather than plough on and hope for the best - which I saw a number of boaters do at locks etc. Totally agree that steady is best and hopefully did not come across as suggesting we should drive around like boy racers! ;-)

On our recent 2 week trip round the Avon ring (first timers) there were two minor collisions - one was "our" fault - well actually my father-in-laws who was accused by the other boater of going too fast when in reality he just got it all wrong with the tiller - it was during our first 30 minutes on the boat. The second was from an owner-boater who was turning in a very tight spot near Tewkesbury if I remember rightly. Gave us a hefty shove in the side - very apologetic but no harm done as far as I could see. One thing I did learn early on was not to be afraid of the throttle when things might be going pear shaped - if you want to get the boat turning quickly you've got to give it some oomph. This is likely what caused my father in law to have a bump - trying to be "safe" hoping the boat was going to turn on time in tickover when in reality a good dose of throttle would have sorted it out. The other thing again I found was that IF in doubt about where you are going - i.e. are you lined up correctly for a narrow bridge or not - give it a good dose of reverse to kill your speed which then gives you time to reset things - don't just "hope" you are going to get through bump free.

Well the trip wads a huge success and apart from the odd shower we got away with the weather as well - only spend about 3 hours in total having to wear waterproof jacket whilst driving the boat. Highs. The kids did not fall in the canal. 17 pubs visited in 14 days. Cycling the towpaths with the kids. Stratford upon Avon. Tewkesbury The River Avon - beautiful & very glad I took advice to take it downstream as it was a breeze - came across more than one boat who had had some trouble locking up - one family flooding the front of their boat. Driving the boat through all the locks allowing my wife and father in law all the hard work. The Tardebigge flight. Lows. River Servern from Tewkesbury to Worcester - zzzzzz. Despite best efforts moving stuff around, the boat did not sit level in the water, slightly messing with my mild OCD for things being even and symmetrical. ;-)

Just got back from 2 weeks doing the Avon Ring - fabulous time all round. I took bikes for me and the kids and we really enjoyed riding the towpaths either at the end of the days cruising or in some cases alongside - getting ahead of the boat and waiting for it to catch up at a pub, lock or junction etc. I encountered many cyclists and walkers and of course most were perfectly well behaved. A couple of speeding cyclists got an earful from me after whizzing past my mother-in-law who has mobility issues but I decided it best not to say anything to the 4 drunk lads of Eastern European origin who were blocking the towpath somewhere near Stratford and were almost unable to walk. I also encountered a couple of grumpy walkers who refused to step to one side to let my 6 yr old daughter cycle past them safely on a narrow section. But hey-ho - nothing really worth worrying about.

Here is the letter from British Cycling that triggered the recent discussions in the media on access rights: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/zuvvi/media/bc_files/campaigning/MTB_ACCESS_LETTER_SECRETARY_OF_STATE.pdf Access to every path would be a complete nonsense and I'd hope no-one would ever expect that. However, I suspect there is scope for some increase in the total number of off-road routes available to cyclists. No idea how much though - it will no doubt need significant review and consultation to come to a full understanding of the situation.

Dogs are always something to be careful of as they are very unpredictable. Easy to injure a dog with a collision or a caught lead and also very easy to end up in trouble yourself for failing to give dogs plenty of room when passing - and passing slowly.

Stop with the troll allegation. I was stating that my own personal feelings about an injury to me or someone else should not be that important - that invites emotional response and is often not the best way when it comes to defining policy. I then went on to describe what I hoped (but perhaps failed) was an example whereby we could take the overall cost to human life in terms of overall death/injury and see if there was a better way - and evidence shows that separating cyclists from motor traffic reduces the numbers of people killed or seriously injured - overall (that they are cyclists is irrelevant - they are humans). It is not my personal feeling that lives are saved if we separate cyclists from motor traffic - it is a verifiable fact. The offset will no doubt be a number of collisions between cyclists and pedestrians/runners on shared paths - this should not ignored of course. However, if the overall benefit (human cost, cost to NHS etc) is for the good then I support decisions for shared paths. There is also the benefit that increased availability of off-road cycling encourages people to get out, ride and become healthier and fitter - which saves the NHS money and improves quality of life. Even better of course is to separate cyclists from motorists, and separate pedestrians from motorists and cyclists. This should be encouraged wherever possible but the infrastructure to enable this is not always there or affordable. I like law and policy to be governed by reason, that's all I'm saying.

At dedicated trail centres (in my example) you are left in no doubt at all with the excellent signage and regular stop gates. The routes are also one way - for safety - and signage makes this very clear. Once in a blue moon you get a rider going the wrong way round also. They get an appropriate response from other riders! ;-)

The problem of course is there are inconsiderate fools in all walks of life. Speeding motorists, speeding boaters, boaters mooring in stupid places, pedestrians on shared paths who seem each day to assume they live in a universe where bikes do not exist, lorry drivers squeezing past walkers or cyclists on narrow country roads, cyclists jumping red lights....it goes on and on. And I'll mention my own pet peeve for this month - walkers on dedicated mountain bike trails. Trying to come to a stop on a downhill section of single track consisting of gravel, roots and rocks whilst doing 40mph is no easy feat.....and then to get a telling off by said walkers for "being reckless"......GRRRRR!!! LOL. And those injured on roads are from vulnerable groups - pedestrians and cyclists. I do not trade one for the other. Overall benefit is where the law needs to focus. Enforcement of decent behaviour would be ideal but who has the desire or the resources? And would any money put forward for that be better spent elsewhere in terms of overall benefit?

My feelings should not come into it. Laws/regulations where possible should look at overall benefit rather than needs or wants of smaller groups or individuals in my view. So for example - if there is a demonstrable overall benefit (injuries, deaths, costs to NHS etc) in encouraging cyclists from say a red painted cycle way on the road, onto a shared pavement with pedestrians (or a tow path), then yes I think that is what we should do.