Jump to content

Safe passing distance for towpath users


Jon57

Featured Posts

13 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Not road tax, but given their potential to damage third parties, cycles should in my opinion carry compulsory registration plates and insurance.

make the registration plates 4 feet x 2 feet (to be shown front and rear)....

that should slow them down a bit (even if only through wind resistance) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, cuthound said:

Not road tax, but given their potential to damage third parties, cycles should in much in ion carry compulsory registration plates and insurance.

I kind of agree with that, but at what age does that start? And who polices/enforces it?

Personally, as a British Cycling member, third party liability insurance is part and parcel of my membership

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the continent I have seen in some countries a small enamelled badge with a serial number and a date.  Supplied at a cost to the bike owner it confirms insurance and registration. In Spain they were red and on the back mudguard.  They could be issued by The Post Office, bike shops and on-line.

At what age is not an issue. A child's parent or guardian would be responsible, and held to account for their off-spring's behaviour and actions.

Anyone whose job description encompasses maintaining law/rules/by-laws in the public domain could enforce, be they police, park attendants, hobby bobbies, water bailiffs, busy bodies or daleks.  Eventually peer group pressure would take effect and it would be self governing.

Those flouting the rules would be crushed along with their bike.

  • Happy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zenataomm said:

On the continent I have seen in some countries a small enamelled badge with a serial number and a date.  Supplied at a cost to the bike owner it confirms insurance and registration. In Spain they were red and on the back mudguard.  They could be issued by The Post Office, bike shops and on-line.

At what age is not an issue. A child's parent or guardian would be responsible, and held to account for their off-spring's behaviour and actions.

Anyone whose job description encompasses maintaining law/rules/by-laws in the public domain could enforce, be they police, park attendants, hobby bobbies, water bailiffs, busy bodies or daleks.  Eventually peer group pressure would take effect and it would be self governing.

Those flouting the rules would be crushed along with their bike.

Set it up my friend, i'll buy into it, as long as its not so prohibitively expensive that kids can't enjoy cycling and that a goodly percentage of the cost is plowed back into infrastructure and not just another piggy bank for whatever government to raid when they see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, zenataomm said:

On the continent I have seen in some countries a small enamelled badge with a serial number and a date.  Supplied at a cost to the bike owner it confirms insurance and registration. In Spain they were red and on the back mudguard.  They could be issued by The Post Office, bike shops and on-line.

Having read some reports where riders (I won't honour them with the title cyclist) haven't stopped they would need to be readable from a couple of yards away at least.  IMO anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidence based policy is the way to go. Simply collate the A&E data for cyclist injury to pedestrians and use that to establish the insurance/licence rates. Based on the comments of internet fora there are clearly thousands of injured pedestrians...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tigerr said:

Evidence based policy is the way to go. Simply collate the A&E data for cyclist injury to pedestrians and use that to establish the insurance/licence rates. Based on the comments of internet fora there are clearly thousands of injured pedestrians...

yes but .................  the NHS will claim it doesn't have the funds for that type of research.  It would probably require a whole new department of civil servants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 07/06/2017 at 08:28, Murflynn said:

........ 

cyclists can do whatever they like and are untouchable, 'cos they think the sun shines out of their proverbial.

That would certainly solve the early morning soggy saddle problem

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎07‎/‎06‎/‎2017 at 10:52, Hudds Lad said:

I kind of agree with that, but at what age does that start? And who polices/enforces it?

Personally, as a British Cycling member, third party liability insurance is part and parcel of my membership

I would hope all sensible cyclists have such insurance and bet it costs peanuts. Sensible dog owners insure their dogs to cover damage to persons/property made by the said dog that is also not expensive. I would suggest the age of criminal responsibility as a good place to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mrsmelly said:

I would hope all sensible cyclists have such insurance and bet it costs peanuts.

£37 per year, nothing really for peace of mind, I've saved that already with the 10% discount I get at Halfords as part of the membership package ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bastion said:

But without any easily read identification plate how would an injured party be able to claim on insurance 

Obviously cyclists being sensible law abiding citizens will always stop and sort it out :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Some nineteen years ago Waterways World published a piece on towpath cycling (May 1998)

The article noted that towpath cycling had become an emotive issue following the imposition by British Waterways of paid cyling licenses on the Kennet & Avon Canal.

In November 1997 the IWA produced their draft Towing Path policy.

In the IWA coverage of cycling on towpaths it included the following

(1) Towpaths should not be designated part of a formal cycle route unless they are at least five metres wide

(2) The IWA would oppose any action to establish a "universal right to cycle"

(3) Competitions, races and other large group cycling activities are not appropriate on towpaths

(4) Cyclists must be prepared to dismount when passing other towpath users

(5) The need for cycle routes to meet the requirements of the Road Traffic Regulations Act (1997) will place increasing pressure for new or continuing use of towpaths or cycleways.

In December 1997 BW joined with the cycling organisation CTC and issued a joint statement asking for Government recognition, through funding, for the use of towpaths within "green transport" and making a commitment to work together to develop the transport potential of the towpath network. Within the statement was the commiitment to engage local authority assistance.

There followed a war of words where the IWA opposed any major extension pf cycling  on towpaths as an alternative to roads for cycling commuters.

A compromise between the IWA and BW was achieved in March 1998 when it was decided

(a) the proposals for increased cycling on towpaths will be developed for individual sections according to local needs

(b) a full local consultation would be made on proposals to convert sections of towpaths to cycle routes

(c) development proposals will protect the built heritage and natural environment of the waterway, the interest of navigation and safety and convenience of existing users

(d) cycling will be expected to make a contribution to the cost of maintenance and development of towpaths.

 

It is perhaps a salutary observation that some cyclists have abused these principals laid out. It is also true that the CRT do not, or cannot, enforce their own more recent towpath code. The development, or non development, of towpaths to allow cycling  remains a contentious issue. There is so much opportunity for a fair provision of cycling and in some instances the provision of cycling routes helps to keep waterways open and with the Lichfield & Hatherton Trust such facilities are a means for restoration to proceed.

Regulation appears to be the way forward and yet perhaps asking to CRT to act on this is perhaps yet another oxymoron.

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here on the Isle of Man we have a thing called the TT. Twice a year 37.75 miles of public roads are closed to the public for periods of the day to allow practicing and then racing, high powered motorcycles hurtle round at speeds over 200 mph at times. I Marshal the events and it's GREAT!!

During this time, especially for the TT in June the mountain section of the course (unrestricted speed - yes, I do mean unrestricted) is made one way in the direction racing takes place so the fans can set out to discover that they and their bikes are not professional racers and just how hard walls and the tarmac are when you hit them at 150 mph.

Sadly during this period the lycra clad loons exercise their "right" to ride their bicycles along this route - there's nothing more fun and amusing than coming around a corner at 120 mph to find four cyclists abreast across the road in front of you. The cyclists also find it amusing and cheerfully call out happy, friendly greetings whilst waving to you (at least I think that's what they were doing).

This year for the Manx Grand Prix the Isle of Man Government and the Police have very very sensibly banned cyclists from the mountain section. Whilst I realise that towpaths are a different kettle of fish maybe the occasional set of spikes across the route .....

Easily avoidable by pedestrians, but cyclists would have to dismount, carry their bikes over the obstruction, then set off again making it difficult for them to reach mach 2, never mind the usual mach 3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/08/2017 at 19:30, cuthound said:

Not unless they damage their bike and make it un-rideable, usually they hit you and cycle off. :P

Usually, nobody gets hit at all. I appreciate of course for some that is 'almost being mown down'. I am almost mown down by literally thousands of cars and bikes and pedestrians daily. Luckily I dodge out of the way and have usually escaped without injury. When boating I am similarly almost rammed by other boats continually, it is only skill that stops these major accidents happening. 

 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tigerr said:

Usually, nobody gets hit at all. I appreciate of course for some that is 'almost being mown down'. I am almost mown down by literally thousands of cars and bikes and pedestrians daily. Luckily I dodge out of the way and have usually escaped without injury. 

When you are "almost mown down" by cars and bikes you are obviously in the road not on the pavement.  Bikes were designed for the road and are I think still illegal on pavements.  The problem with towpaths is that they are being given a use they were never designed for.  Coupled with that the fact they aren't carrying a lot of "traffic" makes the bikes (not all) go faster than is sensible when a pedestrian might step from a boat or pop out of an adjoining path.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2017 at 13:26, Sir Nibble said:

I know a main road with, from left to right a cycle path about 2 metres, foot path about one metre, grass verge about one metre, kerb, another cycle path for another metre then the carriageway. So cyclists can choose their own passing distance. Guess where most of them ride, oh, forgot to make clear, that's ONE side of the road.

 

On 6/6/2017 at 13:55, Jerra said:

Human nature being what it is probably in the road.

 

On 6/7/2017 at 07:19, Sir Nibble said:

That's right. I believe that many cyclists are totally oblivious to signage of any kind and don't see the red surfaces.

It's not always that simple, and is certainly often not about cyclists insisting on a right not to be taken off the road.

I'm not suggesting it is the case in Sir Nibble's example, but many schemes that seek to separate the cyclist from motor traffic are ill thought out, and often dangerous.  There is no point, for example creating a short length of bidirectional cycle track all on one side of the main road, if a cyclist travelling in the direction where it is on the opposite side has to cross across oncoming motot traffic to access it, only to have to do the sane in reverse a few hundred yards later.  In such cases I would always have taken the safer option of staying on the road.

We have locally several attempts to create chicanes on the main routes in to town, where the cyclists were briefly diverted to the left of them, but quickly deposited back onto the main road.  The problem was that all the barriers and signs in the chicanery meant cyclists who had to rejoin the normal road only a few dozen yards later could then not glance over their shoulder to see if the neede dto pull up abruptly to avid being run down by a lorry.  I personally witnesssed some near misses.

The council never maintained these cycle bypasses round the obstructions, forcing cyclists to try to get through mud, litter and sometimes undergrowth.  Not surprisingly all fell into disuse.  This was not the fault of stroppy cyclists, but of those who introduced them without thinking of the consequences, (or being prepared to pay to maintain them).

In my experience most cyclists will use a good well thought out facilty, but will shun one that makes life more dangerous, or make their journey time significantly longer than using the road it isseeking to stop you using.  Planners need to think before spending money on such "improvements".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tigerr said:

Usually, nobody gets hit at all. I appreciate of course for some that is 'almost being mown down'. I am almost mown down by literally thousands of cars and bikes and pedestrians daily. Luckily I dodge out of the way and have usually escaped without injury. When boating I am similarly almost rammed by other boats continually, it is only skill that stops these major accidents happening. 

 

Sadly what you are overlooking is that when you choose to be almost mown down  by literally thousands of cars and bikes  it's because you decided so to do, and know you have the skill to employ. Likewise when you are similarly almost rammed by other boats you are prepared for that eventuality.

I doubt very much that those choosing to go for a stroll along a towpath or emerge from the side of their boat carrying something awkward expect to have to leap for their lives.

Your announcement that you are also almost mown down daily by pedestrians, is a sad admission that you are either riding on the pavement or not taking due care and attention to those who may need to suddenly step off a pavement. If you are keeping up to date with The Regs. of The Road you will of course be aware that any road user gives way to a pedestrian, especially when turning a corner and finding them already crossing said road.

As for your comment that when on your boat you are almost rammed by other boats continually would lead most readers to conclude you haven't a clue which side of the cut you're meant to be on. In nearly 50 years of boating it has only happened to me once.  However I suspect that you do really know and your post is merely a total exaggeration to prove some point or another that is only known to you.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.