|
Post by thebfg on Feb 28, 2017 11:16:01 GMT
I'm gunna go devil's advocate.
Crt have given full on permission for cycling. In fact I would go as far to say cycling on towpaths is an important part of cruising the network and probaly has been for many many years.
As permission is granted they could never get a successfully magistrates prosecution.
I will add a footnote that yes cycling is allowed on the proviso that a cyclist follows the cycling code etc.
If a cyclist injures someone their are more appropriate laws to deal with it. After a good old dunking a expect.
A valid question to other posts. If say a return to permits or any other requirements What legal powers would a crt employee have to stop and detain a cyclist? What legal powers could they use to ask for a name and address of a cyclist.?
I suspect the answer may have something to do with the end of the permits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 12:07:08 GMT
I think when one hypothesises about an annual cycling permit to raise funds and to regulate, to a degree, cyclists, it should be taken as read that we are also hypothesising the legislation to implement it. However, without any enforcement at all I suspect a large proportion of cyclists would buy such a permit. Most of us are pretty jolly decent you know. Rog
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 28, 2017 17:03:52 GMT
I'm gunna go devil's advocate. Crt have given full on permission for cycling. In fact I would go as far to say cycling on towpaths is an important part of cruising the network and probaly has been for many many years. As permission is granted they could never get a successfully magistrates prosecution. I will add a footnote that yes cycling is allowed on the proviso that a cyclist follows the cycling code etc. If a cyclist injures someone their are more appropriate laws to deal with it. After a good old dunking a expect. A valid question to other posts. If say a return to permits or any other requirements What legal powers would a crt employee have to stop and detain a cyclist? What legal powers could they use to ask for a name and address of a cyclist.? I suspect the answer may have something to do with the end of the permits. When has a specific blanket permission been granted by CRT to all members of the public ?
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 28, 2017 17:06:51 GMT
I think when one hypothesises about an annual cycling permit to raise funds and to regulate, to a degree, cyclists, it should be taken as read that we are also hypothesising the legislation to implement it. However, without any enforcement at all I suspect a large proportion of cyclists would buy such a permit. Most of us are pretty jolly decent you know. Rog Why is paying for a permit that you do not need not decent behaviour ? I don't think many people would waste money on it in these austere times. If a cyclist wants to donate to CRT that's another issue.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 28, 2017 19:12:27 GMT
I'm gunna go devil's advocate. Crt have given full on permission for cycling. In fact I would go as far to say cycling on towpaths is an important part of cruising the network and probaly has been for many many years. As permission is granted they could never get a successfully magistrates prosecution. I will add a footnote that yes cycling is allowed on the proviso that a cyclist follows the cycling code etc. If a cyclist injures someone their are more appropriate laws to deal with it. After a good old dunking a expect. A valid question to other posts. If say a return to permits or any other requirements What legal powers would a crt employee have to stop and detain a cyclist? What legal powers could they use to ask for a name and address of a cyclist.? I suspect the answer may have something to do with the end of the permits. When has a specific blanket permission been granted by CRT to all members of the public ? Ask em. It's all on their website towpaths are permissive paths. All you need to do is follow the code. We welcome all considerate cyclists to our towpaths and you don't need a permit. However, we would ask that you take a look at our Towpath Code before you take to the towpaths. canalrivertrust.org.uk/enjoy-the-waterways/cycling. Which begs the questions I asked earlier. I'm only the messinger
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 19:33:12 GMT
Good observations. I think the towpath is "gone" now. Its not really recoverable. Putting signs saying "pedestrian priority" is completely pointless. Obviously an attitude change by pedestrians could be effective "don't give way to idiots" but not everyone likes confrontation.
"Ting twice be nice" etc its all a waste of time. The considerate majority will always be considerate. The idiots who spoil it for everyone else will always be idiots. I really can't see any way to control them other than chicanes or similar physical impediments. They put ramps on rat run roads to try to slow people down and make them choose alternatives so maybe towpaths could have similar installations.
Trouble is if cycle calming measures are suggested they get voted down. By cyclist lobby groups.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 21:03:58 GMT
I think when one hypothesises about an annual cycling permit to raise funds and to regulate, to a degree, cyclists, it should be taken as read that we are also hypothesising the legislation to implement it. However, without any enforcement at all I suspect a large proportion of cyclists would buy such a permit. Most of us are pretty jolly decent you know. Rog Why is paying for a permit that you do not need not decent behaviour ? I don't think many people would waste money on it in these austere times. If a cyclist wants to donate to CRT that's another issue. I was suggesting (in a hypothetical world) that many people would pay an annual fee. Many people buy a fishing licence every year (including myself) despite having never been asked to produce a licence or even seeing a person asking anyone else to produce a licence in 45 years of course fishing around the country. It was suggested that enforcement of a cycling permit (in this hypothetical world) would be difficult. I was merely pointing out that enforcement isn't essential for very many of us. Rog
|
|
|
Post by tadworth on Feb 28, 2017 21:27:35 GMT
I'm wondering if they have the power to declare towpaths "permissive paths" ? They don't own the land, it is public land. Are they legally the landowner ?
Not that it matters much as CRT have admitted that they have never enforced one single bylaw, I doubt they would start on this one.
My opinion for what its worth, for places like in London and thinking about when I was last there and the bike mayhem at places like Kensal Green, and Camden, is that the towpath should be physically closed off to bikes, its not a road or a cycle path, its a footpath.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 28, 2017 21:27:41 GMT
Why is paying for a permit that you do not need not decent behaviour ? I don't think many people would waste money on it in these austere times. If a cyclist wants to donate to CRT that's another issue. I was suggesting (in a hypothetical world) that many people would pay an annual fee. Many people buy a fishing licence every year (including myself) despite having never been asked to produce a licence or even seeing a person asking anyone else to produce a licence in 45 years of course fishing around the country. It was suggested that enforcement of a cycling permit (in this hypothetical world) would be difficult. I was merely pointing out that enforcement isn't essential for very many of us. Rog They could just say you need a permit. It would raise some money. Some people would get one and some wouldent. They make things up about other things. Why not this๐ I get your point. Yes many people would pay/donate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 21:29:37 GMT
Its an interesting idea. I suspect that a lot of cyclists really dislike the idiot cyclists. I cycle on the towpath sometimes (currently live in London) and my older daughter is almost 7 now so looking at bikes but towpath cycling is just not pleasant. There is the obvious danger of water on one side but the real danger is the idiot cyclists. They are quite intimidating.
I'd be happy to pay for a yearly bike license which could go towards the installation of regular chicanes on the towpath. No normal cyclist out for a jolly would have a problem with that. Neither would pedestrians. Design would be to reduce average speed of bicycles.
With any luck it would get rid of the idiot tour de france types. Someone told me part of the problem is that google maps indicate the towpaths as a 15mph average speed cycle route. Don't know if its true but in popular areas that could definitely make a difference.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 28, 2017 21:35:19 GMT
Its an interesting idea. I suspect that a lot of cyclists really dislike the idiot cyclists. I cycle on the towpath sometimes (currently live in London) and my older daughter is almost 7 now so looking at bikes but towpath cycling is just not pleasant. There is the obvious danger of water on one side but the real danger is the idiot cyclists. They are quite intimidating. I'd be happy to pay for a yearly bike license which could go towards the installation of regular chicanes on the towpath. No normal cyclist out for a jolly would have a problem with that. Neither would pedestrians. Design would be to reduce average speed of bicycles. With any luck it would get rid of the idiot tour de france types. Someone told me part of the problem is that google maps indicate the towpaths as a 15mph average speed cycle route. Don't know if its true but in popular areas that could definitely make a difference. Tarmacing them doesn't help, make them rocky that will slow em down. I would say 15 mph average, well I was going to say difficult but I don't know now. When I'm out for a long ride say 80-100 miles. I can average 15mph. But that's an average. 15mph is far too fast for any shared path let alone one next to a canal. If they are doing a steady 15 then it might be possible to average it but if they have to stop. Then they could be hitting 20-25 mph at places. With the speed limit of 17mph on a shared use path. Push em in I say.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 28, 2017 21:37:31 GMT
It's quite possible that it's strava not Google.
If it is join up find the relevant segments on towpaths and report it to strata as dangerous.
They will block the times to prevent ghost racing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2017 21:40:36 GMT
I just put in Old ford lock (Hackney) to City Road basin on google maps. Cyclist. It gave me 2.9mi in 15 minutes. All towpath. Thats about 12mph. Too fast for the towpath.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Feb 28, 2017 21:43:41 GMT
I just put in Old ford lock (Hackney) to City Road basin on google maps. Cyclist. It gave me 2.9mi in 15 minutes. All towpath. Thats about 12mph. Too fast for the towpath. I see Google maps. I suspect they use the same sums to work the time out wherever it is. It probaly does not even register it's a towpath.
|
|
|
Post by NigelMoore on Feb 28, 2017 23:24:56 GMT
There was never any right of pedestrian public access to towpaths, in general, let alone cyclists. Free access to the towpaths for both pedestrians and cyclists was one of the significant changes in administrative policy agreed between government and CaRT as part of the price for CaRTโs liberation from effective oversight. Those interested in all this should read the โEXPLANATORY DOCUMENT TO THE BRITISH WATERWAYS BOARD (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) ORDER 2012 2012 No. 1659.โ โIn addition the Government and CRT trustees decided to protect free pedestrian access by means of an explicit safeguard in the Trust Obligations. This protects the status quo, i.e. the right of free pedestrian access on existing towpaths, subject to certain pragmatic qualifications (i.e. for operational/maintenance purposes and control of access at some tourist sites). As the majority of towpaths are not currently public rights of way and access is permitted at British Waterwaysโ discretion, this is a significant new protection. It was agreed that CRT would publish policies on free access for pedestrians and cyclists.โ [my bold] www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/1659/pdfs/uksiem_20121659_en.pdfConsequent upon this policy change, much of the towpath "improvements" into cycling highways has been driven and financed by highway authorities. CaRT have little to say about it.
|
|