|
Post by kris on Nov 6, 2017 15:58:56 GMT
whilst cycling through one of the local parks, I noticed that the council has imposed a speed restriction on cyclists using the Cycle path which as you can see is part of the national cycle network. Well done the local council I say, why can't crt do the same on the towpath? Is it reluctance on their part to alienate cyclists or cycling organisations? Or is it just the usual inaction and incompetence inherant in crt as an organisation?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 16:31:47 GMT
How is it enforced?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 16:34:27 GMT
Seems a good idea but totally unenforceable .
5mph seems an odd speed as it would be almost pointless being on a bike anyway if you were limited to such a low speed. I think there's a good chance would probably have a counterproductive effect.
I suppose it might be related to duty of care or something?
I get the impression sustrans and other cycling organisations who are busy saving the planet for everyone else have quite a bit of clout regarding towpaths even though in a lot of places they (towpaths) are blatantly not wide enough to be used as shared amenity.
Something like "considerate cyclists welcome but anyone who is on a mission to get to their destination as fast as possible regardless of others FUCK OFF, DO ONE, DISAPPEAR or <insert own term here> "
Might work ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 16:36:04 GMT
Mr Stabby ? With a hedge laying slasher.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 6, 2017 16:43:45 GMT
I suppose it isn't but at least it's clear that a cyclist going faster on this shared path is breaking the law. I imagine it's been imposed in response to problems that have happenned.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 6, 2017 16:51:34 GMT
Seems a good idea but totally unenforceable . 5mph seems an odd speed as it would be almost pointless being on a bike anyway if you were limited to such a low speed. I think there's a good chance would probably have a counterproductive effect. I suppose it might be related to duty of care or something? I get the impression sustrans and other cycling organisations who are busy saving the planet for everyone else have quite a bit of clout regarding towpaths even though in a lot of places they (towpaths) are blatantly not wide enough to be used as shared amenity. Something like "considerate cyclists welcome but anyone who is on a mission to get to their destination as fast as possible regardless of others FUCK OFF, DO ONE, DISAPPEAR or <insert own term here> " Might work ? At least the council have done something ie taken their duty of care seriously. Crt are acting like ostriches burying their head and hoping it wil go away. I think it will take someone suing crt for them to do something like this, the amount of people being injured must be on the increase. As I understand it from talking to people from sustrans, they gave crt something like £6 million to encourage the use of towpaths for cycling. As I understand it they weren't to impressed with what they got for the money and have been keeping the pressure on crt since. I think crt's reluctance to crack down on speeding cyclists relates to the fact that something like 40% of the friends they sign up are cyclists, this is because their fundraisers are taught to particularly target cyclists.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 16:55:26 GMT
Sounds about right. When cycling through the park did you at all times travel at 5mph or slower? Signage is often suggested as way to control behaviour but without some sort of threat behind it does it really work? Maybe it does.
|
|
|
Post by Delta9 on Nov 6, 2017 16:56:10 GMT
I suppose it isn't but at least it's clear that a cyclist going faster on this shared path is breaking the law. Which law?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 16:57:47 GMT
I suppose it isn't but at least it's clear that a cyclist going faster on this shared path is breaking the law. I imagine it's been imposed in response to problems that have happenned. Breaking the law? That's interesting you mention that. If the signage has the force of law behind it and a cyclist was caught and prosecuted then that would obviously be a victory. Do they really have a law backing them up? (Cross posted with D9)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 17:00:32 GMT
I suppose it isn't but at least it's clear that a cyclist going faster on this shared path is breaking the law. I imagine it's been imposed in response to problems that have happenned. What law would they be breaking? Why not paint some pictures of ducks on a towpath instead... What a waste of money and effort. Cross posted with others...
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Nov 6, 2017 17:05:49 GMT
I suppose it isn't but at least it's clear that a cyclist going faster on this shared path is breaking the law. I imagine it's been imposed in response to problems that have happenned. Breaking the law? That's interesting you mention that. If the signage has the force of law behind it and a cyclist was caught and prosecuted then that would obviously be a victory. Do they really have a law backing them up? (Cross posted with D9) I would say no. I think it's guidance or it could be law that the speed limit on a shared path is I believe around 12 mph. I'll look it up in a minute. One of the parks in London has a 5mph limit. It was here or over There that discused Jeremy vine getting done. In that park there is a by law backing it up. AFAIK, that would be only way to enforce it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 17:06:29 GMT
I have always advocated the use of disposable imitation toddlers. If you could have some sort of arrangent where one of these DIT units appears in front of a speeding cyclist at a distance where any normal bike rider would be able to stop then the outcome could be interesting.
They do emergency stop training in cars so why not educate cyclists?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 17:07:43 GMT
Breaking the law? That's interesting you mention that. If the signage has the force of law behind it and a cyclist was caught and prosecuted then that would obviously be a victory. Do they really have a law backing them up? (Cross posted with D9) I would say no. I think it's guidance or it could be law that the speed limit on a shared path is I believe around 12 mph. I'll look it up in a minute. One of the parks in London has a 5mph limit. It was here or over There that discused Jeremy vine getting done. In that park there is a by law backing it up. AFAIK, that would be only way to enforce it. Good information I wonder if that park is Hyde Park
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2017 17:11:35 GMT
Surely a speed limit should be related to the width of path available and whether there are separate zones for 2 wheel vehicles and bipeds/quadrupeds. If a path is 1.5m wide then anyone traveling at 12mph is putting others at risk and basically being a cunt. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Nov 6, 2017 17:13:38 GMT
In response to,all the people you have asked which law? I would expect the council has the right to Impose bylaws on the use of its property. But I am no legal expert and expect to be corrected. But this has been introduced inresponse to incidents that have happened on the joint use path through the park. I think this is reasonable response rather than putting up with cyclists doing 15-20mph, then when you suggest that maybe they are going to fast being told to fuck off.
|
|