Canal and River Trust to hold live Twitter Q&A in wake of survey about speeding towpath cyclists

Towpath Ranger wrote:

Many thanks for all the discussion on this. It’s really helpful and I'm looking forward to hearing from some of you for a Q&A session tomorrow.

Please do read this https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/news-and-views/features/your-questions-about-our-questions-answered.

Our Twitter Q&A will be taking place on our Twitter account @CanalRiverTrust with @TowpathRanger on Tuesday 17 January from 12pm. To take part just tweet your questions to@CanalRiverTrust and include the hashtag #SharetheSpace

And if you’d like to know more about this you can read our better towpaths for everyone policy on this too.

Cheers,

Dick Vincent / National Towpath Ranger 
M: 0789 9837612 / T: 0207 517 5577 / E: dick.vincent [at] canalrivertrust.org.uk / @TowpathRanger

The most flawed part of the survey is that no question asks about which towpaths people use, on which canal. Thus you aren't going to get any data about collisions or dangers or infrastructure which you can then link to existing provision - for example, you might get few complaints about dangerous speedbumps, but only because most towpaths don't have them, and therefore you might think they are acceptable. So I worry about the quality of the data that is going to come out of this survey, and how it might be used. 

listerine wrote:

Frankly, I think most canals should be concreted over, and turned into cycling and pedestrian shared use areas. This would disadvantage only a relatively small number of leisure boaters, whose economic contribution is marginal.

Wow. Cycling in London is dangerous, and your solution is not to make cycling space on the thousands of miles of roads (as per the Superhighways) but to concrete over the 50 miles of canals. Any other pleasant bits of London you'd like to see concreted over while leaving the roads to motorists?

Quote:

Frankly, the presence of leisure boaters on the canals in London is unequivocally negative - the canals suffer from air pollution from their primitive engines, and it's difficult to see how those who moor for months on end without discharging a degree of waste into the canal itself.

If they're mooring for months on end they're not leisure boaters, they're residential boaters, fairly obviously.

Doctor Fegg wrote:

listerine wrote:

Frankly, I think most canals should be concreted over, and turned into cycling and pedestrian shared use areas. This would disadvantage only a relatively small number of leisure boaters, whose economic contribution is marginal.

Wow. Cycling in London is dangerous, and your solution is not to make cycling space on the thousands of miles of roads (as per the Superhighways) but to concrete over the 50 miles of canals.

Well, we could do both!

In any case, as I've made the same suggestion myself at times, I would suggest its less a serious proposal and more a provocative response to the misplaced self-rightousness and lack of self-awareness shown by some boatists when this topic comes up (as seen earlier on this thread).

I honestly don't see the objective need for canal boats in this city, even if the canals might be 'pretty' in themselves (which I concede would be the main reason not to follow through with Operation Concrete Them Over).

I mean, compare the amount of media hostility generated by a tiny amount of space being given to cycling with the lack of objections to the space being used by a very small number of boat users (who I doubt are commutting or delivering stuff). Given that contrast it's irritating when boat-users join in the demonising of cyclists (as the earlier boatist poster did).

I am curious as to who boatists are, come to think of it. I know living in a houseboat in London is unbeleivably expensive and only for the wealthy, but perhaps canal boats are different. Who are they , and what are the boats for, exactly?

listerine wrote:

Frankly, I think most canals should be concreted over, and turned into cycling and pedestrian shared use areas. This would disadvantage only a relatively small number of leisure boaters, whose economic contribution is marginal.

Frankly, the presence of leisure boaters on the canals in London is unequivocally negative - the canals suffer from air pollution from their primitive engines, and it's difficult to see how those who moor for months on end without discharging a degree of waste into the canal itself. They litter the paths with mooring ropes, generators and junk. Removing them in favour of new pedestrian/cyclist spaces would, I think, create a more pleasant environment. Commuting along the canal in the morning, I see hundreds of cyclists going down the canal - we need more space for them and less space for boats.

Your lack of insight is astounding. Boaters, by necessity, tend to be considerably more environmentally conscious than folks on the land. The majority of us not only clean up after ourselves but also after mindless bozos who drop their litter all over the towpath.

Incidentally: my boat will use a mere fraction of the gas, water & electrcity of your home as well as producing far less waste (probably because we have to take responsibility for it ourselves rather than have it carried off by someone else). We also make the towpath safer for others: our presence alone a deterrent for criminal activity.

In reality, if we simply grow up & be even a wee bit considerate of others, we can share the space quite happily. Wouldn't that be nice?

Probably won't happen though not as we're all so entrenched in our own "I'm the centre of my own universe - flat earth nonsence theories."

urbanautomaton wrote:

You're making the exact same argument as a driver who wants to do 40mph, and is annoyed that a cyclist is taking the lane to avoid getting doored. "They're not moving over, despite my politely honking as I approached! What's *up* with that?"

I think your comments essentially just demonstrate why canal paths are a complete non-starter as the basis for cycle routes. I'm not sure I'd even object to cycling being banned on them entirely.

(Though part of me does wonder why we waste all this space on canals anyway. Is there really enough space in cities to reserve so much of it for _boats_?)

Edit - yeah, it would be different if they carried cargo, and so reduced the need for lorries on the roads. But don't they just cater to a very small number of leisure boatists? Which seems kind of wasteful. Can't they be filled in and turned into dedicated cycle routes?

urbanautomaton wrote:

 

You're making the exact same argument as a driver who wants to do 40mph, and is annoyed that a cyclist is taking the lane to avoid getting doored. "They're not moving over, despite my politely honking as I approached! What's *up* with that?" 

No I'm not.  Nowhere near.  I'm just noting that if a person is completely unaware of my approach then then they can have no idea how fast I was travelling.  See the Grayling incident.

Concorde CX, I am always aware that others may not be hearing my approach on shared use facilities, mainly due to the use of mobile phones and headphones, and ride carefully and considerately around them, it is likely to hurt me as much as them in any collision.  I do get this, and I don't ever want to hurt anyone or myself. 

ktache wrote:

Nowhere near.  I'm just noting that if a person is completely unaware of my approach then then they can have no idea how fast I was travelling. 

Yes and further to that I was wondering how it is possible to prevent every, and I mean every, other user (i.e potential complainant) from being alarmed by a bicycle approaching, however slowly and carefully, from behind, when the person being overtaken might have their attention elsewhere. Even if you follow them until they notice they might well be startled when they finally see you, and complain as a result. A no-win situation.

Which is also how I'd categorize what Bazza on a boat writes. In the climate of hate they describe, how can co-operative riders possibly help - and how does the writer know they haven't been trying? How can they(we) get anything but the same response from the cycling delinquents as the rest of the towpath users? After all we are being buzzed as much as everyone else.

Having said that, in the decade or so I've ridden off-road round me, on the real towpaths I'm most familiar with: the Wey Navigation and spurs, I've not experienced any issues at all. As for the much busier Thames path (NCN Route 4), there are rare bunches of 2 or 3 teenagers who don't know how to ride considerately in crowds, but I've not noticed any other cause for alarm, or people being alarmed, except insofaras my first paragraph applies. Everyone is mostly trying to avoid deep mud, puddles, tree roots, large stones and each other.

YMMV so it sounds like each towpath could probably do with a different treatment and in my opinion CRT need to focus on what might be appropriate for the specific instances rather than expecting a block solution to miraculously emerge from a Twitter discussion*.

* not that I believe this is their intention, but whatever it is, it's misguided (as per crazy-legs comment)

Jitensha Oni wrote:

ktache wrote:

Nowhere near.  I'm just noting that if a person is completely unaware of my approach then then they can have no idea how fast I was travelling. 

 

Yes and further to that I was wondering how it is possible to prevent every, and I mean every, other user (i.e potential complainant) from being alarmed by a bicycle approaching, however slowly and carefully, from behind, when the person being overtaken might have their attention elsewhere. Even if you follow them until they notice they might well be startled when they finally see you, and complain as a result. A no-win situation.

 

Yes, because the environment and the activities are often inherently incompatible.

renouj21 wrote:

I think the Canal and River Trust should ask Strava to remove all segments from the towpaths. It's hard to see how Strava segments are compatible with a pedestrian priority route.

Any user can report a segment as dangerous and have the leaderboards removed.
I'm pretty sure Strava wouldn't know which segments are towpath-based, they would need to be dealt with individually.

Valbrona wrote:

Cyclists whizzing along towpaths ruin them for everyone else.

If the Canals/Rivers Trust want to make money from cyclists, ban them from towpaths and start fining them.

when it was the British Waterways Board, or whatever, cyclists were supposed to obtain a permit to cycle on the towpath, and there was presumably some sort of sanction for disobedience, although I don't think anyone ever was. Unless it was a dripping wet cyclist I once saw forlornly pushing his bike near Limehouse.

Not everything has to be for the exclusive convenience of cyclists, or indeed any other single interest group. I'm a supporter of the CRT. 

Valbrona wrote:

Cyclists whizzing along towpaths ruin them for everyone else.

I'm always left wondering what "whizzing" means in this context.  No one ever seems to be able, or want, to give a number to the speed that is too fast.  As I understand it (quite happy to be corrected) Sustrans suggest a max speed of 18mph, which I would probably never do around walkers, uncontrolled dog walkers find 10-12mph "too fast" and I have been heavily criticised when travelling at between 5-8mph.  I also find it strange that it's that it's those who have their backs to you, and who have managed to ignore the polite bell ringing as you approach who always think you are travelling "too fast".  They must be the ones with the speed gun shoved up their (generally) fat arses.

When reading "too fast" it should be spoken, or read, in as high pitched and whiney manner as possible.

ktache wrote:

Valbrona wrote:

Cyclists whizzing along towpaths ruin them for everyone else.

I'm always left wondering what "whizzing" means in this context.  No one ever seems to be able, or want, to give a number to the speed that is too fast.  As I understand it (quite happy to be corrected) Sustrans suggest a max speed of 18mph, which I would probably never do around walkers, uncontrolled dog walkers find 10-12mph "too fast" and I have been heavily criticised when travelling at between 5-8mph.  I also find it strange that it's that it's those who have their backs to you, and who have managed to ignore the polite bell ringing as you approach who always think you are travelling "too fast".  They must be the ones with the speed gun shoved up their (generally) fat arses.

When reading "too fast" it should be spoken, or read, in as high pitched and whiney manner as possible.

it's too fast if we alarm other people. It doesn't need a number, it just needs us to behave politely and considerately towards the people who have priority.

Many people are unable to hear bicycle bells. I can't. I have had most of the contents of my middle ear on both sides removed or remodelled and I am almost deaf as a result, with particular hearing loss in the upper register, which is quite common even without surgery. On top of that, bell-like noises can get confused with the tinnitus.

Don't assume that because you've rung the bell, other people have heard it.

Paul Marshall wrote:

Am I cynical in thinking that after the very biased wording on the survey did not produce the result they wanted they are now going to use social media in the hope that it might give them their "correct result" and condem all us irresponsible cyclists.

Yup. Some surveymonger somewhere has probably been sacked for not drawing their survey even tighter than it already was...

the little onion wrote:

I'll take the bait, given that I was one of the cynics on the original posts. I'm not on twitter, but here are some questions, based on experiences of the £2 million spent "upgrading" the towpath between bradford(Shipley) and Leeds on the Leeds-Liverpool canal, as part of the Cycling City ambition scheme grant:

-Why did CRT promise to build a towpath suitable for year-round cycle commuting on "normal" bikes, but choose not use smooth tarmac to build the towpath? Why instead did they go for a combination of loose flint gravel (causes punctures and skids), and hard-pack earth (muddy in the wet)?

-Why did CRT install speedbumps which were not part of the original consultation? Why do CRT have a policy of not recording complaints recieved from cyclists about the safety of such speedbumps? Why have CRT refused to undertake a safety audit of them (is it because they have no records of them causing any accidents, because they refuse to record complaints of accidents)?

-Why have the CRT installed dozens of signs along the route advising cyclists to slow down and give pedestrian priority (which I have no problem with), but put up precisely 0 signs advising other towpath users about their behaviour (e.g. for dog owners to keep dogs on short leads on busy towpaths)? Is it because they presume cyclists to be at fault in all cases?

-Why have CRT failed to upgrade all of the route as promised, despite being given a lot of time and money to do so?

If you want to know why cyclists might be cynical about CRT, and view them as people who claim resources designated for cycling but with no intention on spending it on proper cycling infrastructure, then look no further than the Leeds-Bradford (Shipley) towpath debacle.

Good luck fitting all that into 140 characters! That's why I'm not a fan of a Twitter "debate", it simply doesn't allow nuanced debate, everything just degenerates into soundbites.