Survey seeks views on slowing down speeding towpath cyclists

The best way to deal with rumble strips is to go as fast as you can and use the 1st strip as a jump otherwise they're teeth jarring.

/I'm rubbish at bunny hops.

The subject of canal path cycling is one of the three great topics on our local Facebook page, M32 (the others are dog mess and bins). The general consensus is that no one group on the canal likes any of the others, and they all hate the cyclists. 

I was lectured by a boat owner once, with her pointing out that the canal was originally built for boats, I of course replied with the query as to how well the coal carrying business is these days. 

I use the canal path when not in a hurry, though never at morning or evening commute times, too frenzied, I'd rather be on the road at those times.

anyone who cycles in this country will spend 90% of their time on roads where to ride slowly is to suffer abuse and increased dangerous passing. Is it any wonder that some people don't slow down when the threat is removed?

And still the vast majority using these facilities do not cause issue.

I have lived next to canals in Manchester and Milton Keynesfor over 50 years and have walked, ran and cycled towpaths there and in many other places with very few problems.  Dogs not on leads, fishing matches and mooring ropes have on rare occasions been a problem.    We do not need Sustrans type gates and other anti cycling devices.   Most towpath surfaces effectively slow cyclists.

The thing with towpaths is that, over the years (and this applies to a lot of segregated cycle routes as well) they have, quite unwittingly, self-selected, the very riders that they are now complaining about.

The towapths are narrow, often muddy/bumpy, almost always unlit, may not feel safe especially though a lot of urban areas - some cycle routes have similar features such as anti-motorcycle gates which force a cyclist to dismount, lift their bike etc.

All of those combined mean that the only people who are willing/able to use them are the fitter cyclist who doesn't mind a bit of mud, who has 1000 lumen lights, who is confident and who is able to lift their bike over/around gates, chicanes, barriers etc.

So everyone else - families with pushchairs/kiddie trailers, leisure riders, touring cyclists with panniers, cargo bikes, recumbents, wheelchair users - is effectively banished, maybe not directly but certainly indirectly. That means the younger, fitter, more able riders using the path are the ones who are going to be faster by their very nature, the ones on MTBs and CX bikes, the ones who look intimidating because they have wide bars, super bright lights, helmets and are splattered in mud.

But if the CRT or councils or whoever actually built proper infrastructure that catered to everyone, that supplied a safe clean traffic-free environment, it would get used by more people and therefore everyone would be slower.

Manchester recently spent a large sum of money (several million £) upgrading a load of towpaths, putting down a wide smooth packed- gravel surface and then laughably calling them Cycleways but they've done that exact selection, putting in barriers and speed humps that makes it unusable by anyone except the fast fit few. The way to ride the speed humps is to hit them hard and jump them! Probably the exact opposite of what they intended...

On the other hand the Monsal Trail between Buxton and Bakewell is a wide smooth packed-gravel track (old railway line) which has no such obstacles so sees usage by a huge range of people including mobililty scooters, wheelchair users, families etc and as a reuslt, everyone is slow and well behaved and sensible because there simply isn't the option of going fast!

We have chicanes, speed bumps, speed cameras and so on on our roads because enough drivers simply don't give a damn about others using the roads.

We could end up with chicanes, speed bumps, maybe rumble strips on our towpaths (and maybe cycle paths) because enough cyclists don't give a damn about other users of the paths.

Same mentality.

Ridning on our towpaths - if they are clear, I wizz along. Approaching bridges, tunnels, people, anglers - I slow down. And when I'm walking I don't expect to have to jump out of the way.

When riding I wouldn't like to have to put up with slowing-down measures when the paths are clear just because idiots can't use a bit of common when there are other people about.

There's a lesson here isn't there - DO WHAT I DO WHEN RIDING OR DRIVING and if there are other road/path users about them GIVE THEM SPACE AND SLOW DOWN. Simple really.

I've used the towpath in West London as my prime route to the centre for many years. I tend to ride at a steady speed which is considerably lower than the peaks I reach between lights on the road - but my average speed is higher. On the towpath you don't have many junctions - especially ones at which you can get lost or have to stop.

I don't slow down as often, but I do slow down for pedestrians, their dogs, and other cyclists. Right down - unless there's room to give a LOT of space. The fact is that space is far more crucial than speed. A pedestrian can move sideways instantly. A cyclist can't. Speed-reduction measures like rumble strips could be justifiable at blind and narrow bridges and corners, but not elsewhere.

The evidence is that shared paths work better the wider they are, up to about 5 metres. After that extra width doesn't help. There is rarely room to make towpaths 5 metres wide, but 2-3 metres, plus 0.5m verge each side, is usually achievable. With these widths, a pedestrian who keeps to one side is entitled to expect all passing cyclists to use the other side, giving him/her plenty of space. CRT should put resources into maximising available width, not poorly targeted speed-reduction measures.

An additional disadvantage of measures that make cyclists slow right down, like chicanes, is personal security. It's much easier to lie in wait and stop a cyclist who is manoeuvring at walking pace than one going along at normal speed.

Shared use paths do not work, end of conversation.

No matter how slow the cyclist rides or the runner runs, they will still cause an offence and 'fear' amongst pedestrians. 

I say 'fear' rather than fear, as this is the old perception versus reality thing again. As previously mentioned, if there was genuine fear, then you wouldn't see the current widespread use of these paths by families, dog walkers etc etc. 

So rather than discussing fear, we should be discussing inconvenience. If you are out walking with your dogs, your children, in a group, whatever, an approaching cyclist will always cause you to take action in some way. Make sure your dog is controlled, get your kids out of the way, move across to one side of the path... its all just a bit too inconvenient, and therefore a bit too annoying.

Those rare cyclists that go too fast simply justify those feelings of annoyance. Instead of being annoyed by the inconvenience of it all, you can be annoyed by the potential safety issue, the potential danger of the cyclists selfish actions. Thank god, you don't have to question your unwillingness to consider other users any more... pesky cyclists. 

As also mentioned above, no cyclist goes out looking to hit pedestrians, kids, dogs; quite the opposite. The point is, the real danger of these situations is very minimal. Not saying incidents don't happen, that people don't ride like dicks, but whilst the perception is that the paths are stalked by crazed, strava hunting lunatics, the truth is most cycle users are very considerate. 

But pedestrians won't see that... they'll see the inconvenience, the potential danger and hence we are where we are. 

I'd also say that to the untrained eye, 10mph looks very fast... hell 5mph seems excessive. 

Basically... cyclists and pedestrians on a shared path are not going to work. There is nothing that can be done to make this an enjoyable experience for all.

The only way that it would work, would be if cyclists slowed to the pace of walkers, got off their bikes and hell, actually left their bikes at home. 

I used to commute occasionally (Keighley to Skipton) by running. Not sure what designation the path along the canal was at that time but even then there would be occassional issues with walkers, usually with headphones failing to hear your approach from behind and then when startled it was pot luck as to whether they turned into your path or not. I had more than 1 "discussion" about the legality of running on a footpath.

Well after reading this and some of the comments I thought I would have a look at the survey/fill it in to see what all the fuss was about.

Imagine my surprise when after ticking the option to make my answers public and to be able to share in the results/insights from the survey, I recieved notification that my answers had been recieved and I was given a response ID starting..... ANON !!!

Obviously they didn't like my answers so therefore pretend it came from an anonimous source so it can be discounted later. God forbid you would put out a consultation then listen/act on the answers!

Those extendable leads are available in reflective or neon, and neon and reflective.  Who knew.  I saw one last year, whilst riding, carefully and considerately along the national cycle network route along the river kennet.  It was dark and my lights made it glow from some distance.  I exclaimed "I didn't know you could get those" hopefully with no patronising tone, unlike those people who say "Ooh, I might be able to see you" as you put on your reflective slap bands when you are getting off the train (and you think, well if you've not managed to see my £740 worth of bicycle lights, RRP of course).  And smile.

Those gentlemen who walk their commute home from the business park, wearing nothing but black, with expensive woollen overcoats and suits, down the unlit and pitch black part of the national cycle network route along the thames.  Now they are a different matter.  We can all do our little bit.  Has anyone else noticed that it tends to be those wearing the darkest clothing who complain loudest that your lights are "too bright"?

The waterways and canals of britain were used and constructed as arteries of industry, so probably have more relevance for me getting to and from work than they do for pleasure seeking or being used as a toilet for an uncontrolled and badly trained animal.  With me travelling in a careful and considerate manner, of course.

That picture up there looks like the arrival into the gas street basin coming down the canal from bournville and the University.  I may be mistaken.   Birmingham, used to be a lot of heavy industry.

I still have my permit.  Still carry it around everywhere.  Issued under British Waterways.

I have commuted along the Thames for over a decade.  On part of the national cycle network.  As I said above because it's a shared path I slow down.  The environment is nicer and I want to enjoy it more.  I save the speed for the roads.

And on blind corners I slow down and ring the bell, cover the brakes and am very prepared to stop.  Because it is my commute I get to know it, the pinch points and the parts where it might get a bit iffy.

Nic, a TOWpath was primarily for horses.  The canal was for moving freight.  Things change.  It has more to do with a bridleway than a footpath.

You do not seem to have read the rest of my post.  I never claimed to be tuff.  I spent quite a while explaining how vulnerable the cyclist is.  I said I slow down, for my own self preservation as well as not wanting to ever hurt another.  

I would like to think I am fit.  I unfortunately could not claim to be young.

Ktache a canal towpath is primarily a pedestrian path. its narrow, people walk on it. Some times they're old or inform or have small children. if its clear then fine go for it otherwise back off and give space and consideration.

And if you are so tuff stay on the road.

But nic,  you said "no difference".  15 stone is nowhere near 1 tonne, and as you went to an extreme I will go for the extreme of a 40 tonne artic.  As I explained the car driver is heavily protected, the cyclist is always vulnerable.  There are still many 70+ riders out there.

Well ktache . nice for you being young and fit.

A 15 stone person at 20 mph would do a 70+  year old a world of damage.

As I said . Your first priority is other people.

Strava could bar the towpaths for a start in the future. Safety minded local Strava-users should take some responsibility and FLAG those risky segments. 

If the point of these shared things becomes not to make any progress at a decent speed then TBH I'll not bother using them. If I can do 20mph on the road why would I want to do 10mph on a path. There's one on a stretch of road near me that connects two towns but I'm not using it. It's mostly gravel for one and is overrun with dog walkers, dog shit, deaf old people who pretend they are having a heart attack and joggers/runners that are always plugged in. I'd rather do 3.5 miles on tarmac rather 3 miles of that.

What constitutes a sports cyclist (wears lycra? road bike?) versus a leisure (baggies/jeans &t-shirt? rides a MTB?) or commuter cyclist (all of the above +hi-vis)?  

And groups? 2 or 3 friends together, or a chain-gang in club colours?  Never seen this on a canal path.

Towpaths should either be wide and with no obstructions or (as that's rather easier on a massive belgian canal where the towpath is the size of a small road and the boats are rather ships) there shoul;d be high quality, direct, routes on useful alignments so that "fast" cyclists don't get forced on to the towpaths as the local road network is staggeringly hostile

When completing your survey, don't forget to mention the number of dog eggs left behind on the tow paths which make walking and cycling quite unpleasant