UKC

Canal and river trust are consulting on towpath use. I'm aware there are lots of boaters with a massive chip on their shoulder about cycling, and to a lesser extent running, and it occurs to me that they are going to bias this consultation

So if you use a towpath in any capacity, please take 5 minutes to complete this. FWIW, there are obviously a few problem cyclists, but mostly people seem to rub along just fine. I'm just afraid a an organised bunch of boaty curmudgeons will skew it.

https://canalrivertrust.citizenspace.com/better-towpaths-for-everyone/runni...

In reply to toad:
I'm just afraid a an organised bunch of boaty curmudgeon skew it.

Yet again ANOTHER cyclist with a screw everyone else attitude. Sod pedestrians cycle on the pavement, red lights ignore them etc etc

I have in the past run on the Lea Valley tow path and have repeatedly had problems with packs of mountain bikers especially on Sundays who think they can barge past people at speed rather than spend a few seconds going single file. I refuse to stand to one side and wait so from my point of view its only a matter of time before one of them goes for a swim.

BTW I did 232 miles on the bike last week.

In reply to toad:


There are also lots of boaters (myself included) who cycle themselves, as it is by far the quickest way of getting from A to B on the towpath. Equally there are plenty of walkers who really don't appreciate almost being ran into the water by irresponsible cyclists.

In reply to Indy:

Their attitude sounds like that of a lot of drivers on the road as well. A bit more thought from us all.

In reply to toad:

Thanks for that. Not much contentious there. I use the canal sections on sustran routes which are often excellent. Never come across any agro myself, but I can imagine large groups of cyclists may cause problems, just as large numbers of boats would do.

In reply to Indy:



I think the OP might actually be a boater, but one that wants to see the canal paths used by all in a friendly manner.

In reply to The New NickB:

thanks, and yes I am a boater (who rarely cycles on towpaths), I just worry about proper representation on this issue from a self selecting survey so I thought the cycling community deserved a chance to contribute

In reply to toad:

done

In reply to toad:

lost me at gongoozling

In reply to toad:

It's not boaters but anglers who hate cyclists. Every time a cyclist comes past they've got to pull in their poles, which block the right of way.

NIMBY anglers also make canoeing some of Britain's rivers difficult or even impossible.

In reply to Rigid Raider:

I've been to quite a few CRT events with work, the boaters are very vocal in their objection to anyone using the canal who isn't them.

Obviously that isn't all boaters, but that vocal minority tend to be the ones that attend the events and answer the consultations.

In reply to toad:
Canal towpaths are shared, narrow and have dangers - there is always unfenced water on one side and often a steep drop or similar on the other (the Iron Trunk Aqueduct near MK is particularly dangerous in this respect - misjudge it and you could easily end up falling 50m - the centre of gravity of a cyclist is way above the railings). Often the usable section for bicycle wheels is less than a foot wide.

As such, I agree with the principle that people should keep speed down and remember that they have to consider others. So cyclists and runners need to be ready to stop if necessary, dogs need to be on leads, fishermen need to keep their eye out for people for whom they may need to move their rods, be that on the towpath or in the water, and pedestrians need to be aware that people moving more quickly may wish to pass, and to let them past at a suitable place/time.

I find, by and large, that people do do this.

With regard to cycling more generally, those who wish to cycle fast with minimal obstruction should do so on the road (or dedicated cycle infrastructure if suitable) - that is what it is for.

In reply to Phil1919:


It's back to that Honda advert again - "aren't we all just trying to get somewhere?"

They should play that at driving test centres etc. It was really well done.

In reply to toad:

Done. I regularly walk, run and cycle to work along the towpath. The cyclists and runners I meet are very courteous. Walkers, especially dog walkers, less so.

Many walkers seemnto think that they should interpret a polite ring of the bell as f*ck off out of my way", and proceed to yell at me how I'm not supposed to be cycling on a national cycle route.

Dogs on extending leads are the worst though.

In reply to Indy:


. I refuse to stand to one side and wait so from my point of view its only a matter of time before one of them goes for a swim.

.. or you could end up getting tw*tted by a bike. But at least you will have made your point.

In reply to Indy:


well done for proving some cyclists can be muppets.

In reply to KevinD:

Why can't they just be paths to be used by all un motorised traffic? And I don't just mean towpaths but all footpaths as well,seams to me it would save a lot of people falling out over nothing realy

In reply to Indy:


Can you post a picture of yourself, so on the off chance I'm cycling on that towpath, I can run you over.



Please (forgetting my manners there)

In reply to toad:

What a terribly phrased, let alone edited, set of questions the second page is.

"We all know if we're going too fast ... a combination of common sense and fear tends to let us know this.
Think about the last time you were traveling too fast - how did you know?"

In reply to greg_may_:


It does seem to be rather leading questions with a specific outcome in mind.

In reply to KevinD:

There is certainly a slant on it that all cyclists are speed freaks who terrorise the rest of the tow path users

In reply to KevinD:


Worryingly so. It's almost as if the perception is that anyone travelling at more than the 4mph speed limit on the water is travelling too fast.

In reply to

Most towpaths aren't a right of way, they are a permissive path. The boaters and anglers have to pay for the privilege of using the waterway, unlike cyclists. If it wasn't for boaters and angling groups, lots of waterways would be lost to everyone.

I'd say the Cyclists should chill out a little.

In reply to greg_may_:




How did I know last time I was cycling too fast? Fear.

How do I know how safely to cycle on a towpath? It's mostly to do with how far I can see ahead. Call it common sense.

I'm not quite sure why you are taking issue with the question.

In reply to arch:




We all pay for the maintenance of canal towpaths. CRT receive more than £1m annually from the four local authorities along the Rochdale Canal. That doesn't include the £28m that came from the lottery to restore navigation on the canal, or the hundreds of thousands secured by organisations like SUSTRANS to improve surfaces for all users. They belong to all of us and I can assure you that the campaign to save our industrial waterways wasn't just boaters and anglers.

In reply to toad:
We have this beauty on the Union Canal in Edinburgh(its much narrower than it looks) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slateford_Aqueduct
as you can imagine it causes some "issues" and I'm glad my commute never needed to use it. In fact its the source of most of the discussion on this thread once you filter out the deliveroo ones - http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=7059

In reply to toad: I've filled that in so thanks. I can't see how there could be any effective ban on cycling on the paths so they need to be inclusive rather than exclusive or they'll have problems.

In reply to The New NickB:


They are, that's what a speed limit is for.





........I think you've missed the point of my other post. How much do cycling organisations themselves contribute towards river and canal upkeep ?? Yet on this thread, cyclists appear to be complaining about not being given preferential treatment on the towpath.

In reply to arch:
How about Sustrans

https://www.scottishcanals.co.uk/news/3-million-investment-steps-up-access-...

'Undertaken by Scottish Canals and funded by Sustrans Scotland,'

There's plenty more projests across the country if you take a couple of minutes to google it

In reply to arch:


and you appear to be talking shit. Where has anyone claimed they should have preferential treatment?

In reply to toad:

Is this a good place to mention my loathing of rowing coaches cycling alongside their boat and looking at the boat, not where they're going?

Speaking of boats, since when was it either necessary or acceptable for the coxes to use on board PA systems?

Rant over.

In reply to toad:

Done, interesting questions.

Besides punctures, I've never had any trouble when riding on tow paths.

In reply to wintertree:

My girlfriend says she like a loud cox

In reply to Dogwatch:


1) preamble is leading the answer, m'lud.
2) preamble assumes we all go too fast.
3) I don't recall one of the available answers being 'cannot stop within distance I can see, or to other user', which is the obvious arbiter of 'too fast'.

In reply to toad:

We walk many canals, don't mind cyclists, what i don't like is that they come up behind you, don't ring a bell or whistle as a warning. Don't they have bells any longer?

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

I call "Coming by to your right!" in as cheery a voice as I can muster without sounding sarcastic.

In reply to Stu Tyrrell:

The problem with bells, cheery greetings, etc, is that they startle people, and, as a result, they start taking random 'evasive action'. This increases the chance of collision, or needing to avoid collision. It's arguably safer not to disturb them, allow them to continue walking in a predictable manner, and pass them at a safe distance and speed.

It's not about not having bells, or being rude or inconsiderate, it's about a considered decision to minimise the chance of collision, based on observation of how people react. Make the same observation, and you'll see how people react randomly.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I've found (and this isn't a dig, merely an observation) that if you ding the bell early enough and slow down enough, most people will calmly step to the side, and if they don't it's no major drama. I try to avoid startling people as I'm fully aware just how unpleasant it is having some twerp ring their bell from 2' behind you as they speed past on a narrow section of towpath.

In reply to captain paranoia:
As someone who's on the towpath a lot, I want a bell everytime, and in good time. I know the lack of warning is a big issue for some boaters.

A little off topic, but if a boater is on the towpath handling a boat on ropes, you need to be prepared to slow down/ divert/ stop. There's upwards of 15 tonnes on the end and they won't be focussed on anything else.

In reply to toad:
From Canal and Rivers Trust
Cycling
Our towpaths offer traffic-free routes next to some of the country’s most stunning waterside scenery. Taking to the towpaths on two wheels is a great way to get some exercise and with thousands of miles of fairly level towpaths, you can enjoy them whatever your age or cycling ability.

Providing green corridors through our cities and linking our towns and villages together, you can use our towpaths to enjoy an afternoon out with your family, a traffic-free route to work or even a week-long tour of the country.

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.

In reply to toad:

There are many many more runners/cyclists on towpaths than there are people with boats and CRT aren't going to ban cycling - its about shared use

In reply to Bulls Crack:


The ones with boats however pay upwards of £700 per year for the privilege. As well as pay road tax, maybe cyclists should have to have a boat license too?

In reply to tehmarks:



Proper boaters don't pay vehicle excise duty. I know a few that live on them and they think that the part time, Bremain voting boaters with their posh chandelry are scum of the earth. My dog loves to curl one off by their moorings especially if they are dining.

In reply to toad:


I thought I'd made it clear that I'm prepared to stop, or otherwise accommodate other users. I expect that to be reciprocated:

"3) I don't recall one of the available answers being 'cannot stop within distance I can see, or to other user', which is the obvious arbiter of 'too fast'."

I have used boats in the past, and know about the handling difficulties. My comments about the problems of warnings (including those given in plenty of time) are to put the other point of view, just as you have done with the handling issue: to promote mutual understanding, not to cause argument.

I've accepted the need for consideration of handling difficulties. Would you return the courtesy of reconsidering your "As someone who's on the towpath a lot, I want a bell everytime, and in good time" stance in the light of my explanation?

In reply to captain paranoia:

The worst thing that they ever did was make these towpaths available to every punter with a bike by tarmacing them. Speed was self regulated by the terrain and most of our local canals were one abreast wide. You couldn't go fast and you certainly had to stop to allow others past. No need for bells or nowt.

In reply to arch:


On the water not the tow path.


Quite a lot as I said. What appears to you as preferential treatment, isn't at all.

In reply to hokkyokusei:

Agreed, they don't seem know the simple rule of keep left.

Don't agree, a dog walker with several dogs on extending leads is worse , but a walker with several dogs offleads can be as bad.

I ring my bell from a distance giving plenty of notice,the older folks are often deaf , do don't hear it, so rather than ring it right beside them , and startle them, I slow down to a crawl and slip by giving them as much room as can, they then shout at me for not ringing my bell !!

In reply to tehmarks:



For clarity, my dislike was for the American spelling of 'licence'.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

I don't know what came over me.

In reply to captain paranoia:

maybe a little over emphatic, but the thing you hear / read over and again is that absence of a bell is a real factor in the antagonism of older users toward cycling by canals. However, I'll concede that if that was sorted out, it would become number plates or whatever else is flavour of the month in the Mail.

In reply to Jim C:


>entirely off topic, but if you are going to promote rules of the road, then pedestrians should face oncoming traffic - ie keep right!

In reply to toad:
Congratulations to the OP on a thoughtful post and one that stirs up some juicy prejudices. Personally I think we should allow all canals to silt up and use these new-tangled rail road things instead, or am I missing the point?

In reply to Bulls Crack:


The questionnaire suggests they may make it increasingly awkward though. Even on the Rochdale, which is a national cycle route there are gates that are extremely awkward to get bikes through.

In reply to toad:

Hokkyokusei and Jim_C also made astute observations about bells; either you are berated for not using a bell, or berated for using a bell, or berated for them not hearing your bell.

Cycling on the Merrow Downs once, we stopped and waited for a horsewoman, and gave a friendly greeting. She glared daggers as us and gestured with her crop. I bet she read the Daily Hate.

In reply to toad:


Maybe next time you hear/see it, you might consider suggesting an alternative point of view; my explanation, and the observations of hokkyokusei and Jim? If we understand each other better, we have fewer 'misunderstandings'.

In reply to captain paranoia:
A bell rung way in advance I find is the most effective and non-aggressive way to warn people of my approach - I use this a lot on the MK Redways (which, unlike canal towpaths, are supposed to be used like country lanes without traffic according to the Council's Redway Code - i.e. walk on the right, cycle on the left, don't block the full width by either mode).

You're right, though, that a shout seems more aggressive. TBH I'm of the view that it should be mandatory to have a bell on a bicycle used on public roads/paths generally.

In reply to toad:
It should surely just be a simple matter of respect and awareness. The tow paths are now used by lots of folk, cyclists, runners, dog walkers,etc. When I'm on our paths it's mainly a single track dirt path so everyone has to accommodate each other and does so happily. A smile and cheery good morning whilst slowing down seems to work well, especially when dogs are involved. Some of that is self preservation as you don't want to have to jump off going quickly if a dog decides to randomly cut across you.
On one occasion I got off the bike to climb down into a semi empty lock to rescue an old boys Jack Rusell, he would never have got down to it and there was no way it was getting out.
Thankfully inour area the vast majority are a happy bunch who like being out doors

In reply to captain paranoia:



Maybe she was a dominatrix and hoping to give you a good whipping at her local club later that evening?

In reply to Neil Williams:


I don't think I've said anything about shouting. I've mentioned friendly greetings, but I wouldn't consider that to be shouting.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Good point; she was wearing riding boots. Not my type, though; I prefer my doms less plump and less matronly.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Sorry, I wasn't aiming that at you, it was more general. But a friendly greeting can get distorted when you are moving. I do vastly prefer a traditional bell, both to use when cycling and to hear when walking.

In reply to Dave the Rave:


You reckon? My local towpath is gravel, rough in places and has limited forward visibility especially in summer. Yet there are Strava runs recorded at 15mph over long stretches. You can admire the fitness but not the good sense or consideration for others.

In reply to Dogwatch:
Strava, and the desire for records thereon, does cause problems in some locations. Perhaps they themselves should consider removing certain segments at the request of organisations like the Canal and River Trust where they do cause issues?

The towpath isn't the place for racing (other than organised races where it is closed to others and/or well publicised). Consideration of others must come first in what is such a dangerous environment.

In reply to toad:

One of my lunchtime running routes is a tow path that takes in The Olympic Stadium, The Big Breakfast House and Mile End Climbing Wall. Lovely in the summer and can't think of any times I have come across any antisocial cycling or boaters. Just lots of dreadlocked boaters tinkering on their floating homes and school kids smoking spliffs. Lovely to be so quiet in such a busy area of the city.

Filled it out.

In reply to Dogwatch:
Then just flag it as unsuitable for a Strava segment it will be removed. Then they can no longer race the segment. Problem solved.

In reply to toad:

But I can still use my motocross bike on towpaths...right?!?

In reply to Lion Bakes:

Strava segment 'Hazaradous' flagging doesn't quite work like that anymore.

In reply to ChrisJD:
Should Strava perhaps consider doing some automation to flag such segments itself? Timed segments on bikes on any shared-use narrow path where a proper overtake cannot be safely conducted (or in any area where there is pedestrian priority) are dangerous near enough by definition.

They are arguably dangerous full stop - nobody should really be voluntarily using the public road in a vehicle (whether human-powered or engine-powered) against the clock either. It takes your priority away from safety and onto speed, which is not ideal at all.

In reply to Neil Williams:


There's hundreds of cycling Time trials that take place safely every week. I'd agree that on shared use paths then yes speed has no place but your sweeping statement is wrong. It is possible to go flat out on a bike perfectly safely in many situations.

In reply to Neil Williams:

IMO, no. Hazardous flagging is Strava community led and works well enough.

BTW - I'm not interested in participating in a Strava angst/anger discussion, it's all been done before and is very dull going over the same old points.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

It's possible to go flat out on a bike safely in many settings - where it becomes a real problem is where you're in situations where you might need to slow down to reduce risk (even if that's by slowing defensively to counter a risk posed by another road user, e.g. a pedestrian crossing without looking), and being against the clock tempts people not to do so. In an actual race that's less of an issue (the whole peloton will slow down, and there's safety in numbers) - it's more of an issue with one person going for a Strava segment.

It's true of running to some extent too - a runner against the clock crossing a road or towpath dangerously could cause a wider accident. Organised races have marshalls to mitigate that, whereas one runner going after a Strava segment doesn't.

I suppose careful "moderation" of segments solves that, though.

In reply to Neil Williams:

You're talking rubbish. Time trials don't involve Pelotons, any actual Road race on open roads have lead cars and tail cars protecting the riders.

Time trials see solo riders going flat out perfectly safely.

You made a sweeping statement that was wrong

'They are arguably dangerous full stop - nobody should really be voluntarily using the public road in a vehicle (whether human-powered or engine-powered) against the clock either. It takes your priority away from safety and onto speed, which is not ideal at all.'

Have you ever ridden a time trial?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
No I haven't, and I do strongly take the view that a non-closed road is not the place to have anyone driving any vehicle, whether powered or not, where their first priority is not safety.

It would in most circumstances be illegal to do it in a car, and I don't see why a bicycle is different.

(I have similar issues with other time-pressured road users like underpaid couriers, taxi drivers etc - driving or riding to the clock in any form causes a different approach to road use)

In reply to Neil Williams:

How about because a bicycle doesn't weigh a tonne! Most cars are easily capable of breaking speed limits, except on the fastest downhills bikes aren't. Speeding cars regularly kill people, bikes very rarely do

If you can't see why a bike is different to a car you really are a muppet

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


They may take place without incident but is it luck or judgement. I can think of at least 2 time trial courses that should probably be re-routed on safety grounds.

In reply to Neil Williams:


You have the problem of accuracy eg one segment I look stunningly shit (as opposed to just shit which is the correct view). Reason being I am offroad whereas the speed merchants were on the road 5 or so metres the other side of a hedge.
Likewise some shared used paths can be fine to ride fast depending on the conditions. There is one near me where my speed varies wildly. Its an old train track which is tarmacced. Excellent sight lines and few access points.
Sunday morning it will be packed and so, if I dont avoid it altogether, I will be slow. Late at night though with good lights and no one else around I will be a tad faster.

In reply to timjones:


If hundreds of time trials are taking place safely every week then I'd say it's probably judgement. Which should be unsurprising - people generally have enough sense of perspective to be aware that not even a Personal Best is worth the risk of being killed or seriously injured for.

If you have statistics to show that this isn't the case then please share them.

In reply to timjones:


If it was all down to luck there'd be carnage at every mid week evening 10 so no it's not down to luck!!

If a route is not safe then riders will let organisiers know pretty quickly and it will either be changed or entry numbers will fall and it will disappear. No time trial can take place without notifying the Police who will not let it happen if the course is deemed unsafe.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


A bike being ridden without due care or attention (or a pedestrian, for that matter) can cause a car to swerve to avoid them and cause a further accident involving death or injury, FWIW.

In reply to Neil Williams:

What don't you understand about being able to ride flat out in certain situations with full care and attention.

No one is talking about riding without due care and attention.

Your original statement was rubbish and your back tracking is pretty desperate.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


Signposted.
Marshalled.
Riders marked with race numbers.

Bit different to johnny strava going for his KOM, on his own.

And there are those who would argue that time trials shouldn't be allowed (racing on the public highway). e.g.

http://road.cc/content/news/123522-mp-cyclists-bring-it-themselves%E2%80%99...

A number of cyclists have been killed during time trials (I remember wearing hi-vis and warning notice when supporting a mate on a time trial, a week after another TT rider had been killed). Whether it's a disproportionate number compared to the average deaths/mile, I don't know.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


If you can't see that racing encourages people to take greater risks than they might otherwise take, then...

I googled the topic, and there are a number of instances of cyclists killing themselves in races; crashing out of the course, riding into the back of parked vehicles, etc. Of course, I have no proof that they wouldn't have done the same had they not been racing.

I'm a cyclist, remember. Who has supported friends who race TTs.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


I find it hard to see the sense in running in both directions simultaneously on a single carriageway trunk road when you could run in one direction or complete a circuit by returning along a different road.

Common sense says that it is risky to promote a situation where traffic has to overtake strings of cyclists travelling in opposite directions on a fast stretch of road. Risk assessment isn't only about the accidents that have already happened, it's about preventing accidents in the future.

In reply to Ramblin dave:



Do you have stats or are you relying on anecdote

In reply to timjones:



Maybe you want to tell the Traffic Cops who have to sign off the risk assesments that they have no common sense!

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


It would certainly be tempting if I knew who they were

Wouldn't it be more sensible for the organisors to sort out a better route before a member of the public submits a complaint?

In reply to timjones:

Your point of view may not be in line with National TT guidelines which are backed up and approved by local Police forces. Your points may be valid and I know if anyone approached us politely at a tt we'd be more than happy to talk to them about thier concerns and explain our course to them. Maybe you should pop along to one of the TTs you're concerned about and get the organisers point of view.

In reply to captain paranoia:






I won't disagree that some cyclists may take stupid unwarranted risks chasing pointless strava times, What I have been taking issue with was the sweeping statement that racing of any type on the road is bad and dangerous at any time. If you've marshalled at TTs then you'll know it's perfectly possible to ride flat out safely and responsibly in the right situation.

There have been fatalities during Time trials but they are tiny numbers and compared to road deaths in general could be counted in numbers per decade as opposed to car deaths that can be counted in numbers per day or even per hour.

In reply to Neil Williams:
So a car driver not paying attention swerves and causes more deaths. What's new? He shouldn't have been on the towpath to start with.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

As a matter of interest what is the function of the marshalls that stand at roundabouts and junctions during trials?

I've never seen one actually do anything, they merely seem to provide an extra distraction.

In reply to timjones:

Not sure who you think they are a distraction to. For riders they'll give them a shout if the junction is clear or if a vehicle is approaching.

If there were to be an accident chances are it will be on a junction so a marshall will be there to help out immediately if needed, they'll also be able to let HQ know about any incidents if it may affect the event overall.

If you just drive past a marshall on a junction then it may appear they are doing sweet FA and a good event will require them to do very little other than give a shout to passing riders. If an incident does occur then it's better to have marshalls at every possible point than none at all.

The other reason especially on out and back courses is to check the riders complete the full course.

In reply to toad:

How did a post about canal towpaths end up talking about time trials on roads. Somewhat off topic methinks.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


The usual 'whataboutery' that usually arises on any cycle-related thread...?

"A driver knocked me off my bike when they pulled out of a side road, and then reversed over me, breaking both my legs and writing off my bike, whilst shouting 'stay off the road, cyclist untermensch scum'"
"Yeah, but what about the cyclist I once saw jumping a red light?"
"Yeah, but what about the cyclist I once saw riding on the pavement?"
"Yeah, but what about the fact that no cyclist ever pays road tax?"
"Yeah, but what about..."

You get the picture...

In reply to captain paranoia:


Coz cyclist are never ever and I mean EVER wrong.

In reply to captain paranoia: does that mean we can talk about Chris grayling?

In reply to toad:


I've just seen the video. I can imagine the thread.

In reply to Indy:

Of course they are wrong, for a start you're a cyclist!

In reply to Indy:


More whataboutery.

Car drivers are never wrong?

Whatabout car drivers who are also cyclists? (See what I did there?)

[cue sound of Indy's head exploding, trying to resolve the apparent dichotomy]

In reply to captain paranoia:


Of course they are sometimes wrong but they don't go to the extreme lengths that cyclists do to claim they're right.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Are not most (adult) cyclists also car drivers?

In reply to Indy:


Would you like to give an example of these 'extreme lengths' ?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Operation Safeway

In reply to Indy:

I think you'll find that's a Police initiative rather than an 'extreme length' that any cyclist has gone to claim they're right.

Try your other brain cell, it may have a better answer.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:


No it was a "WAR ON CYCLISTS" Thousands of them.

In reply to Indy:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31478073

Officers will target road users committing traffic offences.

"The force said it would specifically focus on people using mobile phones whilst driving, speeding, failing to wear seat belts and on vehicle defects. "

So both your brain cells have failed!

In reply to toad:
Im sorry. I tried to resist, but the temptation was too great. Have a safe and happy weekend wherever you ride


https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/16/chris-grayling-could-face-...

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:





Maybe distraction isn't quite the right word.

I've encountered a few that stand in a location that obscures visibility at roundabouts and one regular offender that also does the same with his parked car ;(

And how many cyclists were fined?

In reply to Indy:


4085.

In reply to Indy:

You really are a moron. What does that have to do with 'extreme lengths cyclists will go to to prove they are right'?

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

4000+ cyclist breaking the law is batted away with "war on cyclist" and "victim blaming" etc where is the responsibility?

In reply to Indy:

You can't back up any of your drivel can you.

Who has 'batted away' anything?

You still haven't provided any evidence of the 'extreme lengths cyclists will go to to prove they are right'

How about the 9700 motorists that were fined in the same operation. Are they all part of one collective - you know 'motorists' . Where is the responsibility?

In reply to Indy:
Is this in contrast with the way that people welcome new speed cameras as another way of demonstrating that they follow the letter of the law at all times?

(DfT stats: 46% of cars speed on motorways, 52% in 30 zones, 83% in 20 zones:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5... )

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

Nope, not talking about motorists I'm asking about the 4000+ cyclists.

In reply to toad:


I thought the driver was ultimately responsible for the conduct of passengers when it came to opening doors - they're the only one with mirrors to see clearly who is coming after all - so I'm surprised the talk is of going after Grayling in isolation.

The one time I got car doored I dragged myself of in misery and pain and considered it a lesson learned, the idea of lawsuits never crossed my mind.

In reply to Indy:


Yes, and this is precisely the attitude that gets peoples' backs up...

In reply to Ramblin dave:


What, people seeing cyclist breaking the law on an industrial scale yet its only ever motorists that get blamed?

In reply to Indy:


No, the fact that whenever you try to have a grown-up, evidence-based conversation about road safety and how it can be improved in the context of finite resources and industrial-scale law breaking by everybody (see previous stats on speeding...), there's always some twit who comes along and huffs and puffs about cyclists jumping red lights and why can't we make this all about cyclists jumping red lights and how can we talk about anything else when cyclists jump red lights and who cares about "evidence" and "safety" and all that boring stuff when everyone knows that CYCLISTS JUMP RED LIGHTS.

It's generally not very helpful...

In reply to wintertree:

Given that the driver can't do an awful lot to prevent someone opening a door, that makes very little sense.

In reply to Neil Williams:


The wording of the offense includes "permitting"; and you'd expect a driver to control where their children get out; most cars these days can lock out the rear door locks for that reason. In general I'd expect a driver to pick somewhere safe to let passengers out, especially if it's a professional driven car as in this instance.

I always try and take care about passengers getting out, although it would seem overly harsh to prosecute the driver of a private vehicle for the actions of an independent adult.

In reply to Indy:

From the west midlands police

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2016/09/09/junction-malfunction-and-a-new-...

"Cycling is a fantastic thing, it’s benefits are well documented, traffic congestion is reduced, as is pollution, health and wellbeing are boosted for the participants and not forgetting the resultant benefits of less dependence on a stressed NHS. When it comes to playing our part in supporting cycling and cyclists it’s not a case of “why should we?” it’s a case of “why wouldn’t we?” Supporting cyclists and cycling is really a case of policing for the benefit of all, a prime case of policing for the greater good of the community."

"Cyclists don’t cause us, as an organisation, problems, that’s because they aren’t causing our communities problems, they aren’t killing nearly 100 people on our regions roads as mechanically propelled vehicles currently do. Yes we do get complaints of the “nuisance” variety, pavement cycling, some anti-social behaviour (usually yobs on bikes rather than “cyclists”), red light running etc. but you get the idea, most peoples interpretation of “1st world problems” or the “modern day blues”, nothing that’s a priority for a force like our own in a modern day society. Bad cycling is an “irritant” to the wider community rather than a danger, and maybe an improvement in infrastructure and policing may alieve many of the reasons that cause a very small minority of cyclists to be an “irritant”

Now for those who will no doubt be spitting out their finest percolated roasted bean brew at this moment screaming “what about the cyclists !” well…….statistical analysis shows they aren’t to blame, innocent in the majority of KSI collisions it would be a waste of our time, and thus public time and money to concentrate on cyclist behaviour. The figures speak for themselves…….driver’s don’t let your prejudices get in the way of the truth…….

In reply to wintertree:


I personally refuse to use childlocks as they deny a child's last chance of getting out of a burning car where the driver is incapacitated, FWIW (I'd only accept them if there was an emergency release of some kind that was automatically released in the event of an airbag deployment and "failed safe", i.e. if in doubt unlocked - quite a good idea if any car manufacturers are reading). My parents never used them for me and I never opened the door when the car was moving.


Agreed.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

"From the west midlands police"

No, its an personal opinion piece on a blog from a cyclist who happens works for west midlands police. What next.... a toilet attendant at GCHQ offering official govt. opinions on national security?

Here is the former Mayor of London Boris Johnson...
"'Some of the cases that we've seen in the last few days[Nov 2013] really make your heart bleed because you can see that people have taken decisions that really did put their lives in danger. You cannot blame the victim in these circumstances. But what you can say is that WHEN PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONS ON THE ROAD THAT ARE VERY RISKY - JUMPING RED LIGHTS, MOVING ACROSS FAST-MOVING TRAFFIC IN A WAY THAT IS COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED AND WITHOUT LOOKING TO SEE WHAT TRAFFIC IS DOING - IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS TO SECOND-GUESS THAT.

UNLESS PEOPLE OBEY THE LAWS OF THE ROAD AND PEOPLE ACTIVELY TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE SIGNALS THAT WE PUT IN, THERE'S NO AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ENGINEERING THAT WE INVEST IN THAT IS GOING TO SAVE PEOPLE'S LIVES.'"

Amen!

In reply to Indy:



https://www.west-midlands.police.uk/index.aspx - keeping you safe - behind the badge - traffic blog.

Your level of drivel is truely astounding.

In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:

I'll say it again.... you've linked to a PERSONAL BLOG and for some reason seem to think its connected to the official West Midlands Police. Apart from the blogger working for WMP whats the connection? is this blogger speaking in an official capacity for WMP?

While you are at it maybe you'd also like to explain why you think that 1000's of cyclist ignoring traffic signals and riding at night with out lights doesn't in your opinion contribute to death and injuries of those same cyclists. Hint: the answer isn't "but cars do it!"

In reply to Indy:


Yes, that's why it's on the West midlands police website


How about because 1000's of cyclists aren't dead or injured

In reply to Indy:



Jings!
You are coming across as someone who has an axe to grind against cyclists.
It's a mixed picture, and as a driver I have to be aware that I'm in a vehicle that can kill (and I don't want that to happen, even if the odd cyclist seems to have a death wish)
As a cyclist, I have to be aware of my own vulnerabilities , and that whilst most drivers try and avoid me as a cyclist, they are still a threat, and of course there is some very dangerous drivers out there who appear to have a grudge against cyclists, and I have to ride defensively to minimise risk.

In reply to Indy:

Because the DfT statistics say that in 2015, "disobeyed automatic traffic signal" on the part of the cyclist was only a factor in 1% of reported road traffic accidents involving cyclists, and riding without lights at night was only a factor in 2%:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/5...

Edit: for absolute clarity, I'm not saying that people should do either of these things; I use a good set of lights and obey traffic signals and would encourage others to do the same. But bringing either of them up in the context of improving road safety is basically a red herring and diverts any discussion away from the stuff that might actually save peoples' lives.

In reply to Ramblin dave:




Which would equate to 100's of RTA's involving cyclist illegally ignoring traffic signals interestingly the 1% figure is the same for motor vehicles.... I'm going to take it your not going to be giving them a free pass to ignore traffic signals.

Rosa has this to say....
"In collisions involving a bicycle and another vehicle, the most common key contributory factor recorded by the police is ‘failed to look properly’ by either the driver or rider, especially at junctions. ‘FAILED TO LOOK PROPERLY’ WAS ATTRIBUTED TO THE CAR DRIVER IN 57% OF SERIOUS COLLISIONS AND TO THE CYCLIST IN 43% OF SERIOUS COLLISIONS AT JUNCTIONS."

The Times reported using Official statistic....
"Cyclists are almost as likely as drivers to cause serious injury to pedestrians, analysis of official figures shows."

They also reported using official statistics...
"The number of cyclists taken to court for ignoring traffic warning signs has doubled in the past four years, statistics show."

All road users have an equal responsibility for road safety.

In reply to Indy:

Will you just stop driving on the towpath? It's an incredibly stupid thing to do.