How long before someone ends up in the canal

[reohn2]

Mumbojumbo(apt name IMO)
See my edit above.

[mumbojumbo]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
mumbojumbo wrote:
I would perfer to see canals drained,filled with refuse,and topped with gravel for cyclist.


I tend to think the British cycling experience would be made better by focusing on the 260,000 miles of road rather than the 2,000 miles of canal, but what do I know.

Yes but no but but once those barges were motorised properly and wheels fitted they'd fair zoom along that new hard-surfaced canalway. Be a dangerous place to cycle, mind

Thats why they would be filled with loose gravel.not a compacted surface.Barges do have wheels -you must have seen 007 in the Bang Cock swamps.

[reohn2]

It's a deterrent a bit like a locked door is,if someone on an illegal motor cycle can be slowed to walking pace or needs to get off and push it'll most likely deter them enough not to use the path,especially if they're local and may be recognised.

My opinion is that it's better than nothing YVV,but do you have any evidence that no barriers at all would be any better?

That's a request to prove the negative. The onus is on proving the barriers are actually effective. Is there any evidence where barriers that are not so restrictive as to still allow the passage of handbikes/the cycle design vehicle have reduced incidences of anti social behaviour?

I'm certainly not aware of any, and that's a fairly big factor on why LTN1/20 takes such a dim view of them.

And one I can prove(anecdotally granted)as the only places I've had problems with illegal motorcycles is where there's been no barriers to stop them.

[mjr]

It's a couple of barriers that are navigable, pretty much by all, judging by the contributions from those who ride 'non-standard' machinery, not locked gates. I think that your reply may be losing that perspective, slightly.

I await measurements that show that, as mentioned. Just because some riders of what you insult as "non-standard machinery" can pass it, that doesn't mean all can.

It also does not mean that the barrier is not most likely to injure the slowest riders.

[Stevek76]

Well we have plenty of anecdotes as to how such barriers are harmful (e.g. Vorpal's experiences here) so yes, more than anecdotes required. e.g. stats on police reports before and after a barrier being put in or removed.

[ossie]

[
I used to use the Flitch Way quite a bit on my solo bike. It's a nice route, straight, flat, and free of motor traffic for ~10 miles. I avoided it with my tandem and trailer, because it was horrid getting through, over & around the barriers. There were a couple that my trailer didn't fit through. I also met mobility scooter users at Rayne who said that they didn't use the Flitch Way because they could not get through the barriers.

I've cycled the Flitch Way three times on long European tours. The only Injury I suffered on one 1500 mile tour en route to Harwich was at this damned barrier at Takely

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.8663579 ... 312!8i6656

As you say there are many such barriers, I was fully loaded and got a little cocky hoping to get through without stopping but one rear pannier caught the barrier and tipped me off so I should have slowed although it was a low speed off. My next unfortunate experience on the return trip three weeks later was accidently cycling onto that travellers site at Little Dunmow, just off Station Road (if you know that section). That was like the wild west and I had unfortunate experience of meeting the locals who nearly ran me off the road to teach me the error of my ways I guess.

The section of the Flitch Way next to that travellers site is appalling, broken glass and rubbish everywhere. The lovely old station house on the approach to the site was also wrecked. It looked like someone had attempted to modernise it since my previous visit in 2015, what a shame.

[Bonefishblues]

It's a couple of barriers that are navigable, pretty much by all, judging by the contributions from those who ride 'non-standard' machinery, not locked gates. I think that your reply may be losing that perspective, slightly.

I await measurements that show that, as mentioned. Just because some riders of what you insult as "non-standard machinery" can pass it, that doesn't mean all can.

It also does not mean that the barrier is not most likely to injure the slowest riders.

My intention is not to insult anyone.

What term should I use as a portmanteau please?

Again, I urge a sense of perspective. You're awaiting measurements? Injure the slowest? (And a colleague now wanting Police Reports pre and post implementation, I notice)

[Bonefishblues]

I've cycled the Flitch Way three times on long European tours. The only Injury I suffered on one 1500 mile tour en route to Harwich was at this damned barrier at Takely

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.8663579 ... 312!8i6656

As you say there are many such barriers, I was fully loaded and got a little cocky hoping to get through without stopping but one rear pannier caught the barrier and tipped me off so I should have slowed although it was a low speed off. My next unfortunate experience on the return trip three weeks later was accidently cycling onto that travellers site at Little Dunmow, just off Station Road (if you know that section). That was like the wild west and I had unfortunate experience of meeting the locals who nearly ran me off the road to teach me the error of my ways I guess.

You're not saying that there was any fault on your part there, are you

Meant as a light-hearted quip, no insult to be implied, can I make clear

[reohn2]

Well we have plenty of anecdotes as to how such barriers are harmful (e.g. Vorpal's experiences here) so yes, more than anecdotes required. e.g. stats on police reports before and after a barrier being put in or removed.

What would you suggest the erecting barriers on cyclepaths are for?

Just to reinforce(yet again)my previous posts that I'd much prefer there were no barriers on cyclepaths but in certain areas they are most certainly needed.

[tatanab]

but in certain areas they are most certainly needed.

Which makes a case for signs to be put up saying that the route is only suitable for - lightly loaded, short bicycles. These could be affixed to the barriers at each end of the section affected.

For me, I avoid cycle routes because I don't know where they go. They are only potentially useful to locals and not through riders.

[Bmblbzzz]

It's a couple of barriers that are navigable, pretty much by all, judging by the contributions from those who ride 'non-standard' machinery, not locked gates. I think that your reply may be losing that perspective, slightly.

I await measurements that show that, as mentioned. Just because some riders of what you insult as "non-standard machinery" can pass it, that doesn't mean all can.

It also does not mean that the barrier is not most likely to injure the slowest riders.

My intention is not to insult anyone.

What term should I use as a portmanteau please?

Again, I urge a sense of perspective. You're awaiting measurements? Injure the slowest? (And a colleague now wanting Police Reports pre and post implementation, I notice)

Interested in suggested appropriate term. To me, non-standard seems quite neutral.

As for the barriers, they clearly do represent an impediment to riders with lesser balance or larger machines, such as tandems and trailers.

[Jdsk]

I await measurements that show that, as mentioned. Just because some riders of what you insult as "non-standard machinery" can pass it, that doesn't mean all can.

My intention is not to insult anyone.

What term should I use as a portmanteau please?

Interested in suggested appropriate term. To me, non-standard seems quite neutral.

And to me.

Jonathan

[reohn2]

but in certain areas they are most certainly needed.

Which makes a case for signs to be put up saying that the route is only suitable for - lightly loaded, short bicycles. These could be affixed to the barriers at each end of the section affected.

All barriers I've come across have been easily negotiated by almost all bikes(perhaps not trikes),though maybe some with difficulty if their riders aren't able bodied.

For me, I avoid cycle routes because I don't know where they go. They are only potentially useful to locals and not through riders.

Most if not all cyclepaths within 20miles of where I live are signposted by destination and time(though I'd prefer it were inmmiles miles).I don't include bridleways in that.

[ossie]

I've cycled the Flitch Way three times on long European tours. The only Injury I suffered on one 1500 mile tour en route to Harwich was at this damned barrier at Takely

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.8663579 ... 312!8i6656

As you say there are many such barriers, I was fully loaded and got a little cocky hoping to get through without stopping but one rear pannier caught the barrier and tipped me off so I should have slowed although it was a low speed off. My next unfortunate experience on the return trip three weeks later was accidently cycling onto that travellers site at Little Dunmow, just off Station Road (if you know that section). That was like the wild west and I had unfortunate experience of meeting the locals who nearly ran me off the road to teach me the error of my ways I guess.

You're not saying that there was any fault on your part there, are you

Meant as a light-hearted quip, no insult to be implied, can I make clear

No offence taken and it was entirely my fault. I thought I had managed 'the technique'..I clearly hadn't
When you look at the 'bigger picture' there's probably a reason for the barriers along that route and I think I may have stumbled across it.

[Stevek76]

What would you suggest the erecting barriers on cyclepaths are for?

There's a big difference between the intended purpose of something and the actual impact of it. Barriers are typically erected on the basis of little more than the usual reasons behind poor design, one or more of the following: a (not very good, probably able bodied, never pushed a double pram or ridden anything beyond a bog standard road bike) engineer having always done it that way, received local and political 'wisdom' that it's effective at stopping anti social behaviour, a road safety auditor thinking cyclists are going to fly out of a cycle path straight onto a main road and so on.

I'm after evidence that they can actually achieve the intended result (without being so restrictive as to be illegal as already covered). If such evidence actually existed then it is unlikely present guidance would be so against them or that sustrans would be in the process of removing all such barriers from the NCN on the basis that it is better for paths to be accessible and convenient for all legitimate users than to have barriers in that have no demonstrable benefit.