How long before someone ends up in the canal

[mjr]

@mjr
You're not advancing the same 'damaging my vehicle' argument that is so roundly frowned upon when a motorist complains about a speed hump, are you?

Maybe, but note that while it is ridiculous to use that argument about speed humps, it is successfully used by motorists against slaloms and councils cannot install slaloms on carriageways any more without showing max legal vehicle track drawings.

I don't know if anyone can post a full set of measurements of this one but I would be surprised if the Cycle Design Vehicle (1.2m x 2.8m, inner turning radius 2.5m) can track through it. Therefore, it is not safe and legal.

Oh, and if it injures someone, mightn't that fairly be laid at their door, too?

At whose door? Motorists?

[Bonefishblues]

@mjr
You're not advancing the same 'damaging my vehicle' argument that is so roundly frowned upon when a motorist complains about a speed hump, are you?

Maybe, but note that while it is ridiculous to use that argument about speed humps, it is successfully used by motorists against slaloms and councils cannot install slaloms on carriageways any more without showing max legal vehicle track drawings.

I don't know if anyone can post a full set of measurements of this one but I would be surprised if the Cycle Design Vehicle (1.2m x 2.8m, inner turning radius 2.5m) can track through it. Therefore, it is not safe and legal.

Oh, and if it injures someone, mightn't that fairly be laid at their door, too?

At whose door? Motorists?

Themselves, in this case cyclists.

Go more slowly and carefully for the conditions, especially if an obvious obstruction is obvious - whether cyclist, motorist, or whatever. Isn't that the mantra we so often preach?

[pete75]

Can the only person to say he's ridden that path say whether he's seen any disabled users there or tandemists or any other user type that might possibly have an issue getting through such a point?

People seem to be arguing from the point of what if scenarios not what actually happens. So I'll put in a what if scenario. If they changed that chicane what effect would that have on disabled users? It seems me that it won't entice many down there because I reckon if local they'll know the rest of it is impassable to disabled users. Instead of encouraging disabled access, which I'm certainly for, it is unlikely to do so but allow problem users to become a problem to all who do actually use it.

It seems people argue for best practice but there simply isn't the money, inclination or political will to actually do that. Instead the best possible outcome is to make it useable to as many who can. I feel this barrier does that no matter how bad the design is for minority, potential users.

PS think of us poor recumbent riders. Nobody has thought of us. Do you realise how difficult it is to negotiate those barriers. Oh wait, it's muddy, got steep bridges to negotiate, steps, etc? Ok I'm sticking to the road. I'll enjoy it more.

If the people mentioned can't get through that point they won't go there will they?

[mjr]

Oh, and if it injures someone, mightn't that fairly be laid at their door, too?

At whose door? Motorists?

Themselves, in this case cyclists.

Go more slowly and carefully for the conditions, especially if an obvious obstruction is obvious - whether cyclist, motorist, or whatever. Isn't that the mantra we so often preach?

One of them but don't we also say that designs should be forgiving of mistakes and at least theoretically possible for all eligible users to pass through safely? As posted above, I will be surprised if it's possible for the Cycle Design Vehicle to fit through that.

Also, as you still seem to be ignoring, slowing down actually makes that obstruction more difficult to pass safely. It's a Chinese finger puzzle of a measure, rewarding people for doing the opposite of what you think at first glance. Why install a "speed up" measure there?

Finally, blaming the victim of a defective design is not a great tactic.

[ossie]

Those barriers are ineffective at speed reduction. Their main effect is to injure riders and damage bikes, discouraging cycling.

Your two sentences appear to contradict themselves. Anything capable of Injuring (speeding ) cyclists, is by its very nature effective at speed reduction.

[reohn2]

Can the only person to say he's ridden that path say whether he's seen any disabled users there or tandemists or any other user type that might possibly have an issue getting through such a point?

It's about six months since I've ridden out that way but when I've ridden through it,that barrier/slalom/pinchpoint/chicane call it what you will hasn't posed any problem for me so much so that I didn't give it a second thought.
I haven't witnessed anyone on a tandem,wheelchair or Mobility scooter,but looking at photo in the OP again TBH I don't think a tandem wheelchair or mobility scooter would have much problem negotiating that obstacle.

People seem to be arguing from the point of what if scenarios not what actually happens. So I'll put in a what if scenario. If they changed that chicane what effect would that have on disabled users? It seems me that it won't entice many down there because I reckon if local they'll know the rest of it is impassable to disabled users. Instead of encouraging disabled access, which I'm certainly for, it is unlikely to do so but allow problem users to become a problem to all who do actually use it

Agreed,which was my arguement up thread.

It seems people argue for best practice but there simply isn't the money, inclination or political will to actually do that. Instead the best possible outcome is to make it useable to as many who can. I feel this barrier does that no matter how bad the design is for minority, potential users

Again I agree,it isn't a perfect solution but light of poor government,poor funding andunderstaffed and underresourced policing it's a compromise.

PS think of us poor recumbent riders. Nobody has thought of us. Do you realise how difficult it is to negotiate those barriers. Oh wait, it's muddy, got steep bridges to negotiate, steps, etc? Ok I'm sticking to the road. I'll enjoy it more.

A recumbent could negotiate that chicane,you'd maybe need to put your feet down and paddle foot through though.I've ridden the muckier bits(40mm deep mud in places though only short sections)on 40mm slicks,the steep and stepped bridge need to be walked though.

[reohn2]

To sum up:- IMHO we all seek perfection but in a country restricted by 10 years of austerity which has slashed public spending reducing LA funding by upto 60%,and has slashed police spending by the same amount leading to reduction in police force number by 30,000 there are compromises to be made this is one such
This is the result of psst poor cycling infrastructure across the board whilst government ministers bleat endlessly about how they're commited to active travel whilst atmthe same time doing the opposite!

[mjr]

Those barriers are ineffective at speed reduction. Their main effect is to injure riders and damage bikes, discouraging cycling.

Your two sentences appear to contradict themselves. Anything capable of Injuring (speeding ) cyclists, is by its very nature effective at speed reduction.

There is no contradiction, unless you assume all cyclists speed. As mentioned, the barriers are most likely to injure the slowest riders and damage the bikes of tricyclists and handcyclists.

It is what our local cycling campaign sees with a couple of problem barriers and slaloms: the fast riders on their narrow low steeds sail through at speed untroubled, while older ebikers and people towing children are left with injuries, expensive repair bills or detours to avoid. The barriers are unjust.

[Stevek76]

Much better not to have anything at all.

Which leaves the towpath open to becoming a racetrack for off road illegal motorcycles in a policeless society.

It is anyway, that's part of the point I'm trying to make here.

Access control barriers are either:

• Narrow enough to prevent moped/dirt bike access and therefore also narrow enough to cause problems for anyone other than standard cycle users (e.g. wheelchairs, hand bikes, recumbents, double buggies etc)
• Wide enough to allow access for such users but therefore also wide enough to present no obstacle to mopeds and motor dirt bikes etc

There is no magic size of barrier design that can discourage problem users without preventing access to non-problem users.

if slight inconveniences such as this help deter idiots that can only be a good thing.

The problem there is the huge if. Do such things deter idiots, any evidence of this? Barriers like these are simply politician's logic (yes minister again), 'something must be done', 'this is something', 'therefore we must do it'. Inconveniencing regular users while doing absolutely nothing to solve the actual problem; that is why the new guidance heavily discourages their use. Nothing at all is better in this situation. Yes, the actual solution is to reverse the 20k + of police cuts and various social programs that helped keep bored youths from being nuisances on paths like this but the absence of that does not make this useful or effective.

I can't think that's going to go down well with the judge...

That remains to be seen

Ok I was understating there. For clarity, while I don't think it would apply to this case as it is wide enough, existing natural barriers is absolutely not a defence for erecting new ones if being sued under the Equalities Act 2010. There are disabled cyclists who have been successful in bringing cases against councils where they have got stuck in narrow barriers and there are a few who will detour to get themselves stuck so they can do so should the council not respond to requests for an equalities impact assessment and removal. Being a permissive path rather than RoW also does not provide any exemptions. There is far from a lack of case law in this area.

[thirdcrank]

Re reductions in policing (not only absolute numbers but in the resources devoted to road traffic) I get the impression that there are plenty of unregistered scrambling (?) bikes, clapped out mopeds being openly ridden about on main roads. I see riders performing extended wheelies quite often, usually preceded by their loud exhaust noise. It's probably partly because I notice it, rather than everybody is at it but I certainly get the impression that there's more of it than was once the case.

[Tangled Metal]

Can the only person to say he's ridden that path say whether he's seen any disabled users there or tandemists or any other user type that might possibly have an issue getting through such a point?

People seem to be arguing from the point of what if scenarios not what actually happens. So I'll put in a what if scenario. If they changed that chicane what effect would that have on disabled users? It seems me that it won't entice many down there because I reckon if local they'll know the rest of it is impassable to disabled users. Instead of encouraging disabled access, which I'm certainly for, it is unlikely to do so but allow problem users to become a problem to all who do actually use it.

It seems people argue for best practice but there simply isn't the money, inclination or political will to actually do that. Instead the best possible outcome is to make it useable to as many who can. I feel this barrier does that no matter how bad the design is for minority, potential users.

PS think of us poor recumbent riders. Nobody has thought of us. Do you realise how difficult it is to negotiate those barriers. Oh wait, it's muddy, got steep bridges to negotiate, steps, etc? Ok I'm sticking to the road. I'll enjoy it more.

If the people mentioned can't get through that point they won't go there will they?

It's a new installation someone said so I assumed there is a good chance the only person to have been there would know if disabled or tandemists or others who struggle through such obstructions used it before the addition. If they went there before but not after installation then there's a good point made. If not then there's less of a problem and it's possibly more of a solution to other problems that could be more pressing. Surely you'll agree reducing incidents of cyclist or trail biker speed injuring pedestrians is a good thing.

[Vorpal]

Can the only person to say he's ridden that path say whether he's seen any disabled users there or tandemists or any other user type that might possibly have an issue getting through such a point?

People seem to be arguing from the point of what if scenarios not what actually happens. So I'll put in a what if scenario. If they changed that chicane what effect would that have on disabled users? It seems me that it won't entice many down there because I reckon if local they'll know the rest of it is impassable to disabled users. Instead of encouraging disabled access, which I'm certainly for, it is unlikely to do so but allow problem users to become a problem to all who do actually use it.

There's a bit of 'there aren't any swimmers, so we don't need a bridge' in that. If they've made it horrid for disabled users, they won't use it.

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.

There have been examples in the UK of disabled users campaigning to have barriers widened or removed. The routes have subsequently attracted tandemists, disabled users, recumbent riders, etc.

There have been a number of threads on here in the past about barriers, and how to deal with anti-social use. I don't have a problem with a fence post, half-gate, bollard, etc. and a sign asking cyclists to slow down & give way to pedestrians.

Barriers don't help anybody, unless they are simple barriers, meant to prevent use by large motor vehicles.

Someone above made the analogy of speed bump. Speed bumps are not unreasonable things in the right location, but they also do not prevent legitimate users from using the road. Nor should anything on a towpath.

Infrastructure can't fix idiocy.

[reohn2]

Re reductions in policing (not only absolute numbers but in the resources devoted to road traffic) I get the impression that there are plenty of unregistered scrambling (?) bikes, clapped out mopeds being openly ridden about on main roads. I see riders performing extended wheelies quite often, usually preceded by their loud exhaust noise. It's probably partly because I notice it, rather than everybody is at it but I certainly get the impression that there's more of it than was once the case.

I agree,I witness it on a weekly bases and sometimes through towns and villages,no reg plates,no helmets,no lights,so no MOT,insurance,VED,and being ridden very dangerously indeed.

[Tangled Metal]

My point was that, as was described by someone who has ridden it, the route sounds like it's not easily passable in many places by the groups you and others claimed this barrier disadvantaged. Such that it's quite possible they never used it before the barrier was put in. No disability issues solely by this addition when among other features bridges in the route are stepped/steep are stopping disabled too. No point changing this barrier when that will not change anything but make it easier for irresponsible bikers to ride irresponsibly.

Imho a barrier is an inconvenience only when passing through it. Once through you're back into happy cycling. I personally just get on with it. Even if that means unloading my touring recumbent, carrying bike and bags over or through obstruction then loading up again. It's annoying but hardly life or death or threatening injury. Unless you're going too fast and may cause injury to yourself or others.

[reohn2]

Much better not to have anything at all.

Which leaves the towpath open to becoming a racetrack for off road illegal motorcycles in a policeless society.

It is anyway, that's part of the point I'm trying to make here.

Access control barriers are either:

• Narrow enough to prevent moped/dirt bike access and therefore also narrow enough to cause problems for anyone other than standard cycle users (e.g. wheelchairs, hand bikes, recumbents, double buggies etc)
• Wide enough to allow access for such users but therefore also wide enough to present no obstacle to mopeds and motor dirt bikes etc

There is no magic size of barrier design that can discourage problem users without preventing access to non-problem users.

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.

if slight inconveniences such as this help deter idiots that can only be a good thing.

The problem there is the huge if. Do such things deter idiots, any evidence of this? Barriers like these are simply politician's logic (yes minister again), 'something must be done', 'this is something', 'therefore we must do it'. Inconveniencing regular users while doing absolutely nothing to solve the actual problem; that is why the new guidance heavily discourages their use. Nothing at all is better in this situation. Yes, the actual solution is to reverse the 20k + of police cuts and various social programs that helped keep bored youths from being nuisances on paths like this but the absence of that does not make this useful or effective

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?

I can't think that's going to go down well with the judge...

That remains to be seen

Ok I was understating there. For clarity, while I don't think it would apply to this case as it is wide enough, existing natural barriers is absolutely not a defence for erecting new ones if being sued under the Equalities Act 2010. There are disabled cyclists who have been successful in bringing cases against councils where they have got stuck in narrow barriers and there are a few who will detour to get themselves stuck so they can do so should the council not respond to requests for an equalities impact assessment and removal. Being a permissive path rather than RoW also does not provide any exemptions. There is far from a lack of case law in this area.

The only way to test your assumptions is for someone to summon the LA to court.

TBH some anti motorcycling barriers can be a PITA for cyclists and I can point you to 2mile stretch of the L&L canal that has four but it's accepted by local cyclist that whilst it's a PITA it's an accepted necessity to keep illegal motorcycles off the towpath,those barriers have provision for wheelchairs.But I'll repeat the one in the OP is but a slight problem for cyclists wheelchair users.