How long before someone ends up in the canal

[reohn2]

I'll step off this merry go round,have fun chaps and chapesses!

[mjr]

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.

There are loads. How about "less common cycle types"?

It is clearly incorrect to call any cycle that is less than a metre wide and 2.8m long with a turning circle inner radius of less than 2.5m and maximum power of 250w and powered speed of 15.5mph "non-standard" because they clearly fit into the current standards!

I'll step off this merry go round,have fun chaps and chapesses!

1. Last refuge of those whose argument is not withstanding scrutiny and sinking under the weight of its own contradictions?
2. This is not an train station. Departures do not have to be announced.

[reohn2]

I'll step off this merry go round,have fun chaps and chapesses!

1. Last refuge of those whose argument is not withstanding scrutiny and sinking under the weight of its own contradictions?

My argument(I prefer discussion)stood scrutiny on my part because I've ridden the section being discussed a few times,and the barrier/chicane aren't anything to weite home about.I also pointed out a bridge at the junction of the Bridgewater and Trent and Mersey canals that probably is worth a short note home.
Where did I contradict myself?

2. This is not an train station. Departures do not have to be announced.

Did I say it was train station?
The point I was making to Stevek76,was that the discussion about that particular barrier/chicane had become circular with no solution so no use me continuing.

Of course VYMV,which it very often does.

[Vorpal]

A thread from 2015 about successful removal (in some cases widening) of barriers

Another thread about barriers and the Equalities Act

A thread about barriers on the Sustrans network, inlcuding a lengthy discussion about preventing illegal motorcycling (from about page 6)

[Bonefishblues]

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

And to me.

There are loads. How about "less common cycle types"?

It is clearly incorrect to call any cycle that is less than a metre wide and 2.8m long with a turning circle inner radius of less than 2.5m and maximum power of 250w and powered speed of 15.5mph "non-standard" because they clearly fit into the current standards!

I'll step off this merry go round,have fun chaps and chapesses!

1. Last refuge of those whose argument is not withstanding scrutiny and sinking under the weight of its own contradictions?
2. This is not an train station. Departures do not have to be announced.

I am obliged. Less common it is, given my first description was 'clearly incorrect', to use your words (best I do).

...and yes, I'm very mildly taking the pee, but otoh I will indeed use 'less common' in future

[mjr]

I'll step off this merry go round,have fun chaps and chapesses!

1. Last refuge of those whose argument is not withstanding scrutiny and sinking under the weight of its own contradictions?

My argument(I prefer discussion)stood scrutiny on my part because I've ridden the section being discussed a few times,and the barrier/chicane aren't anything to weite home about.I also pointed out a bridge at the junction of the Bridgewater and Trent and Mersey canals that probably is worth a short note home.
Where did I contradict myself?

From memory, you called it a "compromise" without any indication that the victims of this are getting anything in return; and you suggested that this was both to keep out motorcycles but also simple to pass through so some motorcycles will surely get through - if that barrier stops motorcycles then it is far more likely that there were not a noticeable number of motorcycles there, as Stevek76 was trying to point out.

And responding to an earlier implication that only people who've met motorbikes on cycleways will appreciate these barriers: I have been confronted by a motorcycle coming sideways (yes, its rider had lost control) towards a group of us on a cycleway, with the collision mainly avoided by our evasive action. I still oppose these infernal barriers because they hurt far more cyclists than they save and injuries seem generally skewed towards those who take the longest to heal. (Also, motorcycles were legally allowed on that cycleway although subject to a speed limit which I suspect was being flouted.)

2. This is not an train station. Departures do not have to be announced.

Did I say it was train station?

No but you seemed to be treating this forum as one!

[Tangled Metal]

A forum and it's various threads are free for all to leave at any time. It does not imply anything about their arguments nor does it require announcing. I can wholly see the point in R2 departing this thread. It seems I agree with R2 more often than not these days. I wonder if he's coming round to my pov or me to his. Or just meeting in the middle more often.

I'll leave too but with one question. Would barriers that meet this standard for minimum passable lets call it cycle be incapable of stopping motorcycles? If motorbikes are the problem then how can you stop them without using a barrier capable of stopping them?

[reohn2]

From memory, you called it a "compromise" without any indication that the victims of this are getting anything in return; and you suggested that this was both to keep out motorcycles but also simple to pass through so some motorcycles will surely get through - if that barrier stops motorcycles then it is far more likely that there were not a noticeable number of motorcycles there, as Stevek76 was trying to point out.

A compromise which either gives free reign to illegal motorcycling and possibly quad bikes(which have been reported in my local press)and in the case of this barrier/chicane,a slight inconvenience to cyclists of all sorts.

And responding to an earlier implication that only people who've met motorbikes on cycleways will appreciate these barriers: I have been confronted by a motorcycle coming sideways (yes, its rider had lost control) towards a group of us on a cycleway, with the collision mainly avoided by our evasive action. I still oppose these infernal barriers because they hurt far more cyclists than they save and injuries seem generally skewed towards those who take the longest to heal. (Also, motorcycles were legally allowed on that cycleway although subject to a speed limit which I suspect was being flouted.)

(my bold)which is where we differ.

To be clear(once again and for the final time)I also said up thread that I'd prefer there were no need for barriers/chicanes/gates or any other obstructions on cyclepaths,but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and society is blessed with a smattering of idiots amongst us,so needs(in some areas)must IMO.And let's not forget that there are pedestrians to consider who use towpaths too,in my area a lot more in number than cyclists.

2. This is not an train station. Departures do not have to be announced.

Did I say it was train station?

No but you seemed to be treating this forum as one!

[/quote]

No I'm not,it was you who brought up train stations not I.
I was merely noting that the discussion had become a circular one and me continuing putting my point across was pointless as I'd aleady made it a number of times.
But you got me,and i've made my point again.so if you'll leave it at that I'd be grateful

[Vorpal]

A forum and it's various threads are free for all to leave at any time. It does not imply anything about their arguments nor does it require announcing. I can wholly see the point in R2 departing this thread. It seems I agree with R2 more often than not these days. I wonder if he's coming round to my pov or me to his. Or just meeting in the middle more often.

I'll leave too but with one question. Would barriers that meet this standard for minimum passable lets call it cycle be incapable of stopping motorcycles? If motorbikes are the problem then how can you stop them without using a barrier capable of stopping them?

There are no barriers that can stop motorcycles, and not legitimate users. None. The only place I have ever encountered motorcyclists on a cycle path was one with barriers. They are completely ineffective.

If you want to know how to stop illegal motorcycling, have a look at viewtopic.php?f=6&t=93982&p=867190

It's a probablem that has been solved before, though it does require some resources. Barriers are the 'look like we're doing something' solution.

[Bmblbzzz]

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

And to me.

There are loads. How about "less common cycle types"?

It is clearly incorrect to call any cycle that is less than a metre wide and 2.8m long with a turning circle inner radius of less than 2.5m and maximum power of 250w and powered speed of 15.5mph "non-standard" because they clearly fit into the current standards!

Less common sounds fine to me.

While interpreting 'non-standard' to mean 'not conforming to standards' is obviously a correct interpretation, it is not the only one and I don't think it was the intended meaning here. I suppose this shows why industries favour the phrase 'out of standard'!

Finally, I don't think either meaning of 'non-standard' is necessarily derogatory in any way. And I'd suggest that a cycle route really should expect some combinations over 2.8m long, for instance tandem plus trailer, or maybe some models of velomobile with wider turning circle.

[Bonefishblues]

And to me.

There are loads. How about "less common cycle types"?

It is clearly incorrect to call any cycle that is less than a metre wide and 2.8m long with a turning circle inner radius of less than 2.5m and maximum power of 250w and powered speed of 15.5mph "non-standard" because they clearly fit into the current standards!

Less common sounds fine to me.

While interpreting 'non-standard' to mean 'not conforming to standards' is obviously a correct interpretation, it is not the only one and I don't think it was the intended meaning here. I suppose this shows why industries favour the phrase 'out of standard'!

Finally, I don't think either meaning of 'non-standard' is necessarily derogatory in any way. And I'd suggest that a cycle route really should expect some combinations over 2.8m long, for instance tandem plus trailer, or maybe some models of velomobile with wider turning circle.

You understood my meaning, as did others, however it gave scope for the more technical interpretation cited above to be pointed out by ano. IME it's better to simply move on rather than trying to argue about my intent, which deflects from the discussion.

[reohn2]

....... IME it's better to simply move on rather than trying to argue about my intent, which deflects from the discussion.

Unfortunately some would argue every jot a tittle of anything rather than allow for a little of lattitude

[Pete Owens]

I also pointed out a bridge at the junction of the Bridgewater and Trent and Mersey canals that probably is worth a short note home.

Which is this:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/88086/
While that is undoubtedly un-cyclable there is a big difference in that it predates the creation of the cycle route. Cycling used to be prohibited on the Bridgewater Canal (and still is through Warrington). Peel Holdings as the private owners are perfectly within their rights to say who is and who isn't allowed to use it.

A few years ago they put forward the idea of the cycle route in order to get the tax payer to fund routine maintenance of the tow path. This was done very poorly (basically tossing on a bit of hardcore that soon degenerated back into a mud bath:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/88161/
- and they failed to do anything at all about the bridge. But all that is a failure of omission rather than commission - possibly fraudulent use of public funds since they were paid to provide a cycle route and that bridge clearly fails to meet the description.

However, the dangerous barrier in the OP has been deliberately installed as part an upgrade when that stretch was tarmacked. Even if you think it is remotely sensible to install a barrier across the cycleway for whatever reason, it is utterly reckless to put it just there at a narrow point where a slight mistake could end up drowning someone. Just a few metres west the path moves away from the canal and there is plenty of space to widen the path to accommodate the swerving manometer with wide grass verges either side:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/110397/
This would then just be mildly irritating rather than hazardous.

[reohn2]

I also pointed out a bridge at the junction of the Bridgewater and Trent and Mersey canals that probably is worth a short note home.

Which is this:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/88086/
While that is undoubtedly un-cyclable there is a big difference in that it predates the creation of the cycle route. Cycling used to be prohibited on the Bridgewater Canal (and still is through Warrington). Peel Holdings as the private owners are perfectly within their rights to say who is and who isn't allowed to use it.

A few years ago they put forward the idea of the cycle route in order to get the tax payer to fund routine maintenance of the tow path. This was done very poorly (basically tossing on a bit of hardcore that soon degenerated back into a mud bath:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/88161/
- and they failed to do anything at all about the bridge. But all that is a failure of omission rather than commission - possibly fraudulent use of public funds since they were paid to provide a cycle route and that bridge clearly fails to meet the description.

I'm very familiar with those sections of the T&M so at least we agree on something

However, the dangerous barrier in the OP has been deliberately installed as part an upgrade when that stretch was tarmacked. Even if you think it is remotely sensible to install a barrier across the cycleway for whatever reason, it is utterly reckless to put it just there at a narrow point where a slight mistake could end up drowning someone. Just a few metres west the path moves away from the canal and there is plenty of space to widen the path to accommodate the swerving manometer with wide grass verges either side:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/110397/
This would then just be mildly irritating rather than hazardous.

IMO you're grossly over stating any danger the barriers/chicane pose to inexperienced cyclists,and the untouched grass near the canal edge and well worn path through the barriers/chicane shown illustrate that.If cyclists are unsure whether they can negotiate any obstacle they can dismount and walk their bike past it,I've done often.The barriers/chicane are an attempt at deterring a greater evil.Please read my other posts on this thread.
I don't regard those barriers/chicane any more dangerous than many old arched bridges on many canals in NW england with a narrower towpath beneath them than those barriers/chicane,I don't hear of or see people people falling in and drowning.

EDITED for clarity

[RickH]

I've only ridden the stretch in the original post once, back in January & can't remember if it was there then. I don't remember noticing anything.

One thing that occurs to me, & I don't know if it applies here, is if you proceed past where the barrier is now on a trike or in a wheelchair how soon are you likely to reach an in accessible point, caused by constructions best part of 200 years old, and be able to turn around in order to backtrack.

Whilst good access for all is a good thing in general, there could be an argument for restricting access where it is easy to get on the towpath to prevent problems a short distance along the canal where it is likely people could get themselves stuck, unable to continue forward & unable to turn round, where the historic structures (bridges, etc.) make access impossible at that point.