Cyril Haearn wrote:From that description I should not try the Fallowfield Loop Incidentally might be isolated but fear would be ubiquitous for me Never been there mind, anyone else with local knowledge, other views?
One of my friends lives near there and takes his kids cycling on it, but there have certainly been stories in the MEN.
When we lived in Liverpool some bits of the TPT had reputations to be avoided.
I am not sure what can be done about this; I assume there's a chicken/egg situation with higher usage discouraging antisocial behaviour...
There's a £5 million plan to improve the Fallowfield Loopline. Think I've only cycled it once or twice, I tend to try to head away from the city when I cycle. I'd consider taking the kids on it but we're quite a way from the end, I'll look into how to get to it easily now they're cycling further. But then again, every negative story about it puts people off, so it gets quieter and maybe less pleasant. Hopefully these plans can turn it around.
simonineaston wrote:Who else remembers the days when you needed a "licence" to cycle on canal towpaths, which you simply downloaded from the BWB website and printed off?
Absolutely, I actually recently found one of mine during a house move. I remember printing off several of them as i'd had trouble with ramblers attacking me with walking sticks on the local canal toepath and I was expecting them to tear it up when presented with it.
I like cycling on canals but they are more of a leisure day out than a commuter route - being windy and busy.
I think we need to concentrate on getting proper cycle lanes fully segregated from cars along the main roads so we can travel safely around our cities.
Basically an upgrade programme over 5 years for 100 miles of urban towpaths - I suspect a lot of it will be like what they did on some stretches of Ashton Canal out of Manchester where they gravel surfaced it and then added a whole load of signs saying "cyclists dismount", "cyclists - give way to walkers" and "cyclists - slow down".
rareposter wrote:I suspect a lot of it will be like what they did on some stretches of Ashton Canal out of Manchester where they gravel surfaced it and then added a whole load of signs saying "cyclists dismount", "cyclists - give way to walkers" and "cyclists - slow down".
Helpful stuff.
Worth bringing that to the attention of Walk Ride GM, I think.
rareposter wrote:...a whole load of signs saying "cyclists dismount", "cyclists - give way to walkers" and "cyclists - slow down".
Can anyone explain this choice? I mean why wouldn't these hypothetical signs say, "Shared use - please follow the Highway Code" [EDIT: or indeed Please Consider Others - see below!] or something that doesn't disadvantage one of the many groups of users? I'm puzzled by the stance taken by planners. Here in Bristol - a city that's big on bikes, apparently - there are several bridges that have shared use, for example those nearby the central railway station, Temple Mead. The signage on or around the bridges is almost without exception, along the lines of "Cyclists - Dismount". My view has always been that by insisting that cyclists walk means they and their bikes take up more room than if they rode; insisting they walk means they're on the bridge for longer than if they rode. I don't understand why we don't make more use of the concept of shared use path - or is the tendancy to disadvantage the cyclist part of this country's apparent long-standing down on the bicycle and cyclists (as much discussed on other threads on this very forum...)?
Shared path sign, ironically in Bristol...
Last edited by simonineaston on 21 Aug 2020, 6:24pm, edited 1 time in total.
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
I suspect it’s because the people making the decisions about signage haven’t recently ridden a bike. If memory serves, one of the recommendations of the recent infrastructure guidance was that the people doing the planning should have experience as users…
It's because the Canal and River Trust bylaws incorporate the 'hierarchy of users' despite going back many years. The CRT head of /whatever its called this week/ is a touring cyclist. As pointed out ad infinitum towpaths are generally not public rights of way. Their paths, their rules.
Leicester; Riding my Hetchins since 1971; Day rides on my Dawes; Going to the shops on a Decathlon Hoprider
Mind you, for canals, quite right too... the funny thing is, once you've fallen in a couple, you realise how shallow most of them are! Not locks, tho' - cycling alongside a lock gives me the willies. Many is the little corpse I've seen, floating in a lock!
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
millimole wrote:It's because the Canal and River Trust bylaws incorporate the 'hierarchy of users' despite going back many years. The CRT head of /whatever its called this week/ is a touring cyclist. As pointed out ad infinitum towpaths are generally not public rights of way. Their paths, their rules.
I've found the relevant information - it relates to an online talk I'm attending - "26th August -1230-1330: Managing Towpaths as a Shared Space: Dick Vincent (Marketing Operations and Delivery Advisor)." - before you ask I can't offer you a link because it's for CRT Volunteers (and if you're a CRT Volunteer you'll have had the invitation). I've met and communicated with Dick, and yes, he is a cyclist (as well as being an all-round good bloke).
I would welcome the banning of cyclists from canal towpaths. Cyclists on towpaths are a danger and nuisance. I have found the ones that do it mostly have stunted brains.
