obnoxious cyclist

[meic]

I am pretty sure that they are still required outside of London.
(Yes there IS a world outside of London).

There is also still a code of practice for the whole network but when you follow the link it is the London Code.
I guess the waterways authorities still think the water just falls out the end of their canals off the edge of the world somewhere near the M25.

http://www.waterscape.com/canals-and-ri ... of-conduct

[irc]

I ignored him as I was doing about 14mph which I felt was more than fast enough on a narrow shared path, so he said 'shall I come left or right'. I said 'up to you mate', so he said 'I'm just trying to make it easier for you'. He passed me then I sat on his back wheel at 19-20mph, while he blasted away through the dog walkers, other cyclists, the old lady trying to prune the flowers alongside her barge, each time dinging his bell three or four times and not slowing down at all.

So 14mph was more than fast enough but you then followed him at a 50% higher speed?

So would you like it if you came up behind someone doing 11mph which they thought was the fastest safe speed and they ignored a reasonable request to cooperate with an overtake?

Actually I agree 19mph is too fast to pass other towpath users. So is 14mph is some circumstances. I'm not sure it is up to me to dictate the speed someone else chooses to ride at though.

[reohn2]

....................(Yes there IS a world outside of London)................

Really I would never have known

I ride towpaths quite a bit,some are potentially fast 18/20mph no problem,unless there are walkers etc,then out of common courtesy I slow it right down to a max of 10/12mph slowing to 5/7mph as I approach anyone saying "can I just squeeze past please" followed by a "thankyou" as I pass.I'd say 50% thank me in return.
One chap in particular,who I see quite regular,covered in tattoos with two Pitbull type dogs who would fit the drug dealer/maniac/out for a fight description,will hold his dogs well to one side and thank me for slowing down and on one occasion said "I wish everone would do what you do"

In the last 12months I've only had one person deliberately obstruct me, I don't know why, she was a thirtysomething with another "lady" of about the same age,I can only speculate.
I have however nearly been hit by another cyclist,when I was stopped taking in the scenery, who was too busy tearing along to even think of warning me of his approach,another thirtysomething.

Towpaths are shared and as such consideration should be given to other users IMHO.

[thelawnet]

I ignored him as I was doing about 14mph which I felt was more than fast enough on a narrow shared path, so he said 'shall I come left or right'. I said 'up to you mate', so he said 'I'm just trying to make it easier for you'. He passed me then I sat on his back wheel at 19-20mph, while he blasted away through the dog walkers, other cyclists, the old lady trying to prune the flowers alongside her barge, each time dinging his bell three or four times and not slowing down at all.

So 14mph was more than fast enough but you then followed him at a 50% higher speed?

So would you like it if you came up behind someone doing 11mph which they thought was the fastest safe speed and they ignored a reasonable request to cooperate with an overtake?

Actually I agree 19mph is too fast to pass other towpath users. So is 14mph is some circumstances. I'm not sure it is up to me to dictate the speed someone else chooses to ride at though.

I believe that when they gave the path over to sustrans a 12mph limit was suggested. I would not pass pedestrians on a narrow undemarcated path at 14mph, 10mph is more than enough, 14mph is more of a cruising speed for me I would slow when passing others
Passing someone doing 11mph is easier than passing someone doing 14mph, if I found myself held up I'd use the (faster) road or ask (more politely than he) to excuse me.

As for dictating the speed I was simply riding along the path with right of way, he was free to pass. He having cleared the way of pedestrians, it was safe for me to follow at a higher speed, with a view to telling him that he was riding like an idiot.

[thelawnet]

Err how was he being obnoxious, other than riding perhaps a little fast for the conditions. He was giving an audible warning of his approach. How many times do we get other users of footpaths / towpaths tell us we should have a bell?
He wasn't yelling obscenities at the other users, was he?

One ding says 'cyclist coming', four or five, approaching at high speed someone who can see you coming says 'get the f out of my way'.

The old lady pruning was not blocking the way she was on the side of the path and it would have been no problem to pass her at 8-10mph; but instead by approaching much faster and dinging insistently he sent her running across the path. It's not a motorway and he fast and fit had no business blasting old ladies out of the way when he could have passed safely without either party stopping what they were doing.
It's particularly foolish since only a month ago following protests from disability lobbies they announced new restrictions on cycling locally. The old lady might jump out of your way now when you blast towards her at 20mph, but that just means that tomrrow she'll be campaigning to ban cycling on these sorts of facilities.The etiquette for these paths is not complex - give way toother users don't demand they give way to you.

[flat tyre]

Oh dear, I once had the opposite of this when cycling along the South Downs Way. Cyclist comes hurtling past going uphill on narrow track, just missing me as I wobble about whilst dealing with the hill. Me "Next time give me a bit of warning"; him "f*889 off, I suppose you want all of us to have f889ing bells on our bikes"; me "and a nice day to you too sir".

[beachcomber]

Sorry lawnet but it seems to me to be half a dozen of one and six of the other.
You blocked the other riders path by choosing not to move out of his way because you thought he was going too fast. Then when he managed to get past, after what appears to have been a reasonable request on which side he could pass , you did the same as him by riding too fast and presumably sucking his wheel which winds most riders up when an unknown rider does it to them.
His requests to you appear to have been reasonably made, you ignored him or were dismissive with your reply. If he had been abusive I would agree about him being obnoxious but your conduct wasn't exactly gentlemanly and he did not seem to rise to the bait.
By following him at high speed I would say you gave the appearance to an observer of two riders riding together without consideratioin to others. I'll bet the old lady tells the tale to her friends and mentions both of you in the same vein.

If you drive, do you hold up the outside lane by driving at 70mph then when flashed at by a following motorist let them past only to follow them closely at 85mph? It is in my opinion the same thing. You would both break the law and your driving could be classed as inconsiderate/dangerous.

I'd like to hear how the other rider recounts the tale of his meeting with you.
Don't misunderstand me, I don't agree with him riding at excessive speed or being overly forceful but you don't appear to have helped matters. Perhaps you'd be better to let him past and just enjoy your own ride.

[rootes]

<<He was on a white mountain bike and wearing fingerless gloves, looked like a regular cyclist from the size of his thighs;>>

I have seen him on the basingrad canal path... he is way slow on some sections and you can easily overtake him!

[thelawnet]

Sorry lawnet but it seems to me to be half a dozen of one and six of the other.

Er no, the interaction between me and him is not the issue. I don't really care what another individual cyclist thinks of me, what I don't appreciate is a dozen or more other path users getting a bad impression of cyclists, and I don't like seeing old ladies running out of the way for no good reason.

You blocked the other riders path by choosing not to move out of his way because you thought he was going too fast.

Well no that's not quite true. I heard a bell behind me, I had no reason to suppose it was addressed at me given that I've never had anyone pass me on this path before, but I sped up slightly in case it was, and kept going in a straight line along the middle of the path (which is the best place to cycle on a narrow overgrown path). He then addressed me in a manner which I felt was less than polite, to which I responded only slightly curtly.

Then when he managed to get past, after what appears to have been a reasonable request on which side he could pass , you did the same as him by riding too fast and presumably sucking his wheel which winds most riders up when an unknown rider does it to them.

Well yes it was my intention to wind him up because I felt him to be an obnoxious idiot and riding in a manner not appropriate for the conditions. The point here however is that the interaction between me and the other cyclist is a minor irrelevancy, whereas things like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-11146478 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-12908039 are a direct outcome of his type of behaviour.

As for riding too fast, while he certainly was, as has I think already been mentioned there's a big difference between blasting along with nobody ahead of you and following someone who has 'cleared the way'.

His requests to you appear to have been reasonably made, you ignored him or were dismissive with your reply. If he had been abusive I would agree about him being obnoxious but your conduct wasn't exactly gentlemanly and he did not seem to rise to the bait.

Really? 'Excuse me, could I pass' would have worked better than what he said, which implied that I was not cycling in a straight line. Having passed me, he then confirmed my suspicions by proceeding to blast all other path users out of the way. I'm not sure what you mean by rising to the bait, but I would much rather have exchanged a few more words with him than watched him alienate everyone else.

By following him at high speed I would say you gave the appearance to an observer of two riders riding together without consideratioin to others. I'll bet the old lady tells the tale to her friends and mentions both of you in the same vein.

Who said I passed the old lady the same speed as he did? Besides which, she was already cowering on the side of the path before he passed and she could see me coming - as soon as I passed she went back to what she was doing, there was no point in me slowing down to 5mph when she was already terrified and not likely to return until all bicycles were out of the way. Had I been there on my own I would have approached at 12-13mph given eye contact, slowed and passed on the other side of the path.

If you drive, do you hold up the outside lane by driving at 70mph then when flashed at by a following motorist let them past only to follow them closely at 85mph? It is in my opinion the same thing. You would both break the law and your driving could be classed as inconsiderate/dangerous.

That's an absolute absurd analogy. It's not a bloody motorway, it's a nice sunny towpath with people walking their dogs, fishing, walking home from school.

Don't misunderstand me, I don't agree with him riding at excessive speed or being overly forceful but you don't appear to have helped matters. Perhaps you'd be better to let him past and just enjoy your own ride.

Well I did let him past as soon as he spoke to me, which was actually only a few seconds after he rang his bell, given that he was exceptionally impatient. As for my response to him on the one hand it might be I shouldn't have let his 'are you going left or right' get to me, but on the other hand I think the greater good was to as I did and follow him, but I should have confronted him directly after the incident with the old lady and pointed out that it was not appropriate riding technique for a shared path.

[thelawnet]

<<He was on a white mountain bike and wearing fingerless gloves, looked like a regular cyclist from the size of his thighs;>>

I have seen him on the basingrad canal path... he is way slow on some sections and you can easily overtake him!

Indeed, and had we been on the road I would have done, but I wasn't about to start a race on a busy path - the point was I was cycling much slower than I was capable of not because I was tired, weak, my bike too slow, or any other reason, but because we were on a shared path that is fairly busy from Woking to at least Brookwood and it was not appropriate to go any faster.

[irc]

I believe that when they gave the path over to sustrans a 12mph limit was suggested.

So at 14mph you were exceeding the speed limit but don't seem to think anyone should exceed it by more than you.

Passing someone doing 11mph is easier than passing someone doing 14mph, if I found myself held up I'd use the (faster) road or ask (more politely than he) to excuse me.

As for dictating the speed I was simply riding along the path with right of way, he was free to pass. He having cleared the way of pedestrians, it was safe for me to follow at a higher speed, with a view to telling him that he was riding like an idiot.

He would get past more easily if having heard his bell you moved off the centre of the towpath to allow an overtake. As for following at 19mph? Either you were on his wheel risking a crash if he braked to avoid another towpath user or if you were further back then the old lady had two speeding cyclists to deal with instead of one.

[Ellieb]

If you drive, do you hold up the outside lane by driving at 70mph

judging by his post on holland, the answer is 'probably'

[thelawnet]

I believe that when they gave the path over to sustrans a 12mph limit was suggested.

So at 14mph you were exceeding the speed limit but don't seem to think anyone should exceed it by more than you.

Slight comprehension failure: there is no speed limit, however I recall that number being cited in the context of people complaining about cyclists speeding on the path, there is no blanket speed limit the canal authority simply says 'We hope you'll enjoy cycling along our canal, however, we do ask that you keep your speed down and ride sensibly, giving way to walkers. '.

Personally when passing dogs I would go much, much slower than that, and pedestrians slower too, bu t if the path is clear ahead a little variance around a gentle 10-12mph pace is not unreasonable.

I sped up slightly when I heard his bell, I did not feel it appropriate to go any faster, and until he spoke to me, somewhat abruptly, I had no reason to suppose he wanted to go any faster; certainly I have not experienced anyone doing this previously, given that I had already responded to his signal by increasing my speed, I don't think I behaved unreasonably at all, I'm not going to jump into the bushes on the off-chance some maniac wants to go faster than me.

Passing someone doing 11mph is easier than passing someone doing 14mph, if I found myself held up I'd use the (faster) road or ask (more politely than he) to excuse me.

As for dictating the speed I was simply riding along the path with right of way, he was free to pass. He having cleared the way of pedestrians, it was safe for me to follow at a higher speed, with a view to telling him that he was riding like an idiot.

He would get past more easily if having heard his bell you moved off the centre of the towpath to allow an overtake. As for following at 19mph? Either you were on his wheel risking a crash if he braked to avoid another towpath user or if you were further back then the old lady had two speeding cyclists to deal with instead of one.

Again, comprehension failure, the old lady was cowering on the side of the path and could see that I was coming, whether I went at 6mph, 26mph or any other speed in between she was clearly staying out of the way until I had passed.

To be truthful, as indicated by the other poster, the cyclist was not doing 19mph all the way, perhaps it was 16mph some of the time, the biggest problem with his behaviour was the 'get out of my way' attitude he exhibited to all other towpath users - there are spots where the path is relatively straight with good visibility where you could travel quite quickly safely, but then when you see people in your way, you need to SLOW DOWN.

BTW, it happened about here:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&sourc ... 5&t=h&z=20

[horizon]

The good thing about this thread is that it shows that canal paths, though lovely to cycle on, are no substitute for the road. The leaflet that covers the stretch of canal I used to cycle on in Staffordshire specifically asks you to use the road if in a hurry. This is how the myth of segregated facilities (from cars) starts to crumble.

[thelawnet]

The good thing about this thread is that it shows that canal paths, though lovely to cycle on, are no substitute for the road. The leaflet that covers the stretch of canal I used to cycle on in Staffordshire specifically asks you to use the road if in a hurry. This is how the myth of segregated facilities (from cars) starts to crumble.

Well this is an issue of 'shared' rather than strictly 'segregated' facilities. 'Shared' roads bring cars into conflict with bicycles, 'shared' paths bring bikes into conflict with dogs, fishermen, walkers, etc.

The segregated shared paths are great for the infirm, children, nervous cyclists, and it's also nice to be able to cycle to the shops along a canal at a leisurely pace sometimes, rather than going on the road at 20mph and arriving sweaty and out-of-breath.