obnoxious cyclist

[Edwards]

I suspect quite a few canal boat owners cycle along towpaths to get to shops and the pub. So banning cyclists isn't likely.

Yes boat owners do use bikes, however they do pay quite a lot for using the cut. It would be very easy for BW to ban other bikes and with the help of Parliament, Bylaws can be created to give them much needed revenue.
There are gates at some places that only boat users are supposed to have keys to.

I suspect if some cyclists do not change how they use the towpaths, the rest of use who do use them responsibly will have to pay a high price to do so.

[Mawsley]

I think BW have other things to occupy their ever under-resourced time with these days.

[Edwards]

I think BW have other things to occupy their ever under-resourced time with these days.

BW are short of cash. They can save money on towpath repairs by getting rid of bikes or charging for the use of them.
The only people who will suffer are the decent ones not the rogue bullies.

[thelawnet]

I was mistaken in my OP about the 'speed limit' on the canal.

In fact it appears the speed suggested is actually 9mph

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/legcom/counc ... ignage.pdf

"Cycle Woking has put forward the offer to place ‘9mph’ signs attached to the existing small wooden posts that carry the ‘cycle considerately’ signs, to remind cyclists of the maximum desired speed
and a useful assistance for other users of the towpath. These types of signs have been used with some success on National Cycle Route 4 through Laleham (Spelthorne)."

However someone else complained that such signs are 'clutter':

http://www.surreycc.gov.uk/legcom/Counc ... y2010_.pdf

"[The petitioner, complaining about cycle signage] was concerned that more signage was being suggested to publicise the 9mph cycle speed limit and noted that the CPRE were calling for the reduction of man made clutter in the countryside.

Mr Fishwick confirmed that 9mph was approximately three times the speed of someone walking. Similar signs have been put up in Spelthorne to control cyclists speeds and had been successful. These signs would be attached to the existing wooden signposts."

[meic]

Then we could have the hilarious situation of runners coming up behind cyclists and asking them if they could "move over please."
Possibly the runners could carry whistles to tell the cyclists to "Get out of my way".

[Edwards]

Then we could have the hilarious situation of runners coming up behind cyclists and asking them if they could "move over please."Possibly the runners could carry whistles to tell the cyclists to "Get out of my way".

According to the nice Policeman there are a lot of complaints about runners as well.

Basically the moral to cyclists and runners is to play nicely or we will loose access to the towpaths. BW need money and are fed up of the complaints. So when this Government sells the canals off things are likley to change and be fragmented. Then cyclists will not be welcome.

[thelawnet]

Then we could have the hilarious situation of runners coming up behind cyclists and asking them if they could "move over please."
Possibly the runners could carry whistles to tell the cyclists to "Get out of my way".

Well that's possible though I think the point is that the number of runners running above 9mph is negligible so the CPRE types would be well justified in saying that signs for them would not be justified, and whereas say a 30mph sign on a road is impotent to the fact that many drivers will speed past at 50mph, it is there to at least remind them of their social obligation; likewise a 9mph sign for cyclists can't stop people doing double that, but realistically very few people on foot will exceed 9mph by any meaningful amount.

[kwackers]

They're going to ban running alongside canals now?

I run alongside canals all the time, imo the real problem is ducks. They just sit there unflustered as you run past - but if they're on the wrong side of the footpath then they suddenly run across your path, I've lost count of the number of beaks I've had to scrape off the bottom of my running shoes.

Guess I'm going to have to learn to run without both feet leaving the ground so I can claim to be technically walking...

On a more serious note, I'm beginning to think the real problem is just people who moan.
IME doesn't matter how slowly you come up behind someone and how politely you ask to get past there's a minority out there that glare and mutter because they feel their peace has been rudely interrupted.
I guess they're the same people who when in their cars write to the newspapers complaining about cyclists holding them up despite paying no road tax blah blah blah...

[meic]

To make it more like the roads we need a variety of speed limits suitable for different canal banks.

Three mph when going under bridges, crossing locks or pinch points.
Nine mph when passing residential (ie lines of fishermen or moored boats)

etc etc up to

Unlimited on empty rural stretches.

[kwackers]

To make it more like the roads we need a variety of speed limits suitable for different canal banks.

Three mph when going under bridges, crossing locks or pinch points.
Nine mph when passing residential (ie lines of fishermen or moored boats)

etc etc up to

Unlimited on empty rural stretches.

Fishermen all have odd long sticks these days (not the rods) that turn running along the banks into hurdles. Not sure what you'd do when cycling, they don't seem particularly quick at moving them out of the way.

Bigger tyres is the obvious solution then you can cycle on the water.

[thelawnet]

To make it more like the roads we need a variety of speed limits suitable for different canal banks.

Three mph when going under bridges, crossing locks or pinch points.

I think 3mph is technically 'cyclists must dismount'. At least that's what they have on the Thames path at a lock somewhere out in Surrey (forget the name of the lock).