# The Canal. The cycle rage.



## Snoopeh (11 May 2015)

I don't know if any of you have this problem but I have it everyday I commute. I commute straight down the canal and everyday I am greeted with the usual array of people who refuse to move even though I ring my bell giving them plenty of time and space to take one step to the side. But will they. No they won't I get forced onto the small grass verge. Or the dog walkers who will make no effort and let the dog stroll out in front of you off its lead, then mutter you shouldn't be cycling here and such. I know I have every right to cycle there it just really annoys me. Grrrr. I think I have a dose of cycle rage. :,( 

Anyone got any tips to stop getting so frustrated. ?


----------



## midlife (11 May 2015)

Snow plough attachment on the front?

Shaun


----------



## Drago (11 May 2015)

Balaclava and paintball gun.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (11 May 2015)

Pedestrians have priority, so don't expect people to move to the side for you just because you're moving faster


----------



## derrick (11 May 2015)

Air horn, from about a foot away,


----------



## Dan B (11 May 2015)

Sorry, not clear why it's OK to make them use the grass verge but not OK for you to use it. Is it because you're more important than they are?


----------



## snorri (11 May 2015)

Emigrate.
Anarchy rules when people set foot on a joint user path in the UK.


----------



## Cush (11 May 2015)

Gentle persuasion, no bell, just "just good afternoon" (or whatever) and as they move "thank you" That throws them most do not know what to say. Of course if persistent offenders refuse to move you carry a length of oily chain and welt them with it


----------



## lee1980sim (11 May 2015)

Pedalo, make use of the canal


----------



## Fab Foodie (11 May 2015)

Ffoeg said:


> Pedestrians have priority, so don't expect people to move to the side for you just because you're moving faster


Correct in my book.


----------



## ianrauk (11 May 2015)

Sloooooooow down... you're cycling along a canal... enjoy the scenery rather then just trying to blast along.
Share the space. If you're in that much of a hurry.. use the road.


----------



## Snoopeh (11 May 2015)

If i slow down i need to wake up earlier  And its not that i am an absolute renegade its just manners ain't it i know they don't have to step aside and if they do i always thank them. its the ones that just deny your existence. I guess ill slow down. Seems to be the best advice.


----------



## PaulSecteur (11 May 2015)

Peds have right of way.

However, carbon fishing rods purposely left across the path get crunched!


----------



## Cush (11 May 2015)

Mind not all cyclists are innocent, I have seen several cases lately of cyclists going far too fast on shared paths and not all of them were young nerds, a few of them were old nerds. I reckon a shared path slows you down by several MPH.


----------



## ufkacbln (11 May 2015)

The art of standing still

When you get the group coming towards you, simply stop in the middle on the rack and politely wait

Drives them mad as they have to break formation


----------



## Snoopeh (11 May 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> The art of standing still
> 
> When you get the group coming towards you, simply stop in the middle on the rack and politely wait
> 
> Drives them mad as they have to break formation


 will defo try this


----------



## fossyant (11 May 2015)

Slow down. I use a shared path and it's the M1 for cyclists but it's shared use so you need to slow right down when there are others about.

A simple excuse me should be enough. Remember to print out the British Waterways pass from their web site if someone says you shouldn't be there. You are supposed to have one the last time I bothered to check. It's free and you just print it off.

The other tactic is to pull a huge rear wheel skidz. Init.


----------



## Snoopeh (11 May 2015)

fossyant said:


> The other tactic is to pull a huge rear wheel skidz. Init.



Lmao you have no idea how many times i have done this


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (11 May 2015)

fossyant said:


> Remember to print out the British Waterways pass from their web site if someone says you shouldn't be there. You are supposed to have one the last time I bothered to check. It's free and you just print it off.


British Waterways ceased to exist a good few years ago - it's the Canal and Rivers Trust now, and there's no longer a requirement to have a pass.

All their cycling gen - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/see-and-do/cycling


----------



## Drago (11 May 2015)

Yeah, the pass was abolished a while back. I was having trouble arranging passes for coppers to patrol on bicycles, so in the end they just didn't patrol. Everyone else ignored the requirement when it was abolished as being utterly unenforceable.

I had a meeting with British Waterways about it. The bloke turned up in his uniform with all the gold braid and shizzle, he looked like captain bloody bird's eye, completely OTT. They obviously thought they were rivals to the Royal Navy. I couldn't take them seriously after that.


----------



## fossyant (11 May 2015)

Ffoeg said:


> British Waterways ceased to exist a good few years ago - it's the Canal and Rivers Trust now, and there's no longer a requirement to have a pass.
> 
> All their cycling gen - https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/see-and-do/cycling



Yay.... You can tell I ride on the canal....


----------



## Drago (11 May 2015)

I would rather hope you ride on the towpath.


----------



## ScotiaLass (11 May 2015)

I use the canals all the time, but for leisure cycling...I presume if you're commuting you will be going a bit faster than a leisure pace?
I'm polite too...I ring my bell in plenty of time, I don't go too fast, I watch out for dogs/kids...but some people will always think you have no right to be there and there's no way you'll change their mind on that!
I just carry on past them, slowly and politely, with a smile and a 'good morning/evening'.
I find it's not worth letting the few rude people spoil my ride


----------



## suzeworld (11 May 2015)

Cush said:


> Mind not all cyclists are innocent, I have seen several cases lately of cyclists going far too fast on shared paths and not all of them were young nerds, a few of them were old nerds. I reckon a shared path slows you down by several MPH.


Me too - very annoying levels of speediness - esp approaching blind bends with low-bridges ... had a couple of scares this weekend .. the nice weather brings them out! LOL

btw - what do you think about bells in this context? I read somewhere someone saying they thought a bell was more polite than a spoken word .. but I dont actually think that, when I am walking I think the bell sounds rude .. but when i am cycling and hear a bell it seems OK and I move over to let the other rider pass ... crazy mixed up kid that I am!


----------



## suzeworld (11 May 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> The art of standing still
> 
> When you get the group coming towards you, simply stop in the middle on the rack and politely wait
> 
> Drives them mad as they have to break formation



I do this as a pedestrian too - if ppl approaching show no sign of shimmying over slightly I just stop.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (11 May 2015)

Ffoeg said:


> Pedestrians have priority, so don't expect people to move to the side for you just because you're moving faster


It's not that one-sided: it's supposed to be a "shared" path, so pedestrians, while they have right-of-way, are still obliged to "share".
Shared paths generally have enough room for a pedestrian and cyclist side-by-side, but some pedestrians will deliberately walk in the centre of the path. My typical response to such rudeness is to just ride behind them at walking pace, incessantly ringing my bell.


----------



## suzeworld (11 May 2015)

Shut Up Legs said:


> some pedestrians will deliberately walk in the centre of the path. My typical response to such rudeness is to just ride behind them at walking pace, incessantly ringing my bell.


Really? 
What outcomes does this lead to ?


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (11 May 2015)

Shut Up Legs said:


> It's not that one-sided: it's supposed to be a "shared" path, so pedestrians, while they have right-of-way, are still obliged to "share".
> Shared paths generally have enough room for a pedestrian and cyclist side-by-side, but some pedestrians will deliberately walk in the centre of the path. My typical response to such rudeness is to just ride behind them at walking pace, incessantly ringing my bell.


From the Canal and rivers trust pages....

*1. Share the space* consider other people and the local environment whenever you’re on a Greenway. Remember some people may move less predictably, for example young children or those with visual or mobility impairments.

*2. Drop your pace *considerate sharing of the limited towpath space is the key. Jogging and cycling are welcome, but drop your pace in good time and let people know you are approaching by ringing a bell or politely calling out before waiting to pass slowly.

*3. Pedestrians have priority* towpaths are ‘Greenways’ or shared use routes where pedestrians have priority and vehicles, except bicycles and mobility aids, are generally excluded. 

*4. Be courteous to others – *A smile can go a long way. Abusive or threatening behaviour is not acceptable and should be reported to the Police_.

https://canalrivertrust.org.uk/walk...-greatest-park/share-the-space-drop-your-pace
_


----------



## Drago (11 May 2015)

Have what sort of priority? Little bit ambiguous.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (11 May 2015)

I guess I misunderstood, then. Your paths seem to have different laws to shared paths in Australia. My apologies if I offended anyone: it was unintentional.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (11 May 2015)

Drago said:


> Have what sort of priority? Little bit ambiguous.


 The whole towpath and access question is ambiguous. Very few are public footpaths and (i think i'm right in saying) there are no bridleway towpaths - as a horse was part an parcel of the boat it was pulling and not as transport in its own right there is no historical claim for BW status. So most foot traffic is permissive by virtue of a 'kindly landowner' (obviously not where definitive footpath rights exist) and all cycle usage is permissive too. - so in that respect the IWA can make their own rules.

Their towpath policy is here, make of it what you will - https://www.waterways.org.uk/information/policy_documents/towing_paths



Shut Up Legs said:


> I guess I misunderstood, then. Your paths seem to have different laws to shared paths in Australia. My apologies if I offended anyone: it was unintentional.


 no offence taken. - shared paths in these parts usually just mean 'multi-user' and very rarely mean 'equal rights'.. especially where bikes are concerned


----------



## Tim Hall (11 May 2015)

suzeworld said:


> Me too - very annoying levels of speediness - esp approaching blind bends with low-bridges ... had a couple of scares this weekend .. the nice weather brings them out! LOL
> 
> btw - what do you think about bells in this context? I read somewhere someone saying they thought a bell was more polite than a spoken word .. but I dont actually think that, when I am walking I think the bell sounds rude .. but when i am cycling and hear a bell it seems OK and I move over to let the other rider pass ... crazy mixed up kid that I am!


The Leslie Phillips bell works best in such encounters:


----------



## vickster (11 May 2015)

If you want to ride fast, go on the road. Aww diddums if you have to get up earlier


----------



## mjr (11 May 2015)

Yeah here we go again. You get told again and again if you want to ride at more than walking pace, you must go mix it with motorists even when that is a longer route. No cycleway is allowed to be quicker than roads becuase it breaks their worldview. Far too many people here seem to have inhaled far too many exhaust fumes far too deeply.


----------



## raleighnut (12 May 2015)

A bit 'off topic' but there is a bit of cyclepath I use, it runs along the ring road across the top of Western Park in Leicester. There are 2 paths 6 foot apart, one for cycles nearest the road and the other (separated by around 6 foot of grass and the odd tree) for pedestrians. Do the pedestrians use their path, do they B.......y despite it being clearly marked as a cyclepath.


----------



## Arrowfoot (12 May 2015)

It does show that we are not familiar with the right practices or even aware of signboards. Though a shared path, there are signboards along the canals that state that pedestrians have priority. Even if is not stated I wonder why the assumption that cyclist should have right of way on a shared path. 

Inconsiderate pedestrians that take centre but unable to move at a reasonable pace or those walking in formation that blocks others are nuisance to all and not just cyclists.


----------



## Arrowfoot (12 May 2015)

Shut Up Legs said:


> I guess I misunderstood, then. Your paths seem to have different laws to shared paths in Australia. My apologies if I offended anyone: it was unintentional.



The same rules including the state of Victoria. Cyclists must give way to pedestrians on shared pathways. 

https://www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/safety-and-road-rules/pedestrian-safety/using-shared-paths


----------



## shouldbeinbed (12 May 2015)

Shut Up Legs said:


> My typical response to such rudeness is to just ride behind them at walking pace, incessantly ringing my bell.



Oh I always do the same.when I'm driving and I come up behind a cyclist not riding where I think they belong. I sit 2 inches from their back wheel blasting my horn at them.

*not really*


----------



## NormanD (12 May 2015)

I always find, cycling up to them in ZED mode works for me. 


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGPde9vFoqc


----------



## MarkF (12 May 2015)

I use the towpath every day and when I am cycling the walkers get on my tits and when walking, the cyclists do. I see bad/rude behaviour every day from walkers and cyclists but IMO the guys on MTB's and full kit are the main cause of the angst on these popular paths, they go too fast, they behave like school run 4x4 drivers, me, me, me.


----------



## Drago (12 May 2015)

Tow path etiquette video...


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ-EOg38t1o


----------



## MisterStan (12 May 2015)

PaulSecteur said:


> However, carbon fishing rods purposely left across the path get crunched!


I've always wondered why fishermen don't worry about their rods melting....


----------



## nickyboy (12 May 2015)

I don't ride towpaths but do occasionally ride shared use paths. Pedestrians coming towards me, make eye contact, slow down, say "thanks" when they move to the side. Pedestrians going the same way as me, ring the bell about 10m behind, if they don't move, slow down, wait until about 2m behind then say "excuse me please". When they move say "thanks"

Never had an issue


----------



## fossyant (12 May 2015)

You could always use an airzound. They seem perfectly suitable for commuting as some folk say.


----------



## byegad (12 May 2015)

snorri said:


> Emigrate.
> Anarchy rules when people set foot on a joint user path in the UK.



Which is why I use the road!


----------



## I like Skol (12 May 2015)

I don't get this thread at all!

I am what could easily be labelled an 'enthusiastic' cyclist and I certainly like to 'push on' when riding, even on shared use paths/canal towpaths. However, I have never got riled, or into a confrontation, when riding on such a path as I have a system.
The system goes like this:

Remove bells from all bikes upon purchase.
Engage brain before riding bike in a public place (I do actually do this before anyone makes a smartarse comment ).
Upon approaching any situation where there is a possible danger or conflict, reduce speed to an appropriate level before arrival.
If meeting someone head on, assess the likelihood of them moving to one side and if this is unlikely then do not hesitate to stop or move over yourself.
If coming up behind someone that is unaware of your approach then slow and get within earshot before verbally making your presence known. I find a simple 'morning', or 'excuse me' is sufficient but by far the best is 'can I pass please?' as this only really gives them one option. The answer is never no!
ALWAYS say thank you when someone has moved to let you pass, smile and mean it!
Use your awesome power to regain any lost speed.
I find this system works perfectly and allows all involved to continue about their business and have a pleasant day. Any loss in speed/extra time taken is more than compensated for by not wasting time arguing with twots, climbing out of the canal or doing the Tango with indecisive peds. You also arrive at your destination feeling relaxed and that all is good in the world.


----------



## snorri (12 May 2015)

byegad said:


> Which is why I use the road!


It's why I cycle abroad as much as possible
There do seem to be behavioural differences among path users in the UK and on mainland Europe(IME!), I don't know if this is due to differences in law or differences in attitude to our fellow human beings.
Over the channel lone pedestrians tend to walk on the left and cyclists cycle on the right and can meet or overtake each other without any need for alteration of speed or direction. In the UK lone pedestrians. tend to walk in the middle of the path requiring them to move left or right when another path user on foot or wheels approaches. A couple of pedestrians in the UK invariably walk an equal distance from the path centre which requires them to make a decision to move to the right or left, a decision they frequently change as the approaching walker or cyclists gets closer.
It seems to me more sensible to adopt the same convention when using paths as one would do on the roads , ie walk on the right, cycle on the left( in the UK),it allows most of us to interact with other path users in a manner which causes least inconvenience to each other, but in the UK we do seem to prefer the anarchic approach which can give rise to irritation from time to time.

Edit to correct spelling loan/lone


----------



## Dave7 (12 May 2015)

Snoopeh said:


> I don't know if any of you have this problem but I have it everyday I commute. I commute straight down the canal and everyday I am greeted with the usual array of people who refuse to move even though I ring my bell giving them plenty of time and space to take one step to the side. But will they. No they won't I get forced onto the small grass verge. Or the dog walkers who will make no effort and let the dog stroll out in front of you off its lead, then mutter you shouldn't be cycling here and such. I know I have every right to cycle there it just really annoys me. Grrrr. I think I have a dose of cycle rage. :,(
> 
> Anyone got any tips to stop getting so frustrated. ?


Well...........depending on which canal it is you may not actually have permission e.g. according to what the TransPenine way 'ranger' told me just last week........Peel Holdings (who own/manage sections of the Bridgewater Canal did not allow cyclists. As he understands it they now do not enforce this restriction.
If you google it you can download a free permit which allows you to ride along canal paths..........it won't make people move for you but it does give you some peace-of-mind . I used to carry one but when my bike got nicked that went with it


----------



## Dan B (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Yeah here we go again. You get told again and again if you want to ride at more than walking pace, you must go mix it with motorists even when that is a longer route.


Can't help feeling you're setting up for a false dichotomy there, but _if_ the only alternative to making pedestrians jump out of your way into the verge is to ride on the road, then yes you must ride on the road. The towpath is not a "cycleway", it is a path on which pedestrians have priority. And rightly so: as the person in charge of the greater kinetic energy, you also have the greater responsibilty to use it carefully.


----------



## Drago (12 May 2015)

The greater responsibility, but also the greater ability to force the issue. A sensible approach from all users is required, not just cyclists.


----------



## Hyslop (12 May 2015)

Cush said:


> Gentle persuasion, no bell, just "just good afternoon" (or whatever) and as they move "thank you" That throws them most do not know what to say. Of course if persistent offenders refuse to move you carry a length of oily chain and welt them with it


Oh dear,Oh dear!!


----------



## fossyant (12 May 2015)

I like Skol said:


> I don't get this thread at all!
> 
> I am what could easily be labelled an 'enthusiastic' cyclist and I certainly like to 'push on' when riding, even on shared use paths/canal towpaths. However, I have never got riled, or into a confrontation, when riding on such a path as I have a system.
> The system goes like this:
> ...



You missed one.

8. Ride down flights of steps at every opportunity.


----------



## mjr (12 May 2015)

Dan B said:


> Can't help feeling you're setting up for a false dichotomy there, but _if_ the only alternative to making pedestrians jump out of your way into the verge is to ride on the road, then yes you must ride on the road. The towpath is not a "cycleway", it is a path on which pedestrians have priority. And rightly so: as the person in charge of the greater kinetic energy, you also have the greater responsibilty to use it carefully.


I felt that @Ffoeg @User259 @ianrauk @Shut Up Legs @vickster were setting up the false dichotomy there - and there's plenty of other threads with similar setups.

Some towpaths are one type of cycleway - not a great one, but cycling is permitted on it - and while I'd agree both that riders have greater responsibility and walkers have priority, this doesn't mean that walkers should be unnecessarily-obstructive dicks about it!

Why do so many people think the answer is to abandon the towpath to nobbers and go ride on the less nice roads? After all, in theory, a pedestrian has priority on many roads too, although the current trend of might-is-right from some motorists means that walkers rarely assert priority, unless it's against a someone on a bike!


----------



## I like Skol (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> this doesn't mean that walkers should be unnecessarily-obstructive dicks about it!


Some people (walkers and cyclists alike) go out there just looking for a dispute to help justify their day. The rest of us simply get on with our lives


----------



## ianrauk (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> I felt that @Ffoeg @User259 @ianrauk @Shut Up Legs @vickster were setting up the false dichotomy there - and there's plenty of other threads with similar setups.
> 
> Some towpaths are one type of cycleway - not a great one, but cycling is permitted on it - and while I'd agree both that riders have greater responsibility and walkers have priority, this doesn't mean that walkers should be unnecessarily-obstructive dicks about it!
> 
> Why do so many people think the answer is to abandon the towpath to nobbers and go ride on the less nice roads? After all, in theory, a pedestrian has priority on many roads too, although the current trend of might-is-right from some motorists means that walkers rarely assert priority, unless it's against a someone on a bike!




Don't call out my name and try to change or spin what I said for your own agenda. I did not say abandon the path for the roads. For your benefit as you obviously did not understand it the first time around. Here is what I said again. Read it and understand what I am saying.

_Sloooooooow down... you're cycling along a canal... enjoy the scenery rather then just trying to blast along.
Share the space. If you're in that much of a hurry.. use the road._


----------



## mjr (12 May 2015)

I like Skol said:


> Some people (walkers and cyclists alike) go out there just looking for a dispute to help justify their day. The rest of us simply get on with our lives


Gosh. I can't understand why anyone would want to spend their time arguing, can you?


----------



## Jayaly (12 May 2015)

I do most of my cycling on shared paths, including towpaths on occasion. I generally slow right down and ask if I can come through please, followed by a thank you. I've never had a problem, although the occasions where people have moved grudgingly have all been on tow paths. The bell does seem to be perceived as a bit rude. I tried it a few times and found that people jumped out of the way with alacrity but certainly weren't returning my smile as I came through the way people usually do. I'll move to the side happily provided it's not the water side (worried I might wobble myself right over into the water). After an encounter with a small dog determined to go under the wheels, I now stop and wait if a dog is coming the other way. Even then I met a labrador who managed to walk straight into my stationary front wheel. I think the proximity to the water combined with often narrow, variable quality paths and the presence of loose dogs makes a slower speed appropriate. I imagine that would be quite frustrating in a commuting situation, but can't see a way round it other than to try to relax and think peaceful thoughts. After all, the waterside is still a pleasant place to be, as long as you aren't up to your knees in mud or landing face first in a fisherman's bait box.


----------



## Markymark (12 May 2015)

Yes, the current situation is ludicrous. We have tow paths for people at pedestrian's pace and roads for cars. We really need equal cycle routes. No, obviously I don;t want to get stuck behind some wobbly lady-cyclist on her sit-up-n-beg, nor do I want to have some all-the-gear-and-no-idea lunatic tearing past me. We should create 3 lane cycle paths along side every road and canal. This may prove tricky with some narrow waterways but then the only sensible Amsterdam-style solution would be to pave over the canal to create this cycling haven.

Either that or grow-up, not sure which really.


----------



## mjr (12 May 2015)

Jayaly said:


> I do most of my cycling on shared paths, including towpaths on occasion. I generally slow right down and ask if I can come through please, followed by a thank you. I've never had a problem, although the occasions where people have moved grudgingly have all been on tow paths.


You're very lucky, then. There aren't many of them, but there are nobbers on foot just like there are nobbers driving cars and riding cycles.



> The bell does seem to be perceived as a bit rude. I tried it a few times and found that people jumped out of the way with alacrity but certainly weren't returning my smile as I came through the way people usually do.


How close were you and what sort of bell was it? I found people don't jump so much at ringers or ding-dongs as they do at pingers, plus I wasn't ringing from far enough away. If I get too close then, yes, asking works better.



> I think the proximity to the water combined with often narrow, variable quality paths and the presence of loose dogs makes a slower speed appropriate. I imagine that would be quite frustrating in a commuting situation, but can't see a way round it other than to try to relax and think peaceful thoughts. After all, the waterside is still a pleasant place to be, as long as you aren't up to your knees in mud or landing face first in a fisherman's bait box.


Heaven forbid that people should control their dogs!  Slower speed than what, anyway? I don't mind not racing, but each stop is like riding 100m further.


----------



## andyfraser (12 May 2015)

Personally, I just wish people were more pleasant. I've encountered some very obnoxious pedestrians when I've been cycling and some very obnoxious cyclists when I've been walking. All I ask is for a little common sense and a pleasant demeanour from everybody on shared paths.


----------



## Jayaly (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Heaven forbid that people should control their dogs!



I can throw no stones on that one. I have a dog who is a fool of the first order.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> I felt that @Ffoeg @User259 @ianrauk @Shut Up Legs @vickster were setting up the false dichotomy there - and there's plenty of other threads with similar setups.
> 
> Some towpaths are one type of cycleway - not a great one, but cycling is permitted on it - and while I'd agree both that riders have greater responsibility and walkers have priority, this doesn't mean that walkers should be unnecessarily-obstructive dicks about it!
> 
> Why do so many people think the answer is to abandon the towpath to nobbers and go ride on the less nice roads? After all, in theory, a pedestrian has priority on many roads too, although the current trend of might-is-right from some motorists means that walkers rarely assert priority, unless it's against a someone on a bike!


Only replying because you tagged me. False dichotomy? As someone who has worked in public access for the best part of 20 years I was simply stating fact. Point me towards any of my posts in this thread that have implied anything close to what you seem to think I've implied please. Then again, don't bother.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (12 May 2015)

fossyant said:


> You could always use an airzound. They seem perfectly suitable for commuting as some folk say.


Oooh and you being one of management too


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Gosh. I can't understand why anyone would want to spend their time arguing, can you?




funily enough i spend most of the time on the cycle path arguing with nobbers who cant read. the big painted words on the paving saying DROP YOUR PACE. 

generally all the gear no idea riders, but that might be anecdotal so inadmissible. the ones who must have some sort of means of seeing through brick bridges so don't need to slow down to avoid the woman with the pram and the toddler on the reins. 

as it stands at the moment , we are tolerated by permission on the paths. the canal and river trust could quite easily blanket ban cycling along them and that would be a shame if that happened due to a load of cycling nobbers


----------



## glenn forger (12 May 2015)

I gave up on the canals, I'd pick up the Regents near Pitfield St and ride east but there was too much grief even at half four when I was on the way home. Joggers, dogs, kids learning to ride, anglers who a couple of times shouted "Where's your pass", beer users, dawdlers, and idiots on bikes going too fast. I did actually collide with a jogger but in my defence I rang the bell and went right to overtake and she swung right at the same time. She had earphones in that I hadn't noticed. 

I gave it up and used the roads, it was faster with less grief.


----------



## mjr (12 May 2015)

subaqua said:


> generally all the gear no idea riders, but that might be anecdotal so inadmissible. the ones who must have some sort of means of seeing through brick bridges so don't need to slow down to avoid the woman with the pram and the toddler on the reins.


Bit of a difference between them and the "you shouldn't be cycling here" deliberately-obstructive walkers described in the opening post, though?


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Bit of a difference between them and the "you shouldn't be cycling here" deliberately-obstructive walkers described in the opening post, though?



maybe if they were riding like a nobber ringing a bell to say out of my way , a bit like toad of toad hall . then they have the reason to be saying that. or is that too difficult a concept to understand. the same concept where the canal and river trust have specifically stated peds have priority. if i want to ride fast i will go on a road. i wont try a segregated lane as they are full of pootlers ( which is fine) i will go on road. i want a slow relaxed ride I use the canal towpath, and give way to peds and , MORE VULNERABLE users. now where do we hear that bleated about - they should give way to us more vulnerable users. 

you are a spinnners sockpuppet and ICMFP


----------



## mjr (12 May 2015)

Ffoeg said:


> Only replying because you tagged me. False dichotomy? As someone who has worked in public access for the best part of 20 years I was simply stating fact. Point me towards any of my posts in this thread that have implied anything close to what you seem to think I've implied please.


#4 and #29. I'll grant you that those and the other post are factually correct, but the implied dislike of cyclists wanting to use towpaths as reasonable transport routes seemed pretty clear to me.


> Then again, don't bother.


Don't like being called on it, eh?


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> #4 and #29. I'll grant you that those and the other post are factually correct, but the implied dislike of cyclists wanting to use towpaths as reasonable transport routes seemed pretty clear to me.
> 
> Don't like being called on it, eh?




NFN is being demonstrated to such good effect by you today


----------



## mjr (12 May 2015)

subaqua said:


> maybe if they were riding like a nobber ringing a bell to say out of my way , a bit like toad of toad hall . then they have the reason to be saying that. or is that too difficult a concept to understand.


That's fine, but on what do you base calling @Snoopeh a nobber?


> the same concept where the canal and river trust have specifically stated peds have priority.


Priority, but not carte blanche to obstruct. Or is sharing nicely too difficult a concept for you?


> if i want to ride fast i will go on a road. i wont try a segregated lane as they are full of pootlers ( which is fine) i will go on road.


Ah, there we go. We shouldn't ever have mass cycling because the pootlers might flood the streets and get in the way of the fast riders, right? 


> i want a slow relaxed ride I use the canal towpath, and give way to peds and , MORE VULNERABLE users. now where do we hear that bleated about - they should give way to us more vulnerable users.


Give way, not BOGU.



> you are a spinnners sockpuppet and ICMFP


Huh? I'm no-one's sockpuppet but you're a Vehicular Cycling zealot and ICM£10.


----------



## Deleted member 23692 (12 May 2015)

Me, dislike cyclists? Only the self-righteous, self-victimising, arrogant, argumentative ones who only serve to get everyone's backs up be they motorists, horse riders, walkers and, most of all, other cyclists. 

Ring any bells?


----------



## andyfraser (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Priority, but not carte blanche to obstruct.


That's one of two bugbears I have about shared paths. I slow down and take care. I stop if I have to. So why do some pedestrians have to be obstructive? Maybe they've encountered idiots on bikes but why take it out on me? I'm showing that I'm being considerate by staying over on the side of the path, slowing right down and letting you know I'm here.

I find older people to be the worst. Kids, teens and young adults seem more than happy to share the path. Twice recently I've encountered groups of older people walking together, taking up the entire width of the path and not moving over until the last minute when I'm practically stationary. On one of those occasions I had nowhere to go except through a fence on one side and some trees on the other. They may have priority but that's just being obstructive. It costs nothing to play nice.

One guy just wanted to argue that I shouldn't be on the path despite me pointing out the large blue sign indicating that I was indeed allowed to cycle there.


----------



## mjr (12 May 2015)

subaqua said:


> NFN is being demonstrated to such good effect by you today


I live here (just, like 9 miles from the border). I'm not from here, you racist


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> That's fine, but on what do you base calling @Snoopeh a nobber?
> 
> Priority, but not carte blanche to obstruct. Or is sharing nicely too difficult a concept for you?
> 
> ...



Yes I understand share. Now put all your comments as coming from a car driver. How much of a selfish nob do you look now . But you crack on with wanting all the " rights" and wanting none of the responsibilities . 

So peds block the path and I have to stop . Big hardship innit. Ooh delayed me by all of 10 seconds. Even if it delays me more than 5 mins it really isn't a problem. I leave a little earlier. Like I would in a car. 

As for segregated . Well look at CS2 . I ride in the road as it's safer as it isn't flooded or full of shite. But it's the way forward apparently


----------



## subaqua (12 May 2015)

mjray said:


> I live here (just, like 9 miles from the border). I'm not from here, you racist


You have integrated very well then .


----------



## DaveReading (13 May 2015)

mjray said:


> I found people don't jump so much at ringers or ding-dongs as they do at pingers



I'm surrounded by shared-use paths, so I wouldn't be without a bell. I've been pleasantly surprised since fitting one of these






(necessitated by having 31.8mm bars that most bells won't fit). It has a sound that can only be described as mellifluous and the reaction from pretty well all the pedestrians I've encountered has been friendly and cooperative.


----------



## Arrowfoot (13 May 2015)

glenn forger said:


> I gave up on the canals, I'd pick up the Regents near Pitfield St and ride east but there was too much grief even at half four when I was on the way home. Joggers, dogs, kids learning to ride, anglers who a couple of times shouted "Where's your pass", beer users, dawdlers, and idiots on bikes going too fast. I did actually collide with a jogger but in my defence I rang the bell and went right to overtake and she swung right at the same time. She had earphones in that I hadn't noticed.
> 
> I gave it up and used the roads, it was faster with less grief.



Glenn, sensible post. I had to check twice that it was indeed you.


----------



## Cush (13 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Gosh. I can't understand why anyone would want to spend their time arguing, can you?


MP's, Solicitors, Police, Union reps, Managers and so on.


----------



## MarkF (13 May 2015)

I like Skol said:


> If coming up behind someone that is unaware of your approach then slow and get within earshot before verbally making your presence known. I find a simple 'morning', or 'excuse me' is sufficient but by far the best is 'can I pass please?' as this only really gives them one option. The answer is never no!



That made me chuckle, I am going out on the towpath shortly, like I do nearly every day. It's always well used. If I ring my bell, I'll often get tuts, raised eyebrows and maybe a shake of the head, any of these may be accompanied by a reluctance to move at all. If I decide to not use my bell and say _"Excuse me please",_ a common reply is _"Where's your fookin bell"?_


----------



## andyfraser (13 May 2015)

I use a bell from a distance to save shouting and call out when I'm closer. I find that that works quite well, unless someone is wired for sound.


----------



## glenn forger (13 May 2015)

You shouldn't use your bell on the towpath, it comes under British Waterways so you should use a distress flare.


----------



## PaulSecteur (13 May 2015)

I tried riding in distressed flares... no aero at all and keep getting caught in the chain.


----------



## MisterStan (13 May 2015)

You could stick with the nautical theme and try semaphore....


----------



## Markymark (13 May 2015)

PaulSecteur said:


> I tried riding in distressed flares... no aero at all and keep getting caught in the chain.


Did they only become 'distressed' when you tried to squeeze into them?


----------



## jonny jeez (13 May 2015)

I like Skol said:


> I don't get this thread at all!
> 
> I am what could easily be labelled an 'enthusiastic' cyclist and I certainly like to 'push on' when riding, even on shared use paths/canal towpaths. However, I have never got riled, or into a confrontation, when riding on such a path as I have a system.
> The system goes like this:
> ...


Or...to summarise.

Act like a human and practice common sense


----------



## glenn forger (13 May 2015)

Needs more distress flares.


----------



## jonny jeez (13 May 2015)

0-markymark-0 said:


> the only sensible Amsterdam-style solution would be to pave over the canal to create this cycling haven.
> 
> Either that or grow-up, not sure which really.



Its a tough call, they do a nice range in decorative concrete these days, the block pavia look is proving very popular


----------



## Mark1978 (13 May 2015)

MarkF said:


> That made me chuckle, I am going out on the towpath shortly, like I do nearly every day. It's always well used. If I ring my bell, I'll often get tuts, raised eyebrows and maybe a shake of the head, any of these may be accompanied by a reluctance to move at all. If I decide to not use my bell and say _"Excuse me please",_ a common reply is _"Where's your fookin bell"?_



I shout "ding ding"


----------



## MarkF (13 May 2015)

Mark1978 said:


> I shout "ding ding"



I'll try that and report back.


----------



## mjr (13 May 2015)

subaqua said:


> Yes I understand share. Now put all your comments as coming from a car driver. How much of a selfish nob do you look now . But you crack on with wanting all the " rights" and wanting none of the responsibilities .


There are places where motorists have priority. Where is there that people on bikes have priority, in your opinion? (Or the opinion of any other people who think cyclists should use the roads almost always.)



> As for segregated . Well look at CS2 . I ride in the road as it's safer as it isn't flooded or full of shite. But it's the way forward apparently


Well, it would be, if they'd designed and built it properly. Or even the not-quite-right design could work if they built it better so it didn't flood so much and swept it a bit more often. I share the exasperation at how this country seems unwilling or incompetent at building cycleways like those enjoyed elsewhere in Europe. I view segregation with suspicion - if a protected cycleway was good enough, then they wouldn't need to make it difficult for people to ride out of, to avoid a problem - but we should flame the highway authorities to hell for micturating our money up the wall yet again, not tell everyone we should meekly accept no space for cycling.


----------



## subaqua (13 May 2015)

mjray said:


> There are places where motorists have priority. Where is there that people on bikes have priority, in your opinion? (Or the opinion of any other people who think cyclists should use the roads almost always.)




and where are the places motorists have priority . OH yes roads that by LAW do not allow cycling , or pedestrians, or motorbikes less than 50cc . yes special roads or Motorways ( you must know what a motorway is they have the M5 in somerset ) 

The fact that a LOT but NOT ALL road users follow the simple hierarchy does not mean we as Cyclist should have our own special priority. and even if we did there is a great wording in Highway code about yielding that priority if it is going to prevent a collision. 

its a simple Hierarchy - MOST VULNERABLE USER has priority. That is ALWAYS going to be pedestrian.


----------



## mjr (13 May 2015)

So, cycling has and should have priority nowhere ever, no matter how much of an unnecessarily-obstructive nobber the other party is? 

I sometimes suspect if someone gets knocked down riding on the carriageway through a green light across a junction that was perfectly clear as far as you could see, I'm sure someone on CC will be along to point out how it was in fact all the rider's fault and the motorist/pedestrian was blameless.


----------



## Dan B (13 May 2015)

All else being equal, cycling should have priority over motor vehicles; walking over cycling.


----------



## MisterStan (13 May 2015)

mjray said:


> So, cycling has and should have priority nowhere ever, no matter how much of an unnecessarily-obstructive nobber the other party is


That's not what @subaqua said though, is it?


----------



## subaqua (13 May 2015)

MisterStan said:


> That's not what @subaqua said though, is it?


Thanks for the support. mrjay is rapidly becoming the CC resident cockwomble. GF/ spinners is calming down and posting some sensible stuff so it's a natural progression. 

Another simple one to think about is

If the cyclists riding like bobbers didn't ride like that then there wouldn't be an issue on the towpath. Funnily enough I rode the towpath today. Only nobber cyclist was a tragic hipster. Yes it was the regents canal and it was close to broadway market. 

All the peds I went past or encountered had a nice smile as I was a considerate rider. Weird that isn't it. Ride sensible get no aggro ride like a nobber get aggro


----------



## mjr (13 May 2015)

MisterStan said:


> That's not what @subaqua said though, is it?


Naughty to delete the question mark to change the meaning. No, @subaqua completely failed to answer the question asked, so I tried asking the flipside of it. Still avoiding it, with personal abuse this time.

I've ridden the Regents Canal towpath a few times (it's not usually a direct route for my journeys in London) without problems yet, but I do occasionally have problems on other "shared" routes with nobbers who don't want to share, no matter how sensible the rider. Anyone who thinks that sensible riding means no aggro is either very lucky or not riding enough.


----------



## MisterStan (13 May 2015)

Unintentional edit on iPad, there's no hidden agenda, so calm down dear.


----------



## Venod (13 May 2015)

I like Skol said:


> I don't get this thread at all!
> 
> I am what could easily be labelled an 'enthusiastic' cyclist and I certainly like to 'push on' when riding, even on shared use paths/canal towpaths. However, I have never got riled, or into a confrontation, when riding on such a path as I have a system.
> The system goes like this:
> ...



Very much my approach but I have been defeated by No 5 on several occasions when the walker/jogger is wearing headphones, and have to wait for a suitable space to pass that usually results in the headpnone wearer jumping out of their skin


----------



## subaqua (13 May 2015)

mjray said:


> Naughty to delete the question mark to change the meaning. No, @subaqua completely failed to answer the question asked, so I tried asking the flipside of it. Still avoiding it, with personal abuse this time.
> 
> I've ridden the Regents Canal towpath a few times (it's not usually a direct route for my journeys in London) without problems yet, but I do occasionally have problems on other "shared" routes with nobbers who don't want to share, no matter how sensible the rider. Anyone who thinks that sensible riding means no aggro is either very lucky or not riding enough.


Because there is no question to answer. Look at the hierarchy of vulnerability. We sit in the middle. If you don't get that then I am not sure you should be allowed out on your own never mind on the road.


----------



## User16625 (14 May 2015)

subaqua said:


> and where are the places motorists have priority . OH yes roads that by LAW do not allow cycling , or pedestrians, or motorbikes less than 50cc . yes special roads or Motorways ( you must know what a motorway is they have the M5 in somerset )
> 
> The fact that a LOT but NOT ALL road users follow the simple hierarchy does not mean we as Cyclist should have our own special priority. and even if we did there is a great wording in Highway code about yielding that priority if it is going to prevent a collision.
> 
> its a simple Hierarchy -* MOST VULNERABLE USER has priority. That is ALWAYS going to be pedestrian.*



Upon analyzing that statement, I have found a flaw in it. As a pedestrian trying to attack someone, it is fairly easy for me to acquire a fighting stance/defensive position or just boot someone in the balls. If a cyclist past me and I was pissed off, I would push the bastard off his bike.

On the other hand if Im the bastard on a bike, it is gonna be difficult for me to acquire a position that allows me to kick or punch the crap outta someone. Trying to ride strait into a pedestrian would most likely result in me coming a cropper too. Also a healthy pedestrian can quickly sidestep in a cyclist vs pedestrian fight. For this reason I find cyclist more vulnerable.


----------



## Markymark (14 May 2015)

subaqua said:


> Thanks for the support. mrjay is rapidly becoming the CC resident cockwomble


I hear you, brother.

Motorists do not have priority over cyclists anywhere bar motorways and a handful of other roads. 

Cyclists are a middle way - slower than cars and faster than pedestrians. Unless we have 3 of everything then cyclists has a MASSIVE advantage of being able to go where some pedestrian can't and at other times places that motorists can't.

To suggest that we throw our teddies out of our pram because we don;t have are own cycle-only routes is pathetic. Given a poster or two on here, I'd hate to be in the same place with them anyway and rather be with cars or pedestrians rather than these big-girls-blouses.


----------

