Canal Cycling - a touchy subject

[major_clanger]

Interesting Guardian article (and comments) on the problem of inconsiderate cyclists on the Regent's canal towpath.

I can understand the concern; walking up the towpath the other week, I say a wheelchair user subjected to abuse from a pair of cyclists who seemed very aggrieved that he had the temerity to take up as much of the path as he did. (Sad to say, this is by no means the only example of anti-disabled prejudice I've seen from members of the outdoors-and-active fraternity.) And many parts just aren't good cycling territory, with narrow paths under bridges and little space to pass pedestrians. Born-again cycling proponent as I am, the RC towpath is one of those routes I really am not sure cyclists should be encouraged to use in its present state.

Comments

[drasecretcampus.livejournal.com]

I feel about cyclists and wheelchair users pretty much the same (especially those on the electric scooter things which seem to be larger than some cars these days) - I don't object if they give way when it would be sensible to give way and when they don't try to run you over. I'm more than willing to step out their way - but a couple of times I've had to fling myself out of their way, sometimes into the road. At the height of my limp last week, I was all but cut up by a scooter. I certainly felt it go by. I suspect I was the one who apologised. Obviously I'm sympathetic to their situation (some of my best friends etc) and they don't annoy me as much as people who text and roll cigarettes at the same time whilst driving (or indeed cyclists who cycle whilst texting), but a little more pavement etiquette from some of them would help.

[fjm.livejournal.com]

Minority my foot!

We were there ten days ago and I was carrying a cane: every single cyclist treated us as "the problem".

[legionseagle.livejournal.com]

Today I was waiting for a lift and saw a cyclist cycling the wrong way down a cycle lane, and then across an intersecting road with no attempt to pause or signal whatsoever, nearly plastering himself across a car which had right of way and making abusive gestures at the driver.

And they do that sort of thing so often. To say nothing of cycling on the pavement and not having proper lights and cycling several abreast on narrow country roads and believing red lights don't apply to them and not having indemnity insurance so any accident they cause is an accident with an uninsured driver as far as your no-claims bonus is concerned.

And then when some poor driver does get co-opted into their suicide attempts no-one ever believes the poor ickle cyclists could possibly have been at fault at all.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

Yes there are bad cyclists, but there are also bad drivers. I'll never forget the time a tourist bus was honking it's horn at me to make me go through a red light, or the many times I've been cut up by bus drivers and others. Being overtaken by a double decker which then cuts right in front for a bus stop is not an experience I want to repeat.

A lot of problems are also caused by badly designed cycle lanes and other aspects of road design that treat cyclists as an inconvenient afterthought. Are you sure that cycle lane was actually one way? But cycling is not as dangerous as it looks even with all those who push things in ways others don't like are included. If you're a regular cyclist you still live longer even when accidents in London are included. And there are a lot of other benefits to cycling. Why not try it some time?

[brixtonbrood.livejournal.com]

The problem with cyclists vs pedestrians is like the problem with babies, most people never notice the quiet ones, you only notice the obnoxious ones. One sod speeding up an inappropriately narrow pavement and swearing at you because you're not walking fast enough for him outweighs thousands who are whizzing along perfectly respectably in along the road. I do make a serious effort to notice the respectable cyclists at these moments and not tar them all with the same brush....I also make a serious effort to walk slower.

[perlmonger.livejournal.com]

People are the problem. I've had problems with idiot and/or abusive drivers and pedestrians on foot, on my bike and in a car. Oddly enough, I've only ever been hassled or inconvenienced by cyclists when I've been cycling myself; whether that means anything, or is just a statistical blip, I don't know.

[legionseagle.livejournal.com]

Of course I'm sure: the entire street was one way. Not the way the cyclist was chosing to take it. Also, I'm not denying that there are plenty of bad drivers - the insurance premiums of the rest of us reflect that. Do cyclists' insurance premiums reflect the inconsiderate menaces who give the rest of the tribe a bad name?

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

There are many one way streets in London for cars that are two way for bicycles. When this is poorly signposted this is bad for everyone and is a good example of how cyclists are poorly served by road designers.

As to insurance premiums, what about pedestrians? Since a bicycle is deemed to be a standard piece of pedestrian equipment you have to ask that.

Do the costs of car travel include the considerable environmental damage they do?

[legionseagle.livejournal.com]

Of course the costs of car travel don't cover the environmental damage they do: that's why I prefer to use public transport or walk. Which is why articles like the one which started this debate, about aggressive cyclists making it very difficult for pedestrians to walk safely on places such as towpaths struck a particular note. I used that route myself with a friend a couple of weeks ago and cyclists practically forced us into the canal on a couple of occasions. Dodging was rendered more difficult by the fact that my friend is just recovering from a serious accident, which seems to be a common theme among the complaints posted in this thread: not only do the cyclists on that stretch have no real regard for any pedestrians, they seem to think they get double points for hitting a disabled one.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

I've walked and cycled that route myself many times and, as I say down thread, there are many parts of it that are unsuitable for mixed use. Frankly, there are parts of it unsuitable for a wheelchair as well, or someone with reduced mobility even in the absence of bicycles or people coming the other way (this is especially true of some of the low and narrow bridges).

What I disagree with is your frankly bigoted generalizations drawn from some specific incidents.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

OK, can I please call time out on this debate before it ends up with two members of my f-list falling out. There are clearly strong feelings here and I did not intend to provoke an argument; I was simply highlighting a story I found topical given my recent move from driving to cycling and my own experiences of walking the Regent's Canal.

I may post more about this later but it will be in the context of trying to elucidate why the various communities involved seem to have such divergent views of their common duty of care to other road users.

[legionseagle.livejournal.com]

Without wishing to reignite the debate, I believe the underlying issue goes further than a dispute about common duty of care (which would put it into the negligence framework and therefore make it a matter of the civil law) and, as this story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7308400.stm) illustrates is really more about the rule of law, which has both constitutional and criminal significance.

If Cameron becomes Prime Minister his Government will rest on the framework of the rule of law. Personally, I believe that private dope smoking does less social harm than running red lights and going the wrong way down one way streets on a bicycle. They order both of those things much better in the Netherlands.

But neither dope-smoking nor illegal cycling is consistent with having responsibility for upholding the rule of law. If the law is wrong, change it constitutionally or break it and take the consequences. But a man who consistently flouts the law because he thinks that law is wrong is not a man fit for high office, imho.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

At risk of pre-empting my next post, I think the duty of care concept is useful, because by moving beyond the strict letter of the law into broader liability for negligence it brings in the full provisions of the Highway Code.

I've heard the excuse (from more than one sort of road user!) that large parts of the HC don't have the force of law so you don't have to obey them; this is true, but it can be useful to remember that breaking these bits is nonetheless indicative that you are failing in your duty of care to other road users. (And s.38 Road Traffic Act makes this point, in fact.)

[legionseagle.livejournal.com]

In that regard it's rather like the impact of the ICO's codes of conduct eg for data protection and employment and the law relating to unfair dismissal, in some instances.

The trouble is I think that lots of road users don't read the Highway Code and take even less interest in the Road Traffic Act.

Road tax and insurance are more effective as sanctions, in my opinion, than the largely theoretical chances of being sued or prosecuted for road traffic violations. The risk of increased insurance premiums as a result of having had a drunk driving conviction are more effective to deter drunk driving than the stigma and other social costs of the offence. The problem with controlling rogue cyclists is that most of the potential sanctions don't apply to them; they are perceived as probably low net worth so one doesn't sue them; they don't have insurance so ditto; they don't have to be registered so they can't be identified so they will in most cases escape criminal sanctions because of the "beyond reasonable doubt" test.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

There are a lot of places on that route which are really not suitable for mixed use. But there are non-canal path cycle routes that bypass a lot of the bad spots. It's a pity they're so badly signposted.