Why are mtb riders such wimps??

[We_are_Stevo]

...it also makes one Hell of a difference how you respond if you are stopped by the Plod;

I've seen a 'City Gent' type get pulled over by two cycle-cops and go absolutely ape' to the point where they had to get a Paddy-Wagon to cart him and his poncy Pashley or whatever off to the nearest Nick, much to the amusement of all who couldn't help stopping to watch!

In contrast I've seen some right 'oicks' sent on their way with a finger-wagging because they were polite and respectfull...

 

[highlandsflyer]

...it also makes one Hell of a difference how you respond if you are stopped by the Plod;

I've seen a 'City Gent' type get pulled over by two cycle-cops and go absolutely ape' to the point where they had to get a Paddy-Wagon to cart him and his poncy Pashley or whatever off to the nearest Nick, much to the amusement of all who couldn't help stopping to watch!

In contrast I've seen some right 'oicks' sent on their way with a finger-wagging because they were polite and respectfull...

So true.

 

[highlandsflyer]

It's worth remembering that even if you are cycling on a shared-use foot/cycle path, you are effectively in the same position. Pedestrians still have right of way, cyclists still have to cycle safely and considerately, and so a cyclist involved in a collision with a pedestrian is likely to be blamed, unless it is completely clear that the pedestrian was at fault.

So the fact that it's a marked cyclepath doesn't really seem to make much difference to the position of cyclists using it, compared to other pavement.

Amen brother!

Just the other day I was on an empty six mile stretch of tow path, when an approaching bike rang its bell at least half a dozen times before arriving at me, to which I responded, "My dogs don't know what your bell means, and this is a footpath. Slow down and pass politely."

 

[We_are_Stevo]

Ah, but a tow path is primarily for horses - and cyclists enjoy the same classification, ditto bridleways...

...which is also the basis of the RFL - roads were intended (historically) for horses/horse drawn carriages so motor vehicles (horseless carriages) had to pay a licence fee to use them; hence why cyclists don't.

In fact, I do believe that the Public don't actually have an 'automatic' right of way on tow paths - it is at the Landowners discretion...

 

[soggz]

Not everybody knows that, but in fact Home Office guidance to Chief Constables says that, although cycling on pavements remains illegal, fixed penalty notices should apply only to irresponsible cycling.

I'd imagine hardly anyone knows that. And why or how would they? It's either illegal=risk of fine or it's legal=please continue.

It's precisely this sort of fudged bullshit that helps nobody and leads to police and judges taking all kinds of different stances on more serious matters. Like shooting burglars for example.

It's just cycling ffs, it is OK or not to ride on a pavement? If police or the Home Office can't give a straight answer to that I give up.

Give up pal, my mum who is 76 rides her bike on the pavement becuase shes shit scared of the amount of traffic which has appeared since 'her day' of riding everywhere 'cos her parents never had a car! You cant argue with that reasoning really,can you? She even stops when people are walking towards her "just in case".I hope you all are riding a bike at that age ,on the pavement, or anywhere for that matter.lol

 

[lewism]

Never understood people who kick off at the Police - they're normal people doing a job, albeit massively cynical (my last interaction with them was as a witness against a drunk driver me & a couple of guys in a van stopped before he reached the A46 - had to bite my tongue when they kept referring to the 'defendant' as 'the offender', innocent until proven guilty and all that even though he was clearly plastered). I think the long and short of it is, be a dick and they'll clobber you, be OK and they'll send you on your way.

 

[highlandsflyer]

Ah, but a tow path is primarily for horses - and cyclists enjoy the same classification, ditto bridleways...

...which is also the basis of the RFL - roads were intended (historically) for horses/horse drawn carriages so motor vehicles (horseless carriages) had to pay a licence fee to use them; hence why cyclists don't.

In fact, I do believe that the Public don't actually have an 'automatic' right of way on tow paths - it is at the Landowners discretion...

Whether it is a towpath or bridleway the cyclist is at the bottom of the pile. The conflict does not exist where walkers are not permitted on a towpath, unless there are exceptions I am unaware of this would mean there were no cyclists there either.

 

[petitpal]

Ah, but a tow path is primarily for horses - and cyclists enjoy the same classification, ditto bridleways...

...which is also the basis of the RFL - roads were intended (historically) for horses/horse drawn carriages so motor vehicles (horseless carriages) had to pay a licence fee to use them; hence why cyclists don't.

In fact, I do believe that the Public don't actually have an 'automatic' right of way on tow paths - it is at the Landowners discretion...

Whether it is a towpath or bridleway the cyclist is at the bottom of the pile. The conflict does not exist where walkers are not permitted on a towpath, unless there are exceptions I am unaware of this would mean there were no cyclists there either.

I was looking in to this recently and before you can ride on British Waterways tow paths you have to download a little card from their web site saying you are authorized to do so, and display it on your bike. You also have to have a bell and ring it twice when approaching pedestrians and then pass them on the waterside. And yes, cyclists should, apparently, always ride sensibly and give way to pedestrians.

If you don't have your identification on the bike then, in theory at least, you can be chucked off the tow path. As Stevo says - it's at their discretion. There are also sections where cyclists aren't allowed - their web site is actually pretty good at showing you what towpaths are available to you and so on. I was only interested because I'm planning on riding to work at some point and was looking for a relatively flat route until I'm fit again (it's 18 miles! argh!) and I happen to live in a canal town, which means I can do the lot on towpaths.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I use the canalside as much as possible in London, but even there with many pedestrians I find it no inconvenience to slow down to walking pace and pass by them wherever I can give them a decent amount of room. If anyone thinks they should be permitted to treat the towpath like a training circuit or fast commuter route then think again.

As far as my experience the other day, this guy was hurtling down the towpath at twenty expecting the parting of the Red Sea, all because he had a little bell. Slowing down and passing wide would have cost him no time at all.

British Waterways try to make every inch of canal accessible at least on one side, (often they are only responsible for one side), and cyclists are there on sufferance, as are pedestrians.

BW belong to us, the taxpayer, so there is no question of these facilities being removed, we can only look forward to improved access unless the government lets another huge publicly owned organisation slide into the canal.

 

[We_are_Stevo]

When I lived in Cambridge I used to cycle alongside the River Cam a lot; if it was busy anything more than a leisurely pace was asking to take an early bath anyway! :shock:

Away from the madding crowd it was possible to stretch the legs a bit, though always mindfull of the risk you were likely to find a horse tethered next to the path just round the next corner!!

It would be interesting to know if any of the rules governing access to paths, towpaths etc has ever been enforced??

http://www.waterscape.com/media/documents/20534.pdf

http://www.waterscape.com/things-to-do/cycling/permit

I suspect this...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/200 ... athcycling

...is by far the general (and accepted) rule??