Canal Cyclists

I have just heard that the President of the NFA is now taking up the fight against speeding cyclists along our canals. This has come about after several complaints about cyclists racing on towpaths and breaking angler's tackle. It is hoped that the introduction of speed limits for these cyclists will also call a stop on their "timed trials".

it can`t happen soon enough in my opinion.
although i do wonder how it`s going to be enforced.

Simple - make them pay road tax and display number plates then install speed camera,s. Its about time the lunatics were made to pay for their disregard of the law

they are supposed to have a licence for canal towpaths

Speed bumps for bikes as opposed to tackle bumps which they disregard.

While I appreciate that cyclists can be a problem, I think that some of the comments above are of the sort that can alienate angling as a fringe sport, rather than the people's sport I think it is.

Please look at this from both sides.

Imagine you are a cyclist on your way to work, along a canal towpath. You go via the canal because it's quicker than walking, the air is better than is is on the roads, your're being 'greener' than if you went in your car, it's cheaper, it keeps you fit and there's little chance of being squashed by a lorry.

Then you come across a match. There's 40 or so anglers, many with their poles shipped back and some will stuff all over the floor. To the cyclist their a nuisance and are blocking a public right of way.

A compromise needs to reached and I feel that will only come about by knowing both side of the argument.

ps. Monk, obviously you're dead right about cyclists needing a licence, but they are very cheap and I know of no one ever being checked.

Mark
Canals are not public right of ways are they?

Only in certain places David.

We should all go and fish on the roads ....

This is an abridged version of a letter in reply as to regarding cycles using the Bridgewater canal towpath from my local MP.
26/July/1995.

At the last meeting of the Bridgewater Canal Trust a decision was made to prohibit the use of cycles on the towpath. The issues involved with this decision are as follows:

(a) Safety

(b) Public Liability

(c) Public footpaths/towpaths

(a) Safety

Whenever people are in close proximity to water, safety must be of prime concern:

(i) The towpath was not constructed and is not maintained as a cycleway and was not designed as such.


(ii) Uneven, slippery surfaces and depressions in the towpath surface that may at times be filled with rainwater all present potential hazards to cyclists.

(iii) Low headroom, i.e. bridges, overhanging trees, branches etc. present hazards to cyclists.

(iv) Equipment used by boaters and fishermen which may at times partially obstruct the towpath causing potential hazards to cyclists.

(v) The width of towpath often less than 2 metres.

(vi) The towpath is unlit during darkness/poor light conditions

(vii) With an increase in the number of cyclists using the towpath this has increased the risk to other members of the public using the same facility e.g. pedestrians, anglers, boat owners, and cyclists themselves.

(b) Public Liability

To continue to ignore the increasing use of cycles on the Bridgewater Canal Towpath could increase the Trusts potential liability in respect of claims for personal injury and/or damage to property. Such claims could become a major drain on the finances of the Trust.

In addition the Company may have a duty of care to members of the public who with its authority make use of its towpath, land and canal. The Company is under no obligation to provide facilities for cyclists and cannot accept liability for cyclists who have no rights to use the towpath.

(c) Public Footpath/Towpath

Sections of towpath are actually designated public footpaths. Cycling is not permitted on a public footpath, a right on foot only is permissible.

The remaining sections of towpath not defined as public footpaths are private over which the Company permits public access on foot only (with exemptions only given in specifically approved circumstances).

This is an abridged version of a letter I received after making enquiries about the use of cycles along the Brigewater Canal in 1995.
Laws and rules might have changed, But it might give an insight as to how and why decisions are made.

ps. Monk, obviously you're dead right about cyclists needing a licence, but they are very cheap and I know of no one ever being checked.

Yes I actually had mine checked in leeds at the start of the leeds liverpool canal, I`m a cyclist as well as an angler. I rode the full length of the leeds liverpool canal all 145 mile of it, I also spent a lot of time talking to fellow anglers, some are pretty ignorant with regard to cyclists, until they realise you are also an angler

Being able to see both sides of this problem from the saddle and the rod, as I do both. Yep a 50+ old git who still loves to ride a bike along a canal.
Mind you looking at some of the completely cured anorexics fishing on canals, 12 month exclusively on a bike would do them, the National Health and the British Tax payer a lot of good.
Sorry if that offends the sensibilities of some????.not!

But like the Anglers v Boaters thread some cyclists are a pain in the ar^^. Others not!

The key to this is education of both sides, and through enforcement where needed. BW who own about 99% of the canals do not have wardens on the towpaths educating both sections of users and where necessary using the power they have under the regulations.

The NFA?s time would be better spent pressurising BW into putting wardens on the towpaths rather than calling for speed limits.
Doh! Don?t they know that bikes don?t have speed meters on them, so how the hell are the cyclists going to know whether they?re breaking it or not?

Education through mutual understanding of each other point of view is the only way to move forward. Backed up by enforcement of the regs where necessary through active wardening.