David: Cyclists and towpaths
RECENT discussions about the use of our towpaths by cyclists and their interaction with other towpath users led me to do some research about the exact status of towpaths and who can use them.
Generally speaking canal towpaths are not public rights of way; the only major exception to this is the Kennet & Avon, which is a public footpath throughout its length. Note though, that it is a public footpath, meaning that its legal use is confined to pedestrians.
For cyclists to use it legally it would have to be a public bridleway, which it is not, although the Ordnance Survey marks some of it at the western end as a 'traffic free cycle route'. I do not know whether this carries any legal status, or is just wishful thinking. In fact British Waterways did try issuing permits for cycling on the K&A—I know, I had one—but the system proved unenforceable and was quietly abandoned.
The towpaths on the rest of the artificial canal system are private land (it can be different on rivers) and in the words of the notices that used to adorn the Grand Union, 'May only be used for the purposes of the navigation'. This means that boaters can use them, even on a bike to set the next lock, but nobody else has any legal right to be there. It may be that CaRT, or British Waterways before it, have made some dispensation to these rules; if so, then it is not reflected on OS maps, where the towpaths are not even marked as 'permitted paths', a designation which is available.
Since the towpaths are private, they are not subject to any of the rules that apply to public rights of way. This is a pity, since if they were it would be a lot clearer who could use them and certain minimum standards would apply. A public footpath is supposed to be wide enough to allow two people to pass comfortably—this is taken to be 1.8 metres. A public bridleway, which permits cyclists, should be 3.5 metres wide. If the towpaths were 'public' then the local Highway Authority (usually the County Council) would be responsible for enforcing this and controlling vegetation.
Sooner or later there is going to be a serious collision involving a cyclist on a towpath. If this leads to a court case I wonder what CaRT's position will be. Will it argue that the cyclist was trespassing (unless he was a boater as well) and thus they have no responsibility? As there are no longer any notices to this effect I doubt if this argument would get them very far. Since the minimum width recommended by the Department of Transport for shared cycleways—that is urban pavements shared with pedestrians—is 3 metres and I can think of very few towpaths, especially with the current policy of not cutting the vegetation, that are anything like that width I think CaRT might find themselves in an awkward spot.
Given its sensitivity to any legal threat that involves Health and Safety I am surprised that they have not addressed this problem. Perhaps its best option would be to declare all towpaths to be public rights of way, which would put some at least of the responsibility onto the Highway Authorities, although I doubt if it will solve the problem, since it is almost impossible to enforce any law in respect of cyclists as long as they are not required to have insurance, licences or number plates.
Harecastle Tunnel
The recent accident in Harecastle Tunnel has led to a lot of discussion as to how the passage could be made safer. Having read the Coroner's report I am not very impressed with the basis of his recommendations.
He does not seem to have visited the tunnel, let alone taken a trip through it, which I would have thought would be a minimum requirement before pontificating. He says that life jackets are 'mandated' for boaters—this is simply wrong. There is no requirement for boaters to carry or use lifejackets in any circumstances; if there were it would be entirely unenforceable. Whether it's advisable to do so is up to the boater to decide.
The provision of telephones sounds attractive, but apart from the cost I would imagine that the wet atmosphere in the tunnel would rapidly put any system out of order, assuming that it was not simply vandalised. As for safety helmets, again there is the enforcement problem and the fact that they make the wearers taller and thus more likely to hit their heads. Paul Burke's suggestion of pinch wires à la Underground sounds sensible, but would it cope with the wet and if the wires were copper how long would they stay there? Lighting sounds attractive, but where it exists in one or two tunnels (Edgbaston, Newbold) it is frequently defective and always obscured by a thick layer of cobweb.
The last time there was a panic about tunnel safety British Waterway spent a fortune installing safety chains and wooden rubbing strips to protect them in every tunnel—I wonder if anyone knows whether this vast expenditure has actually saved a life? Let us hope that CaRT does a proper cost benefit analysis for any measures taken, rather than joining the 'something must be done' brigade.
David Hymers