narrowboatworld

Like BW before them, CART seem rather reluctant to publish contact details for board members.

Tom is no longer chief executive of Ramblers but you can contact him at Think Global -

Tom Franklin
Chief Executive   
020 7922 7932
tom.franklin@think-global.org.uk

As you will see from the info below, he should be well aware of the issues surrounding sharing of 'space' between cyclists and pedestrians.

I would suggest that the issue is not addressed as boaters vs cyclists but rather the problems created by cyclists for other towpath users.

Regards

Allan

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tom Franklin is Chief Executive of Think Global, a membership charity that works to educate and engage people about global issues such as climate change and sustainability. He was previously Chief Executive of the Ramblers, Britain’s walking charity. He is currently a member of the Independent Panel on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England. He was previously a local authority councillor for twelve years, including a period as council leader, and was an expert adviser on ‘Better Public Spaces’ to the Beacon Council Awards Scheme, and was Chief Executive of Living Streets, a charity promoting better streets and public spaces for pedestrians.

Allan,

Do you have any contact details for him, I have looked but I'm not that computer literate!

To digress some more, Clive Henderson is not a CART trustee but a member of the 35 strong council.

I would suggest the trustee most interested the cycling issue would be Tom Franklin because of his association with ramblers.

Regards

Allan

I would suggest one of the 'boater' electected commitee members, as a start point, who could network with the angler and rambler types, also on the commitee, to get a concensus to take-up this issue. If the 'boater' reps won't take it up then it is going to be so much harder!

This would be a good flagship opportunity for the commitee members to show if they really do carry any muscle with CART.

Orph

Orph

I have had a quick look at the Cart structure and it's mind boggling!

Firstly, there's the partly elected council, is a member of this who we need?

Then, I believe, there are several advisory committees, is this instead who you meant?

If so, which particular committee do we need to contact a member of??

Ps A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

I would suggest that in the first instance an attempt is made to identify a Commitee Member to champion this (that's what they are there for).

There is (I understand) an Annual Meeting in B'ham on the 28th September and a Trustee Meeting on the 29th September so it would be an oportune moment to get a 'Member' on board.

If you can locate a committee member then draw their attention to this Forum thread and see if they are interested in taking it up.  I do not have the free time to get too involved with this but would be prepared to give any advice or ideas if asked.

Orph

Cygnus/Orph

Thanks for the replys gentlemen, now we seem to be getting somewhere. The pressure group that you suggest is an excellent solution, so let's do it!

I do not have the organisational skills to make this happen, but I would be pleased to help in a subordinate role, as and when required.

So, who is going to lead this group, and get it off the ground?

Any suggestions, or better still, volunteers for the role?

I generally concur with Cygnus on this as there IS ample legislation available if the will and/or resources were available to invoke it.

I also do not want to see yet more canalside clutter with additional expensive signs that are ignored, vandalised and generally detract from pleasant locations.

Many canal restorations have taken advantage of financial input from Sustrans to aid in the overall restoration and the inclusiveness of 'universal' benefit approach with cyclists near the top of the list, helps to gain funding.

That said. I certainly think that a lobby group made up of boaters, walkers and canalside property owners should be formed to lobby CART and its all inclusive commitee, to start a  'hearts & minds' campaign amongst cyclists to value and respect other towpath users and to educate the 'lycra louts' on acceptable behaviour on towpaths and other shared paths.  A campaign in cycling mags would be cheaper than a 'forest' of additional signage.

Orph

Of course I've read the rest of this thread and no, I don't think that we should just roll over. I've had my share of confrontation with cyclists but I don't think that you have any idea of the difficulties that face anyone trying to deal with the problem. Most of the suggestions on this thread would be successfully challenged in the courts, notices or not, unless clear legal limits are created to regulate towpath usage. I would suggest that there is little possibility of this happening. Equally, the possibility of any limits being enforced are also pretty slim if the record of BW/CaRT in dealing with unlicensed boats and illegal mooring is any guide.

Since the new Trust has trustees representing all users of the canals perhaps it might be more productive to start exerting pressure there. The problem was largely created at the top of the organisation (BW) so it would be reasonable to expect them to solve it. Personally I go along with the idea of  forming a pressure group to lean on the CaRT trustees as being the most likely route to get any results.

Hi,

Have you not read the rest of the thread?

The notices are only the first step, enforcement comes later.

What do you suggest then, should we all roll over and accept things like good little Englishmen?

A change of attitude will not happen unless we fight for it, if we do not stand our ground here and now boating is doomed, and all the work Tom Rolt did will have been for nothing.

Not more notices - please, they would only work if enforced - by whom?  There are three ways to deal with this problem and I doubt if any are feasible. The first is some sort of enforcement of the Sustrans code, but who will enforce it? Not CaRT or Sustrans you can be sure. The second is to adapt the towpath so that cyclists are physically separate from other users but who will pay for it? Not CaRT or Sustrans you can be sure. The third is to ban cyclists altogether but I think that this would almost certainly be challenged and overturned by the courts.

The real remedy is a change of attitude, especially by the cyclists, but the concept of sharing, in this case the towpath, seems all too alien nowadays.

Thomas,

I agree that they won't want to put up the signs. That is why we must FORCE them to do so, by legal means, publicity, or whatever.

Or we can be good little the time for action is now, otherwise the canals are doomed.

OK, so we all agree.

What are we going to DO about it???

I do hope they don't do in Stoke what Sustrans and Surrey County Council have done on the Basingstoke between Pirbright (bottom of Deepcut) and Woodham Junction (Wey Navigation) and sealed the towpath - that's why the cyclists go fast here - there's nothing to stop them.  It also means that walking the towpath is really not that enjoyable. I approve of the National Trust approach - it was built for horses - it will stay for horses.

The only blessing on the Basingstoke is that there is no money for maintenance so it may just revert to the old standard.  Oh and we have Fibre Optic cables under the towpath but only just under - another 'challenge'.

Kathryn

But it's not just boaters that are suffering. When I came through Stoke on Trent a few weeks back I noted that dog walkers were having problems too. With cyclists refusing to slow down or stop, it was forcing dog walkers to walk their dogs on a short lead all the time instead of allowing their dogs to run. Throwing a ball or stick for the dog to chase was out of the question during the morning commuter rush, such were the number and speed of the cyclists.

I also noticed all the gates installed to slow cyclists at critical points i.e. locks, had been opened (with the appropriate key?) and propped permanently open rendering the restrictions useless.

To make matters worse it has just been announced that  the 'Rat Run' scheme in Stoke is to be extended through Barleston down to Aston (near Stone) for the benefit of commuting cyclists!

Ralph

Anyone listening to the various speeches at the inauguration of CART will realise that walkers and cyclists are the important ones, (for as one of our contributors pointed out, boaters were not mentioned)—the directors just cannot bear the continuing falling off of the number of visitors—and hate narrowboatworld for pointing out that they have failed to fulfil their promise to increase them.

So there is no way will they erect notices stating the speed limit, for those dashing to and from work will be put off, and the figures (as fiddled as they are) will drop even further.

It will eventually come to a head, alas, when such as a child gets killed, and the police get involved.  Then it will be another panic like the one experienced with the Staffs & Worcs boaters bridges...and something will be done, but this time for our benefit.

Thomas

The first thing to do, IMHO, is to campaign to have Cart erect notices explaining the rules and speed limit along all towpaths hijacked by Sustrans.  These must be large enough to be read by a cyclist on the move, and placed at every entrance and exit, and on every structure when feasible. Then and only then can we start worrying about enforcement.

All ideas on how to achieve this gratefully recieved???

I have a friend who is a cyclist, a walker and a boater.  We've had an issue on the Basingstoke recently (mainly I expect because there are not enough boats around and there's not enough trimming of the vegetation).  I hope Ian won't mind me publishing his reply to me about those issues because I believe they are pragmatic and they are the views of someone who walks, cycles and boats. I personally value Ian's perspective because he sees the issue from all sides.

Ian's reply as follows (I hope it contributes positively to the debate). 'Thank you to Kathryn for forwarding the e mails.  I speak here as a cyclist, a boater (presently enjoying a spell in Liverpool on our narrowboat, Leo) and as a walker.  I can see this from all points of view.  The views that I am expressing here are personal ones.  Though still a member of Woking Cycle Users' Group, I am no longer chairman and have copied this e mail to other members of the committee of the Cycle Users' Group in case they wish to add any thoughts.  In principle I think we need to aim for a situation where cyclists, pedestrians and boaters can all use the canal together without hindering each other, exercising the necessary consideration for other users.

A cyclist travels at roughly 3 times the speed of a pedestrian and a car in a built up area travels at roughly 3 times the speed of a cyclist.  I think it is this difference in speed that causes problems mainly to pedestrians where sharing use with cyclists and also as it happens when cyclists share with cars.  Inevitably it is the slower party that tends to get out of the way in both situations.  Can you imagine a car stopping to allow a cyclist to turn?

In most situations, with goodwill on both sides, cyclists can easily mix with pedestrians. Problems arise where pedestrians or cyclists are inconsiderate or where the speed differential is too high as with cyclists travelling too fast or pedestrians who are stationary or act unpredictably without paying attention.  When you add to the mix boaters who are concentrating on doing a job in the path of pedestrians and cyclists I can well understand the problems.

I think, like on the Thames and other canals, it would be sensible to require cyclists to dismount past the locks.  If the Basingstoke Canal becomes more used by boats then this becomes even more sensible and easier for cyclists to understand the need for such a restriction.  There are also plenty of precedents for signs indicating that cyclists should give way to pedestrians or that pedestrians have priority.  It is interpreting such signs that might cause problems.  What does 'give way' mean in practice?  Does this mean that pedestrians completely blocking the path mean that a cyclist must never pass them?

I agree that cutting back the vegetation to increase the width of the path would be very sensible.  The local Sustrans volunteer group has done plenty of such work in the recent past. 'Roughening' the path can lead to cyclists being injured and is probably not the right solution.

The best way to tackle this in my mind is to bring interested parties together and perhaps, as has been discussed, have some observations of what happens in practice and to speak to those who act inconsiderately whether they be cyclists, pedestrians or perhaps even boaters.'

Thanks Thomas, that's what I was looking for.

5 MPH.

There it is in black and white.

Niw how do we make Cart enforce it???