Todays Guardian piece .. tow paths ..

Colin McKenzie wrote on 22/09/2006 23:16 +0100:

Quoted message said:

They are short of cash, but it's shortage of cycling knowledge that
is the main problem.

Most of the problems would go away with - more width - skid-resistant
surfacing - measures to improve sightlines at bridges and sharp bends
- display and occasional enforcement of a reasonable code of conduct

Yes we could tarmac over it all to make a high speed bicycle motorway -
or we could accept its a quiet escape from London for all people and
respect it as such. High speed commuter cycling down it without respect
for other users is the equivalent of the motorist rat run through
residential roads.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

elyob said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1878898,00.html

"She complains: "They tut with annoyance if you do not get out of their
way. My partner and I have been forced to walk in single file along
this route which is supposed to be a leisurely walk.""

I would suggest that the towpath was not designed either as a public
park or as a cycle route. So neither leisure walkers or commuting
cyclists have any more rights to use the towpath than each other.
On the one hand cyclists show show consideration and slow right
down when passing walkers. On the other hand if there are that many
commuter cyclists that you are unable to walk two abreast then perhaps
that is not the best time or place for a leisurely stroll.
From a personal point of view I rarely use towpaths as roads are
faster and arguably safer than a busy towpath but I can understand less
experienced cyclists choosing them over the roads.
Iain

POHB said:

My commute (now) is virtually all towpath, along the Grand Union from
Ealing to Stockley Park. It is wonderful. Virtually all my co-workers
arrive frazzled from a drive around the M25 and M40 taking between 3/4
hour and 3 hours depending on traffic. I arrive occasionally muddy
from the puddles but in a very mellow mood having passed umpteen
herons, baby moorhens, swans, (rats), etc. I sound my bell to warn
peds and they move to one side of the path, we smile and say "hello",
"thanks" and "no problem" to each other. I nod hello to other regular
cycle commuters I pass going the other way.

Exactly.

There's a big difference between charging along regardless of other
users, and cruising at a speed that covers the miles effectively,
while ready to slow down when necessary.

My average speed is about the same on towpath and road, but peak speed
and number of stops are lower on the towpath. So I use the most direct
route, which is sometimes the towpath and sometimes the A40.

For some journeys, not using the towpath involves a huge detour.
Making the towpath safer to cycle on is an effective means of
promoting cycling for those journeys.

For other journeys, not using the A40 involves a huge detour. I want
that to be made safe and comfortable to cycle on too.

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for the towpath to be wide
enough for one user to overtake another with safe clearance, and to
ask for the surface to be good enough that you can move from one side
to the other at any time without a high risk of falling off from
skidding or catching the back wheel on an edge.

Colin McKenzie

--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:50:50 +0100, "elyob" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1878898,00.html

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/09/22/cycling_on_towpaths_your_thoughts.html

My commute is 13 km each way, mostly on rural bits of the Kennet and
Avon towpath (Newbury-Theale). This is my quickest cycling route
except for the A4, which I don't use because it's unpleasant, not
because I'm afraid to - t's not much quicket anyway.

Like some others in the thread, I have no problem with pedestrians -
we show consideration for each other and everyone is happy.

I do sometimes worry that the pedestrians are almost too unasserrtive
- after all they actually have priority over cyclists, but when they
see or hear me coming they tend almost to jump out of the way even if
it means stepping into the brambles and nettles beside the path. Later
do they tell their friends they were forced off the path by a bl**dy
cyclist? :-/
--

John

In article <[email hidden]>
<John Abramson <john@<my surname>.org.uk>> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I do sometimes worry that the pedestrians are almost too unasserrtive
- after all they actually have priority over cyclists, but when they
see or hear me coming they tend almost to jump out of the way even if
it means stepping into the brambles and nettles beside the path. Later
do they tell their friends they were forced off the path by a bl**dy
cyclist? :-/

I wonder about that sometimes - when riding in pedestrian areas we
always give way to pedestrians, and will trundle along behind them at
walking pace until a gap opens up to pass, but the way some of them gasp
and jump out of the way you'd think we were doing 20 mph and blasting
them with air horns.

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>
<John Abramson <john@<my surname>.org.uk>> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I do sometimes worry that the pedestrians are almost too unasserrtive
- after all they actually have priority over cyclists, but when they
see or hear me coming they tend almost to jump out of the way even if
it means stepping into the brambles and nettles beside the path. Later
do they tell their friends they were forced off the path by a bl**dy
cyclist? :-/

I wonder about that sometimes - when riding in pedestrian areas we
always give way to pedestrians, and will trundle along behind them at
walking pace until a gap opens up to pass, but the way some of them gasp
and jump out of the way you'd think we were doing 20 mph and blasting
them with air horns.

I think that happens because cyclists appear behind the pedestrians and
are first noticed in peripheral vision, where their path, speed and
intent aren't easy to work out. So they appear as possible threats. I
once became aware of a friend running from behind me in the 10 or 11
o'clock position, and she was wearing black. I started to assume an
attack by a stranger was happening, for a second.

On second thoughts, this may give away too much about me.

Squashme said:

I once became
aware of a friend running from behind me in the 10 or 11 o'clock position,
and she was wearing black. I started to assume an attack by a stranger was
happening, for a second.

On second thoughts, this may give away too much about me.

Err yes. Your eyes are on the wrong^W directionaly-challenged side of
your head.

Or you hold your clocks upside down.

Mike

In article <[email hidden]>
Squashme <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I think that happens because cyclists appear behind the pedestrians and
are first noticed in peripheral vision, where their path, speed and
intent aren't easy to work out. So they appear as possible threats.

That makes sense, but even when they've turned to look there's still a
tendency to go "ohmygosh bikes, must get out of the way" - do they still
think we're sabre toothed tigers?

Quoted message said:

I
once became aware of a friend running from behind me in the 10 or 11
o'clock position, and she was wearing black. I started to assume an
attack by a stranger was happening, for a second.

On second thoughts, this may give away too much about me.

Perhaps.
:-)

in message <[email hidden]>, Rob Morley

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>
Squashme <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I think that happens because cyclists appear behind the pedestrians and
are first noticed in peripheral vision, where their path, speed and
intent aren't easy to work out. So they appear as possible threats.

That makes sense, but even when they've turned to look there's still a
tendency to go "ohmygosh bikes, must get out of the way" - do they still
think we're sabre toothed tigers?

We're big and we approach very silently (and often very fast). People have
instincts programmed over millions of years to react to big things which
approach silently and fast, and two thousand years of civilisation isn't
even nearly enough to reverse that programming.

You wouldn't approach a horse from behind like that. You'd start talking to
it at least 20 metres behind, so as to reduce the startle effect. If
you're going to share a path with pedestrians you need to do the same. If
saying 'good morning, excuse me' seems too dorky, whistle a tune as you
ride along.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; L'etat c'est moi -- Louis XVI
;; I... we... the Government -- Tony Blair

In article <[email hidden]>

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Rob Morley

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>
Squashme <[email hidden]> wrote:
<snip>

Quoted message said:

I think that happens because cyclists appear behind the pedestrians and
are first noticed in peripheral vision, where their path, speed and
intent aren't easy to work out. So they appear as possible threats.

That makes sense, but even when they've turned to look there's still a
tendency to go "ohmygosh bikes, must get out of the way" - do they still
think we're sabre toothed tigers?

We're big and we approach very silently (and often very fast). People have
instincts programmed over millions of years to react to big things which
approach silently and fast, and two thousand years of civilisation isn't
even nearly enough to reverse that programming.

You wouldn't approach a horse from behind like that. You'd start talking to
it at least 20 metres behind, so as to reduce the startle effect. If
you're going to share a path with pedestrians you need to do the same. If
saying 'good morning, excuse me' seems too dorky, whistle a tune as you
ride along.

"Excuse me" makes it seem like I expect them to get out of my way, which
I don't. Maybe the clatter of Spokey Dokeys would help - the SO wants
some anyway :-)

Mike Causer said:

Squashme said:

I once became
aware of a friend running from behind me in the 10 or 11 o'clock position,
and she was wearing black. I started to assume an attack by a stranger was
happening, for a second.

On second thoughts, this may give away too much about me.

Err yes. Your eyes are on the wrong^W directionaly-challenged side of
your head.

Or you hold your clocks upside down.

Oh whoops! That's destroyed my chance of claiming to have been a
fighter pilot, I suppose?

Perhaps I am a plaice or some other variety of flatfish.

Simon Brooke said:

You wouldn't approach a horse from behind like that.

I wouldn't approach a horse from behind like anything. Who would want
to?

Squashme said:

elyob said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1878898,00.html

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/09/22/cycling_on_towpaths_your_thoughts.html

Usual solipsistic [censored] who grew up (or in some direction anyway)
under Thatcher (there is no such thing as society, there's just me and
mine).

What Margaret T actually said was:

"There is no such thing as society.There is living tapestry of men and
women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our
lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take
responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and
help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate"

Not Responding said:

Squashme said:

elyob said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1878898,00.html

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/09/22/cycling_on_towpaths_your_thoughts.html

Usual solipsistic [censored] who grew up (or in some direction anyway)
under Thatcher (there is no such thing as society, there's just me and
mine).

What Margaret T actually said was:

"There is no such thing as society.There is living tapestry of men and
women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our
lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take
responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and
help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate"

And it was made in the context of rebutting those who blame 'society'
for the problems they currently face. The concept of 'society' as a
specific entity (which can therefore assume blame and responsibility)
rather than an emergent property (which is teh fault and the blame for
which lies on us all) is the distinction she was making.

It was however a wonderful soundbite to misappropriate as has been
shown over the years.

...d

Squashme said:

Simon Brooke said:

You wouldn't approach a horse from behind like that.

I wouldn't approach a horse from behind like anything. Who would want
to?

Apart from another horse, I suppose.

Not Responding said:

Squashme said:

elyob said:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1878898,00.html

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/09/22/cycling_on_towpaths_your_thoughts.html

Usual solipsistic [censored] who grew up (or in some direction anyway)
under Thatcher (there is no such thing as society, there's just me and
mine).

What Margaret T actually said was:

"There is no such thing as society.There is living tapestry of men and
women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our
lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take
responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and
help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate"

Yes, and we have seen since how much each of us is prepared to turn
around and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.

David Martin said:

Not Responding said:

Squashme said:

elyob wrote:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/transport/Story/0,,1878898,00.html
>
> http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2006/09/22/cycling_on_towpaths_your_thoughts.html

Usual solipsistic [censored] who grew up (or in some direction anyway)
under Thatcher (there is no such thing as society, there's just me and
mine).

What Margaret T actually said was:

"There is no such thing as society.There is living tapestry of men and
women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our
lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take
responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and
help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate"

And it was made in the context of rebutting those who blame 'society'
for the problems they currently face. The concept of 'society' as a
specific entity (which can therefore assume blame and responsibility)
rather than an emergent property (which is teh fault and the blame for
which lies on us all) is the distinction she was making.

It was however a wonderful soundbite to misappropriate as has been
shown over the years.

"Wonderful soundbite" indeed. But "to misappropriate"?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Squashme said:

David Martin wrote:

"Wonderful soundbite" indeed. But "to misappropriate"?

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.

So from now on, whenever there is a discussion, you will be quite happy
for me to use the text

'and as Squashme said,"it must be a duck"'

A perfectly accurate quote, taken somewhat out of context, hence
misappropriated.

...d

In article <[email hidden]>

Squashme said:

Mike Causer said:

Squashme said:

I once became
aware of a friend running from behind me in the 10 or 11 o'clock position,
and she was wearing black. I started to assume an attack by a stranger was
happening, for a second.

On second thoughts, this may give away too much about me.

Err yes. Your eyes are on the wrong^W directionaly-challenged side of
your head.

Or you hold your clocks upside down.

Oh whoops! That's destroyed my chance of claiming to have been a
fighter pilot, I suppose?

Maybe a tailgunner? :-)