Ruffled a few feathers

IT COMES as no surprise that my recent article ruffled a few feathers. It was designed to do exactly that! Writes Ralph Freeman.

I have been accused of inciting violence on the towpath but the irony of the situation is that intimidation and violence is already taking place, but inflicted by the Lycra Louts, mainly on the boating and dog walking community.

Never injured anyone

During my 13 years boating I have never injured a pedestrian, but a Lycra Lout caused severe facial injuries to a 76 year old pensioner walking on the towpath recently—fact. Neither have I attacked anyone mooring up a boat for a lock, but that is exactly what happened to a friend of mine who was unable to "Get out of the way"—fact.

I have never attacked and injured a dog or ridden a time trial on the towpath (at highly dangerous speeds around blind bends and bridge holes). Yet somehow I'm a villain for suggesting these things on this site. Wake up! They are already happening thanks to the CaRT/Sustrans/Strava situation.

All complicit

CaRT, Sustrans and Strava are all complicit in promoting the towpaths as cycle tracks, which a small minority (the Lycra Louts) consider to be their domain and are prepared to bully and in some cases inflict physical injury in order to defend 'their territory' and prove their point. The fact that the majority of towpaths are far too narrow for 'mixed pedestrian/cyclist use' seems to have been conveniently ignored by all the above.

The situation is exacerbated by the Lycra Louts absolute refusal to dismount or even stop when a potential conflict of towpath use arises. They plough on at undiminished speed, so how can that not be considered a threat of violence? A pedestrian/dog not getting out their way will be injured. How is that not the same result as that arising from a physical attack? The outcome, injury to the passive towpath user, is the same is it not?

The owner's fault

The final irony is if someone rides in an inappropriate manner and hits a dog then apparently it is the dog's (i.e dog owner's) fault. What if they didn't hear the bike approach I ask? Would the accident have happened if the rider had stopped or dismounted and walked past the animal? Of course not. So it seems the law also skews the behaviour on the towpath heavily towards the Lycra Lout not the pedestrian.

So I say to those that disliked my article, would your bile not have been better directed complaining to CaRT, Sustrans and Strava for turning towpaths, which were once the (mainly) peaceful domain of dog walkers, hikers, fishermen and boaters, into a hostile/dangerous environment where confrontation and physical injury are likely to occur?