Licences for cyclists

As far as I am aware, cyclists don't pay licences to ride on the towpath. So point number one: is that correct? Asks Martin Banks.

But assuming it is correct, then the question becomes a simple one—why not? Boaters pay significant sums to CaRT every year for the licence to have a boat on the water at all, and the licence to moor it up somewhere. For most of us it is well into four figures a year. Anglers pay for the right to fish—either on a day rate when (and, I suppose, if) the local fishing warden is out and about or on an annual basis, probably through an angling club.

Claim 'ownership'

So why not cyclists? Why can they not only use the towpath for nothing but also claim with increasing regularity `ownership' of it as their domain that others trespass on at their peril? Maybe they should be paying something—£200 a year—for both the privilege of using the towpath and the annual damage and accident insurance. And it is still called a towpath, I believe, I don't think I have heard it called the cyclepath yet.

Maybe cyclists should pass a towpath proficiency test—at a cost of, say, £50—to actually get a licence. I could see that being a mandatory requirement if insurance was also made a mandatory requirement.

CaRT's own pages

Reading CaRT's own FAQ pages on the website these two statements appear next to each other:

Do I need a permit to cycle on towpaths?

You don't need a permit to cycle on our towpaths. We simply ask that you cycle with great care for pedestrians, wildlife and the fabric of our waterways to ensure that everyone can enjoy them to their full potential.

Is the towpath a public right of way?

Most towpaths are not public rights of way. Instead, the majority of our towpaths are ‘permissive paths' as we allow members of the public to use them. Occasionally we need to close towpaths to carry out maintenance work. Find out about any towpath closures.

'Asking' is woefully insufficient

It seems increasingly clear that `simply asking' has proved to be woefully insufficient and has failed as a policy. And if they are `permissive paths' then CaRT has the route available to it for action—withdraw the permission for cyclists to use the towpath without a licence that can only be obtained by taking the appropriate test, and having the appropriate insurance.

And the licence should have restrictions on it—such as the speeds allowed, and the times of use allowed. And the licences must be permanently fixed to the bike in public view.

Oh, and finally, the bike has to be fitted with a large and loud bell that can be heard at 20 metres by a senior citizen with less than perfect hearing (ie a minimum dB level measured at that distance against the wind). The wimpy little dingers most cyclists have can barely be heard when standing right next to them, yet they give cyclists the classic get-out-of-jail-free gambit of `I rang my bell'. They are about as much use, as communications devices, as trying to shout messages at friends or family living in Australia

That could give CaRT a good revenue stream, I would have thought, and create a canal system where cyclists are not the bane of everyone else's lives.

[When we first cruised the Kennet & Avon Canal some 20 years ago the cyclists using its towpath had to have a licence with its number affixed to the cycle, but was stopped by the then British Waterways—Editor.]