A New Sign

Mike Causer said:

Continuing past the church eventually deposits you in the muddy fen.

Sounds like an average Sustrans track then ;-)

In article <[email hidden]>,

Succorso said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Continuing past the church eventually deposits you in the muddy fen.

Sounds like an average Sustrans track then ;-)

hehe, that's a bit harsh - I'm a big fan of NCN 13; it follows lovely quiet lanes, and meanders
around the mid-Norfolk countryside in typically British, slightly eccentric way.

I think the "muddy fen" was the bit that earned the "typical" description.

Here we have some steep/muddy tracks through the woods and across the moors, including some very
rough/rocky sections. All well-signposted, though.

--
Nick Kew

Mike Causer said:

Today a new sign appeared in the lane behind my house. It says "NCN 51". How about that! When the
rain stops [1] I'll see if I can follow the route, but I cannot see why this lane should feature in
a route that goes from Cambridge to Bury St. Edmunds. Continuing past the church eventually
deposits you in the muddy fen.

sustrans.org.ukMapPage.aspOpen ↗ shows a small loop
that one might logically expect to be 11 being part of 51 according to the mouseover. (Route 11 goes
to Wicken (and Wicken Fen), and then to Cambridge via Waterbeach.)

Mike Causer <[email hidden]> wrote: ( Today a new sign appeared in the lane behind my
house. It says "NCN ) 51". How about that! When the rain stops [1] I'll see if I can follow ( the
route, but I cannot see why this lane should feature in a route that ) goes from Cambridge to Bury
St. Edmunds. Continuing past the church ( eventually deposits you in the muddy fen.

'Ere, NCN51 comes to Oxford. In fact it comes in over the new bridge with the silly posts on it.

rhydychen.org.ukNCN51.htmlOpen ↗

One of these days I'll remember to take a picture of the barrier on the edge of Squire Branson's
estate in Hampton Poyle, where there is a gate that is just the right shape for a (thinish) standing
human and which is too narrow for any sensible non-dropped handlebars.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Mike Causer said:

Continuing past the church eventually deposits you in the muddy fen.

Sounds like an average Sustrans track then ;-)

hehe, that's a bit harsh - I'm a big fan of NCN 13; it follows lovely quiet lanes, and meanders
around the mid-Norfolk countryside in typically British, slightly eccentric way.

My experience is it's very clearly signposted. Perhaps not all NCN routes are so clear.

--
Chris

Geraint Jones said:

'Ere, NCN51 comes to Oxford. In fact it comes in over the new bridge with the silly posts on it.
rhydychen.org.ukNCN51.htmlOpen ↗

In Scotland, Sustrans are doing an accessibility audit on all the tracks that they own (320 miles).
One of the things we auditors are looking out for are barriers and obstructions, and the reason was
given that barriers hinder access of those that should be using the path (cyclists with panniers,
baby buggies, wheelchairs), whilst not denying access for peoople who shouldn't be using traffic-
free paths e.g. motorcyclists.

Hopefully this means that any new paths in Scotland will not be built with barriers.

Alex

Succorso said:

hehe, that's a bit harsh - I'm a big fan of NCN 13; it follows lovely quiet lanes, and meanders
around the mid-Norfolk countryside in typically British, slightly eccentric way.

My experience is it's very clearly signposted. Perhaps not all NCN routes are so clear.

I believe that the signs are the responsibility of the local council, which would account for the
variability I've found. I've tried NCN1 both into and out of Colchester and never managed to follow
the signs. That's why I carry OS 25,000 maps as well :-/

I also know of a place where NCN51 has to pass along a path which is clearly signed "No Cycling"!

Mike

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hehe, that's a bit harsh - I'm a big fan of NCN 13; it follows lovely quiet lanes, and meanders
around the mid-Norfolk countryside in typically British, slightly eccentric way.

I think the "muddy fen" was the bit that earned the "typical" description.

Here we have some steep/muddy tracks through the woods and across the moors, including some very
rough/rocky sections. All well-signposted, though.

Sort of answering a bit of both here.

NCN 13 is in my neck of the woods. I will not use it out of choice. It does *nothing* to get me from
A to B, unless I happen to be a tourist wanting to "potter". Some of the roads it goes on are *very
rough*, grass in the middle of the tarmac and I certainly wouldn't use these ones in the dark - even
with decent lights - as a means of getting from A to B by bike. On the outskirts of Dereham it is
positively *dangerous* where it directs cyclists, via some "interesting" road markings across a
perfectly reasonable road to cycle on, in a very dangerous way, including bollards right in the
middle of the cycle part of a "shared" farcility. I took some photographs & got in contact with
Sustrans and, according to the Sustrans person I spoke to, a bollard right in the middle of a
*narrow* footpath, now a shared farcility is safer than cycling on the road.... The photographs I
took show that in reality, it *is* dangerous. I have very, very mixed feelings about Sustrans - it's
main aim, it seems to me, is to get cyclists off roads, at all costs, on to often totally unsuitable
farcilities that are way more dangerous than cycling on road. Plus it sends out the signal to
motorists that cyclists shouldn't be on the road...

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam-- to get correct one remove dependency on fame &
fortune h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote: Sustrans - it's

Quoted message said:

main aim, it seems to me, is to get cyclists off roads, at all costs, on to often totally
unsuitable farcilities that are way more dangerous than cycling on road. Plus it sends out the
signal to motorists that cyclists shouldn't be on the road...

I don't see the work of Sustrans that way at all. I choose not to use some of the Sustrans paths
probably for the same reasons as you, however I do choose to use some(Route 66, the Spen Valley
Greenway) when I want to potter. Whilst using these I see many cyclists who IMHO would not be
cycling if there were no such path, in particular older people, people with little cycling
experience and family groups. I agree that some facilities seem like a waste of time and money but
do not think that their main aim is to get cyclists off roads, rather to get people cycling.

I doubt I would have completed the C2C (twice) and Lon Las Cymru if Sustrans hadn't mapped,
publicised and sign posted these routes. There are different types of cyclists and Sustrans are not
going to please all of us.

--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. mseries.freeserve.co.ukmseries.freeserve.co.ukOpen ↗

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

Sustrans - it's main aim, it seems to me, is to get cyclists off roads, at all costs, on to often
totally unsuitable farcilities that are way more dangerous than cycling on road.

A similar thought occurred to me yesterday cycling on the NCN in Fife. As I was directed onto a
muddy farm track and down a slope greater than 1:12 (off the scale on my gradlevel), I wondered why
the interim route down a B road with fantastic views across the Forth had not been chosen for the
final route.

OK for MTBing, not so good on a tourer with panniers.

Alex

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers said:

I have very, very mixed feelings about Sustrans - it's main aim, it seems to me, is to get
cyclists off roads, at all costs, on to often totally unsuitable farcilities that are way more
dangerous than cycling on road.

I was even conned by the name and joined for a year or two. But I gave up shortly after one of
their newsletters called for bells to be made compulsory on bikes, and I have yet to encounter a
Sustrans route that is useful to me. I accept that the Bath-Bristol route is genuinely useful, and
suspect that this early success convinced them that off-road routes were generally viable, which
they aren't.

James

On 18/2/04 1:59 pm, in article [email hidden],

MSeries said:

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote: Sustrans - it's

Quoted message said:

main aim, it seems to me, is to get cyclists off roads, at all costs, on to often totally
unsuitable farcilities that are way more dangerous than cycling on road. Plus it sends out the
signal to motorists that cyclists shouldn't be on the road...

I don't see the work of Sustrans that way at all. I choose not to use some of the Sustrans paths
probably for the same reasons as you, however I do choose to use some(Route 66, the Spen Valley
Greenway) when I want to potter. Whilst using these I see many cyclists who IMHO would not be
cycling if there were no such path, in particular older people, people with little cycling
experience and family groups. I agree that some facilities seem like a waste of time and money but
do not think that their main aim is to get cyclists off roads, rather to get people cycling.

I doubt I would have completed the C2C (twice) and Lon Las Cymru if Sustrans hadn't mapped,
publicised and sign posted these routes. There are different types of cyclists and Sustrans are
not going to please all of us.

Our local NCN routes are quite nice. NCN 77 takes you out of Dundee aff road alongside the Tay and
then on minor roads through to Perth. The only downside is a steep hill (1:7) but the rest of it is
fast and well signposted.

I haven't followed it further yet.

NCN 1 goes into Fife and then ends up doing off-road things in Tentsmuir forest which could be
interesting but I haven't tried that one either. There are probably nice on road routes in Fife.

..d

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:23:58 +0900 someone who may be James Annan
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

I was even conned by the name and joined for a year or two. But I gave up shortly after one of
their newsletters called for bells to be made compulsory on bikes,

Their major faux pas, IMO, is to promote their paths as traffic free.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen said:

Their major faux pas, IMO, is to promote their paths as traffic free.

When cycling in towns, I deinfitely agree that bikes are traffic.

But what would you suggest? "Motorised traffic free" is a bit of a mouthful and "Shared use path"
doesn't clearly indicate that motorised vehicles are not permitted.

Alex Nae motors

David Hansen said:

Their major faux pas, IMO, is to promote their paths as traffic free.

They are not yet promoting this (my personal ;-) section of NCN51 at all, but *why* did they ignore
a tarmac, quiet road to take a longer way round that uses the most nastily traffic'd road in the
village? Could it be to go past the shops? I can see no other reason to go that way.

On following the new signs last night it seems that NCN51 stops at the Cambridgeshire/Suffolk
border. Hey ho, keep buying those nice OS "Explorer" 25,000 maps -- you need them to follow any
Sustrans route that I've tried.

Disillusioned of Burwell

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:57:23 +0000 someone who may be Chillies
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

But what would you suggest? "Motorised traffic free"

"motor traffic free" is fine.

Quoted message said:

is a bit of a mouthful

One sort word more than "traffic free". By adding that one short word it takes the phrase from being
wrong to being right.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

Chillies <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

But what would you suggest? "Motorised traffic free" is a bit of a mouthful and "Shared use path"
doesn't clearly indicate that motorised vehicles are not permitted.

Car free?

--
Dave...

David Hansen said:

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 11:57:23 +0000 someone who may be Chillies <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

But what would you suggest? "Motorised traffic free"

"motor traffic free" is fine.

Quoted message said:

is a bit of a mouthful

One sort word more than "traffic free". By adding that one short word it takes the phrase from
being wrong to being right.

"Motor vehicle free" is better. "Traffic" implies "vehicles" so a single vehicle does not
constitutue traffic.

Unless, of course, they mean "motor traffic free" i.e. that the occasional motor vehicle might be
found on the path.

If you get what I'm driving at. I'm not sure I do now. ;-)
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with
great pleasure." - Clarence Darrow www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

Dave Kahn said:

Car free?

Beet-lorry free would be nicer.

Tractors are mostly OK, and horses fine except those which have never seen a 'bent before....

A Fen Dweller