A Sustrans dilemma

Mike Causer said:

This coming weekend Sustrans celebrates "opening" 10,000 miles of cycle
routes in the first 10 years of their existence. As part of the
celebrations there are four rides organised to Cambridge and subsequently
a ride from Cambridge to Preston (Lancs). One of these rides passes
within 100 metres of my house so it would seem churlish not to join them.

However the Sustrans route is carefully chosen to include the nastiest
junction and the most horrible road in the village in which I live
(which is easily bypassed on a quiet road). It then progresses through
four "Cyclists Dismount" signs in exactly one kilometre (5 in 2.5 km).
And they haven't even reached Cambridge yet, where more horrors await.

So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it worth
highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and sticking to the
road?

Funny, I was pondering the exact same thought myself for this weekend.
I've decided that since I believe Sustrans routes are generally [censored] and
misguided it would be hypocritical for me to turn out for the PR
exercise they are running at the weekend as much as it would be fun to
join all the cyclists who will be there.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

In article
<[email hidden]>, Mike

Causer said:

So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it
worth highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and
sticking to the road?

IMVHO Sustrans are a group of people without married parents.

--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.millport.net

Sandy Morton said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, Mike

Causer said:

So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it
worth highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and sticking
to the road?

IMVHO Sustrans are a group of people without married parents.

Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.

Perhaps what might make a better debate is whether this country should
ever have been in such a state that it required a charity, staffed with
many volunteers, to maintain a public transport infrastructure.

"Sandy Morton" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, Mike

Causer said:

So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it
worth highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and
sticking to the road?

IMVHO Sustrans are a group of people without married parents.

I must admit, I have very ambigous views on Sustrans. I like the idea of the
Sustrans maps. I don't like the way the thing is carried out in practice on
many an occasion. The usual paint a bike on a path and it's a 'facility' and
how the routes between towns are often very convoluted and not the best
route from A to B by bike. It also fosters the idea that bikes do not belong
on roads, so over all, I'm not a fan of Sustrans.

Cheers, helen s

I cycled along the Selby/York railway line at the weekend on the Sustrans path. My young lad isn't up to going on the road and this was great for him, - gets his interest up in cycling without me being worried about him being on the road and at the mercy of car drivers, and I don't need to get on his back, keeping on about keeping in etc. The path had a scale model of the solar system which stretched for 10 miles which had informative stuff for him (and me) so it wasn't a case of just being cycles painted on the floor. We had a great day, and got some exercise, so I would say thanks to Sustrans, and whilst they may not be perfect, I think overall they do more good than harm.

Chris Armstrong said:

I cycled along the Selby/York railway line at the weekend on the
Sustrans path. My young lad isn't up to going on the road and this was
great for him, - gets his interest up in cycling without me being
worried about him being on the road and at the mercy of car drivers,
and I don't need to get on his back, keeping on about keeping in etc.
The path had a scale model of the solar system which stretched for 10
miles which had informative stuff for him (and me) so it wasn't a case
of just being cycles painted on the floor. We had a great day, and got
some exercise, so I would say thanks to Sustrans, and whilst they may
not be perfect, I think overall they do more good than harm.

There are bits that are OK but large parts of it are poorly executed by
people who don't actually seem to use a bicycle or they would know
they'd got it wrong. There is the classic barrier problem which makes
them easily accessible only to single bikes without panniers, the
surfaces are often poor (at the Newcastle end of the C2C a horrible
black gungy surface that gets over everything in the wet) and the
junctions can be a nightmare (in Kings Lynn a single width blind bend
with a bollard in the middle just as you round the bend). Signing
leaves a lot to be desired too such that locals tend to be quite good at
redirecting lost cyclists.

I like the idea, I dislike Sustrans, their attitude and the way they
have gone about implementing it. As a short leisure ride as you used it
bits are fine, as a transport network, fuggedit.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

in message <[email hidden]>, tom

(') said:

Sandy Morton said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, Mike

Causer said:

So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it
worth highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and
sticking to the road?

IMVHO Sustrans are a group of people without married parents.

Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.

They aren't a cycling oriented sustainable transport charity. They may
have been that twenty years ago, but they aren't now. A lot of what
they're doing is very anti-cyclist and the majority of what they're
doing has nothing whatever to do with sustainability or transport. In my
part of the world, where Sustrans routes are on the roads they're mostly
OK, although not necessarily the road a cyclist would have chosen. But
where the route diverts off the road onto special cycle paths, they are
often actively dangerous, far more dangerous than the road. I hold up as
a special example of this the hill just west of Creetown, where the (two
way) cycle path is precipitous, very twisty through a wood with poor
sight-lines, and the tarmac is covered with moss, mud and slime. Someone
is going to get killed on there.

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

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.

tom said:

Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.

I am very happy that such a remit has general support from the UK
public. I am a lot less happy that they have routes where my ability to
cycle is reduced compared to taking the roads. Rather destroys a lot of
the point.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps what might make a better debate is whether this country should
ever have been in such a state that it required a charity, staffed with
many volunteers, to maintain a public transport infrastructure.

It might make a better debate, but compared to actually resolving the
problems of Sustrans paths it's a lot less likely to get anywhere
productive. Removing "Cyclists Dismount" signs and their associated
access gates with an encore of realising that paranoid road avoidance
isn't /always/ either helpful or even a safety improvement is a bit
easier than turning back time and changing the country's entire
transport culture.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Quoted message said:

I don't like the way the thing is carried out in
practice on many an occasion. The usual paint a bike on a path and it's a
'facility'

If only it were that easy, it could have saved Sustrans a whole lot of
money.

Quoted message said:

and how the routes between towns are often very convoluted and
not the best route from A to B by bike.

but your favourite route from A to B may differ from mine.

Quoted message said:

It also fosters the idea that
bikes do not belong on roads

In what sense? The National Cycle Network takes in a lot of roads, and
mainly quiet ones - which is nice. My first touring ride was
on a Sustrans path (Bristol to Bath), I had an awful mountain bike and all
my gear in a rucksack to camp overnight. I had an excellent time and I was
hooked, didn't look back. I doubt I'd have had such an excellent time if
I'd gone for a ride down the A4., wobbling all over the road.

While many Sustrans paths may not be suitable for racing, I don't think
that is entirely surprising, given that road cyclists like umm roads.
As far as I can see, Sustrans is about creating a movement, helping people
to make their first steps into cycling and then supporting them (I've
cycled a number of National Cycle Network routes, and will continue to).
While some of the network isn't suitable for commuting, it does provide
the original incentive to start riding which gives you the confidence to
take it one step further, which is exactly what I did. That said, in many
places their network is used for commuting, I can't comment for other
parts of the country but down here, the Bristol - Bath path is a very busy
one, with traffic flowing in both directions.

I do not believe it harbours the idea that cyclists have no place on the
road. When learning to drive a car, who doesn't search for an off-road
place to begin, to have those introductory lessons where you are working
out how to change gear, to brake etc?

There appears to be 2 schools of thought, those who think it is wrong to
remove cyclists from the 'street scene' by building paths away from roads,
and those that believe that a path away from a road is bliss. Personally,
if the quality of the path is good, I'd far rather be away from the road,
for reasons of safety and enjoyment.

I agree that some of the National Cycle Network has problems, I've cycled
on some awful tracks, and it frustrates me. On the whole, I am a big fan
of Sustrans though. If you don't want to cycle on their network, don't,
but certainly don't complain that they are inadequate, unskilled, not
interested in their jobs or otherwise, because that is clearly
disrespectful to an organisation which is trying to encourage the use of
the bicycle, and are very alone in this quest.

Tom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.

They aren't a cycling oriented sustainable transport charity. They may
have been that twenty years ago, but they aren't now.

We can either make jokes, or state facts. Mine is a fact. I think 20 years
ago, Sustrans were more of a pressure group, which is what you might be
confused about.

Quoted message said:

I hold up as a
special example of this the hill just west of Creetown, where the (two
way) cycle path is precipitous, very twisty through a wood with poor
sight-lines, and the tarmac is covered with moss, mud and slime. Someone
is going to get killed on there.

Perhaps you should take the responsibility to determine who the land owner
and manager of the specific path is and take the issue up with them.
Sustrans suffers from serious under-funding for the task they are trying
to achieve. Given their resources, they do an incredible job. It is very
easy to criticise their work on a local level, because Sustrans rely very
heavily on volunteers to do the vital work, that say - the Highways Agency
or local councils - are responsible for on the roads. These organisations
have vast amounts of money, and stil frequently get things wrong.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I don't like the way the thing is carried out in
practice on many an occasion. The usual paint a bike on a path and it's a
'facility'

If only it were that easy, it could have saved Sustrans a whole lot of
money.

Fair bit of money saved round here then ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and how the routes between towns are often very convoluted and
not the best route from A to B by bike.

but your favourite route from A to B may differ from mine.

Example - NCN 13 is a stone's throw from me. It goes between Dereham &
Fakenham. I frequently cycle up to Fakenham & my son does it foru times a
week during term time. We simply would not use the Sustrans route - it goes
all over the place. Fine for a convoluted pootle on a Sunday afternoon, but
as a transport network to get from A to B. Not round here. Plus it takes
people off perfectly fine roads and puts them on narrow footpaths - with
bikes painted on them, and with bollard in the middle of the bike lane...
And it seems from many other posters - not in many other places. If you look
at the "Cycle Facility of the Month" by the Warrington Cycle Campaign, an
awful lot of the pics are from Sustrans routes.

http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/

Indeed

http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/January2005.htm

Is the sort of thing I refer to.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It also fosters the idea that
bikes do not belong on roads

In what sense? The National Cycle Network takes in a lot of roads, and
mainly quiet ones - which is nice. My first touring ride was
on a Sustrans path (Bristol to Bath), I had an awful mountain bike and all
my gear in a rucksack to camp overnight. I had an excellent time and I was
hooked, didn't look back. I doubt I'd have had such an excellent time if
I'd gone for a ride down the A4., wobbling all over the road.

It fosters the idea the bikes do not belong on roads by preferring
'traffic-free' and by having cycle routes on what are effectively footpaths.

Quoted message said:

While many Sustrans paths may not be suitable for racing, I don't think
that is entirely surprising, given that road cyclists like umm roads.
As far as I can see, Sustrans is about creating a movement, helping people
to make their first steps into cycling and then supporting them (I've
cycled a number of National Cycle Network routes, and will continue to).
While some of the network isn't suitable for commuting, it does provide
the original incentive to start riding which gives you the confidence to
take it one step further, which is exactly what I did. That said, in many
places their network is used for commuting, I can't comment for other
parts of the country but down here, the Bristol - Bath path is a very busy
one, with traffic flowing in both directions.

As far as I understand it, the Bristol-Bath route is one of the few *good*
Sustrans routes.

Quoted message said:

I do not believe it harbours the idea that cyclists have no place on the
road. When learning to drive a car, who doesn't search for an off-road
place to begin, to have those introductory lessons where you are working
out how to change gear, to brake etc?

Well, we can differ in opinion. I honestly beleive Sustrans, as is, promotes
the idea that cars and bikes do not mix - intentionally or unintentionally.

Quoted message said:

There appears to be 2 schools of thought, those who think it is wrong to
remove cyclists from the 'street scene' by building paths away from roads,
and those that believe that a path away from a road is bliss. Personally,
if the quality of the path is good, I'd far rather be away from the road,
for reasons of safety and enjoyment.

I agree that some of the National Cycle Network has problems, I've cycled
on some awful tracks, and it frustrates me. On the whole, I am a big fan
of Sustrans though. If you don't want to cycle on their network, don't,
but certainly don't complain that they are inadequate, unskilled, not
interested in their jobs or otherwise, because that is clearly
disrespectful to an organisation which is trying to encourage the use of
the bicycle, and are very alone in this quest.

Tom

I think the CTC does excellent work in encouraging people on bikes, as does
many a cycling group. Sustrans isn't the only group doing this. But I do not
like the approach of Sustrans to get bikes off the road. YMMV.

Cheers, helen s

tom said:

Sandy Morton said:

In article
<[email hidden]>, Mike

Causer said:

So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it
worth highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and sticking
to the road?

IMVHO Sustrans are a group of people without married parents.

Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.

Sustrans has very little to do with transport and as such, its title is
a misnomer.

Sustrans can be credited with providing a few leisure routes, but few of
its routes are any use for a utility cyclist.

Further, Sustrans, by their actions, promote segregation of cyclists
into substandard ghettoes and undermine the cause of those of us who
prefer to use the extensive network of cycle facilities that are shared
with motor traffic. They do, therefore, more harm than good

I share Sandy's opinion, but do not feel obliged to be very humble about it.

Quoted message said:

Removing "Cyclists Dismount" signs and their associated
access gates

Or realising why they were there in the first place for those who moan. I
could be wrong, but I am under the impression that dismount signs are
often placed by local councils, rather than Sustrans - I don't think they
are particularly in favour of these nasty little things.

Access gates are a difficult one. I agree entirely that they are a pain
with panniers, and in some cases may prevent a specific type of bicycle
from getting on to a path. However, they are there for a reason. I'd far
rather spend an extra 10 seconds getting onto and off a path than have to
contend with kids on motorbikes or other similar vehicles, racing up and
down the track.

Quoted message said:

than turning back time and changing the country's entire transport
culture.

Not asking for that, what I was suggesting that it was time it was
recognised and something done in the future.

Quoted message said:

I think the CTC does excellent work in encouraging people on bikes,

Well I don't. I'm a CTC member, and I think their work is vital, but I
don't think they are aimed at the new cyclist. My perspective of the CTC
is that they are an organisation for supporting cyclists who are already
cycling, the very same people such as yourself who have the ability to
judge which path is a good one or not to use, and how to cycle safely on a
road.

Tom

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> In article <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven <[email hidden]> writes:

Mike Causer wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it worth
highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and sticking to the
road?

Quoted message said:

I've decided that since I believe Sustrans routes are generally [censored] and
misguided it would be hypocritical for me to turn out for the PR
exercise they are running at the weekend as much as it would be fun to
join all the cyclists who will be there.

So, get together and ride an alternative, sensible route at the same time.
Tell the local press why you're doing it.

--

Ian

To e-mail me, restore my initials to their proper place.
Ian is my middle name.

tom said:

Access gates are a difficult one. I agree entirely that they are a pain
with panniers, and in some cases may prevent a specific type of bicycle
from getting on to a path. However, they are there for a reason. I'd far
rather spend an extra 10 seconds getting onto and off a path than have to
contend with kids on motorbikes or other similar vehicles, racing up and
down the track.

IME they don't stop the kids on motorbikes. I have hauled our trailer
bike (and earlier, bike with baby seat and baby on back) over many of
these things, often several within a short distance of one another,
and still come accross kids on motorbikes zooming about. And the
presence of the barriers puts me off using the routes, particularly
with trailer bike in tow.

ISTM that what is needed is not more barriers but more enforcement,
perhaps nice cycling police officers seen in the area from time to
time might have some effect?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.

Sustrans has very little to do with transport and as such, its title is a
misnomer.

It's a bit like argueing that the BBC isn't an organisation involved in
broadcasting because you don't like their output. I quote "Sustrans is a
charity that works on practical projects to encourage people to walk,
cycle and use public transport".

The extent to which they are effective or interested in your views on
what it is you think they do is another matter. That IS their remit.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

IME they don't stop the kids on motorbikes.

No, but they discourage them. If you are a kid on a motorbike and you see
a nice looking track coming straight off a road with nothing to stop you
getting on it, you're going to get on it - right? Where you can zoom
around to your hearts content without getting into trouble.

You are absolutely right about the police officers, and that is something
for you to take up with your local authority or police force.

tom said:

Access gates are a difficult one. I agree entirely that they are a pain
with panniers, and in some cases may prevent a specific type of bicycle
from getting on to a path. However, they are there for a reason. I'd far
rather spend an extra 10 seconds getting onto and off a path than have to
contend with kids on motorbikes or other similar vehicles, racing up and
down the track.

If it were "an extra 10 seconds" you might have a good point, but in
practice you have to carry over them every time there's major access to
the path, which means getting on and off every mile or so in many places
IME.

And I'd sooner take my chances with the odd motorbike than keep having
to do that.

And beyond my personal feelings you have the fact that it closes off
access to the very groups who will most benefit. How is a tricycle
handcyclist meant to get their mount through these things?

Quoted message said:

Not asking for that, what I was suggesting that it was time it was
recognised and something done in the future.

But that doesn't help the "now", in which we have a major initiative
giving Joe and Jane public the idea that cycles don't belong on roads.

Sustrans have done and continue to do a lot of good, but that does not
excuse them from the downsides.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/