Connect2

in message <[email hidden]>, Tony Raven

(') said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

And what if you just want a pottle in the countryside, perhaps along a
river, and away from noise and fumes?

There is a network almost as extensive as the roads for doing that
called the Rights of Way network. Look on the OS maps for bridleways
and byways. You can also use tow-paths if you print out the free on-line
license.

For those of us in Scotland, we have the right to cycle anywhere in the
countryside, with extremely few restrictions. This still isn't a reason
for building cycling ghettos.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
,/| _.--''^``-...___.._.,;
/, \'. _-' ,--,,,--'''
{ \ `_-'' ' /
`;;' ; ; ;
._..--'' ._,,, _..' .;.'
(,_....----''' (,..--''

Simon Brooke said:

If the motoring lobby (in which one has to include Sustrans - by their
fruits shall ye know them) succeed in getting cyclists off the roads in
some areas, the already widespread attitude that cyclists 'shouldn't be on
the roads' will spread and harden, and we'll all be worse off.

I won't allow motorists to bully me off the roads, and similarly I won't allow them to
prevent my enjoyment of a traffic-free section by worrying about their misconceptions.
On an extended touring holiday it's lovely to get off the road for a time to enjoy
cycling two abreast and having a chat.

Quoted message said:

The solution isn't building ghettos for cyclists. The solution is making
the roads safe for people.

"Ghetto" is rather an emotive word. Why does it have to be one or the other?

Alan

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Have you tried the local bridleways and byways at this time of year on
a touring bike?

Yes

Quoted message said:

And most of the non-Sustrans upgraded tow paths are
little better.

As are many Sustrans paths especially after a year or two of no
maintenance which is what happens with virtually all of them.

Quoted message said:

Compare:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/weekendrides/leavalley/PB252044
A Sustrans upgraded path.
with:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/weekendrides/leavalley/PB252063
A proposed Sustrans upgrade.

Personally I prefer the latter. If you want a surfaced route through
the countryside try something called a road.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

In article <94164380-5dc5-4ceb-81a0-5a6ca6198a27
@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Lon Las Cymru (NCN8) is a good example of how all of this can combine
to produce what was, for me, the most memorable ride of my life,
fairly farcility-free but with some fantastic Sustrans work on making
tracks cyclable - in an area where the sole road in every valley can
often be a primary route monopolised by take-no-prisoners HGVs.

What you need to remember is that while old railway tracks may be OK for
conversion, the majority of the RoW network is enjoyed for what it is by
a wide range of users - pedestrians, horse riders, off-road cyclists
etc. As an off road cyclist I don't want pleasant rural tracks
converted into Sustrans routes - if I wanted to cycle on a smooth
surface through the countryside I would use the road not a bridleway.
Please don't assume because you don't want to use them as is that
everybody thinks the same as you and it is OK to sanitise them into
quasi-roads.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw

wafflycat said:

- at pretty much any time of day or night, but there is still a myriad
of smaller roads that one can take and see little traffic. I've found
similar in other rural areas I've cycled in throughout the UK. The
difference is the corner of SE England where population density is much
higher than elsewhere.

This is dependant on topography and land use. Mountainous areas are rural but roads are
generally restricted to valleys so concentrate the traffic and can be very unpleasant
for cycling.

Alan

squeaker said:

Voting for the The Peoples' Lottery �50million Giveaway (so whose
money is/was it anyway!) is now open.
The Connect2 project to provide 'hard' infrastructure links at 79
locations in the UK might be of interest to those who frequent this
forum. �I appreciate it's Sustrans connection may turn some off, but I
can only suggest that you visit thepeoples50million.org.uk and make
your own minds up as to which of the 4 projects would be in cycling's
best interest.

One of the Sustrans schemes directly effects me. The road from
Brighton to Worthing (A259) is a nightmare to ride on and any
improvement is really welcome. Through this, if the plans go ahead,
locals might be able to persuade our council to do something about
other routes which are so very dangerous in the area (indeed so many
roads around the Downs are pretty much un-cycleable in the rush hour).
That's where the Sustrans bid is far better and more deserving than
the others as it will hopefully have a knock-on effect in so many
other ways.

"A.C.P.Crawshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said:

- at pretty much any time of day or night, but there is still a myriad of
smaller roads that one can take and see little traffic. I've found
similar in other rural areas I've cycled in throughout the UK. The
difference is the corner of SE England where population density is much
higher than elsewhere.

This is dependant on topography and land use. Mountainous areas are rural
but roads are generally restricted to valleys so concentrate the traffic
and can be very unpleasant for cycling.

Alan

Having cycled in hilly bits of Scotland, England & Wales, I found pleasant
cycling to be had without the need for farcilities.

wafflycat said:

Having cycled in hilly bits of Scotland, England & Wales, I found
pleasant cycling to be had without the need for farcilities.

I'd be hard pressed to find a pleasant, reasonably direct route from Cardiff to Brecon
if NCN8 didn't exist.

Alan

wafflycat said:

"A.C.P.Crawshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is dependant on topography and land use. Mountainous areas are
rural but roads are generally restricted to valleys so concentrate the
traffic and can be very unpleasant for cycling.

Quoted message said:

Having cycled in hilly bits of Scotland, England & Wales, I found
pleasant cycling to be had without the need for farcilities.

One of these cases where you can pick and choose your geography for the
side of the point you're making, ISTM.

So, along the Carse towards Perth? very nice. Up the A9 from Perth?
Not /my/ idea of "pleasant cycling"...

In summary, there are places I really do appreciate extra infrastructure
if it's done well, even though there are lots of places I'd much sooner
they didn't bother.

With the Perth-centric examples above, close by there are plans with
Connect2 to put in a cycle-bridge over the Tay to Scone. That will
avoid a rather unpleasant bit of main road with several sets of traffic
lights and make a very good short-cut. You could try and paddle through
the river if you preferred, but as the UK's biggest river by discharge
volume that may not be a particularly Cunning Plan!

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/

Peter Clinch said:

wafflycat said:

"A.C.P.Crawshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

This is dependant on topography and land use. Mountainous areas are
rural but roads are generally restricted to valleys so concentrate the
traffic and can be very unpleasant for cycling.

Having cycled in hilly bits of Scotland, England & Wales, I found
pleasant cycling to be had without the need for farcilities.

One of these cases where you can pick and choose your geography for the
side of the point you're making, ISTM.

So, along the Carse towards Perth? very nice. Up the A9 from Perth?
Not /my/ idea of "pleasant cycling"...

In summary, there are places I really do appreciate extra infrastructure
if it's done well, even though there are lots of places I'd much sooner
they didn't bother.

With the Perth-centric examples above, close by there are plans with
Connect2 to put in a cycle-bridge over the Tay to Scone. That will
avoid a rather unpleasant bit of main road with several sets of traffic
lights and make a very good short-cut. You could try and paddle through
the river if you preferred, but as the UK's biggest river by discharge
volume that may not be a particularly Cunning Plan!

And indeed there is a plan to put in another cycle route between St
Madoes and Walnut Grove which will avoid having to cycle alongside the
A90. On a 1m wide pavement with no hard shoulder and lorries using
this as the main route between the South and Aberdeen.
yes there is an alternative if you want to cycle up and over Kinnoul
hill - a 1 in 5 and an ice trap in the winter.

There is also a long running issue over a new path that would provide
a link between the crossing at glendoick and the roads south of the
A90.
Campaigners want 150m of cycle path to link a minor road to this new
interchange. The HA (or their equivalent in Scotland) are bemoaning
this claiming there was no link there before hand. The fact that
previously one could (in theory) ride on the A90 and turn right in
both directions has eluded them. Now one has to either ride against
traffic on a 70mph busy road or struggle along a grass verge.

Both these links would make the Dundee - Perth corridor realistically
cycle friendly. Neither takes a huge amount of cash either. There is a
precedent with the link across the Barry Buddon range. If you have the
alternative of riding the A92 (narrow, busy, etc.) or a direct off
road smooth tarmac track that is 4m wide, ie wide enough to safely
travel in pairs in both directions at speed, there isn't really too
much decision making to be done.

What we have seen locally is a progression. Routes are established and
signed (albeit temporarily) but over time the poor bits are improved
and usage reflects this. Yes we have loads of nice minor roads that
are a joy to cycle on. It is the bits in between that need to be
targetted, the disjunctions in the system. People don't choose to not
ride because they don't have a cycle path on a quiet country lane,
they choose to not ride because they don't want to share 150m of main
road with 70mph rush hour traffic. At every meeting I have had with
the local cycle planners I have reiterated the need to remove bottle
necks. OK, route signing is good, but don't waste pots of money on
20km of unjoined white paint on pavements, spend it on things like
improving crossings over major roads and secure cycle parking.

From what I have seen of the Sustrans schemes, this is what they
propose to do. Big money allows the big projects to happen. Instead of
25k being grudgingly given by the local council to signpost a poor
route (still worthy in many cases as it highlights the possibilities
of cycle access) 250K can provide a foot/cycle bridge.

...d

David Martin said:

And indeed there is a plan to put in another cycle route between St
Madoes and Walnut Grove which will avoid having to cycle alongside the
A90. On a 1m wide pavement with no hard shoulder and lorries using
this as the main route between the South and Aberdeen.
yes there is an alternative if you want to cycle up and over Kinnoul
hill - a 1 in 5 and an ice trap in the winter.

Or "NCN 77" as it is known, one of those bits of NCN that runs along
Normal Roads, but quite a bit further as well as steeper than the one
actual road along the obvious flat route to Perth which, proud vehicular
cyclist though I usually am, I really don't want to use on my bike, and
judging from the practically zero cycles I see on it I'm not alone.

Quoted message said:

Both these links would make the Dundee - Perth corridor realistically
cycle friendly. Neither takes a huge amount of cash either. There is a
precedent with the link across the Barry Buddon range. If you have the
alternative of riding the A92 (narrow, busy, etc.) or a direct off
road smooth tarmac track that is 4m wide, ie wide enough to safely
travel in pairs in both directions at speed, there isn't really too
much decision making to be done.

Though of course the A92 has changed a lot too, now being 4 lanes wide
all the way to Arbroath but more to the point having a pretty good
looking cycle track alongside it the whole way, and since the turn-offs
in rural Angus aren't actually that numerous the sort of track I'm happy
to take if I'm going that way.

I think the important thing to note is that "vehicular cycling" isn't
/always/ the best way, despite the amount of mind-pummellingly dozy
schemes across the land, and a targeted facility isn't /always/ the best
way either, even if it /is/ done well. We have an option of the best of
both worlds, and cutting off our noses to spite our faces doesn't
achieve that.

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/

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, Nigel Cliffe

(') said:

wafflycat said:

In the countryside you simply don't require special farcilities.
Roads have relatively little traffic compared to urban areas - in my
bit of the countryside, there's places I can cycle for miles and not
see a car, especially on a weekend or out of 'rush hour' times when
folk are driving to work. No fumes, little traffic (if any at all at
times) and absolutely no need for any special Sustrans farcilities
to achieve that - I simply look at an OS map & decide where I'm
going.

But you live in one of the quietest bits of the UK for road traffic,
with a low population.

Nonsense, on both counts. If you said 'of England', you might be
right (but I'd be surprised). It isn't that Norfolk (or Herefordshire
or Northumberland or Cumbria or North Yorkshire or virtually the
whole of Scotland except Lanarkshire and Lothian or anywhere in Wales
apart from the south-east corner or the whole of Northern Ireland)
have an abnormally low population density. It's that south-east
England has an abnormally high population density.

And nonsense to you to. Throwing an insult at those questioning the
"conventions" of the newsgroup is becoming a common trait here.

The population density in Norfolk/Suffolk isn't particularly high, but
fundamental issue not human population level, its road traffic levels,
which, I suggest, is related to the amount of road per head of population.

Lots of the UK has very low population per area, but it also has a sparse
road network reflecting that lack of population. So, in parts of Highland
Scotland there is often only one road route between two places. That route
will be used by everyone; 40 ton fish lorry heading to Spain, the post-van,
the tourist with caravan half asleep after a 15hr drive, local farmer,
100mph thrill seeking nutter and occaisional cyclist. On the roads of
Norfolk and Suffolk, most of the heavy traffic takes to the arterial trunk
roads, leaving the minor roads free for slower traffic.

Its my view that that Norfolk lanes are quieter than those in Cumbria
(excluding the busier Lake District National Park). I've cycled both at
similar times of the year. I've looked at moving to Cumbria, and one
factor against is the lack of road cycling routes compared to my current
home in Suffolk.

Back at Connect2, one of the biggest obstacles to cycling are narrow
bottlenecks - quarter of a mile along a dual carriageway, a difficult big
roundabout, a difficult right turn, two miles along a major A road. Those
problems are very common in urban areas, and sometimes in rural places where
road "improvements" have turned a road into a quasi-motorway, or
nose-to-tail fast traffic.
Short of legislating the cars/lorries off the road, one needs to find ways
around these bottlenecks. If someone proposes to spend money on a means to
get around a bottleneck, and maintain it (which frequently gets forgotten in
the UK), then it might help cycling levels.

- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

Tom Crispin said:

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:15:59 -0000, "wafflycat"

w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

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

Quoted message said:

If the motoring lobby (in which one has to include Sustrans - by their
fruits shall ye know them) succeed in getting cyclists off the roads in
some areas, the already widespread attitude that cyclists 'shouldn't be on
the roads' will spread and harden, and we'll all be worse off.

The solution isn't building ghettos for cyclists. The solution is making
the roads safe for people.

Exactly. Couldn't have put it any better myself.

And what if you just want a pottle in the countryside, perhaps along a
river, and away from noise and fumes?

if it is rual use the lanes or bridleways, what sustrans give one is
essenally park paths.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

A.C.P.Crawshaw said:

wafflycat said:

- at pretty much any time of day or night, but there is still a myriad
of smaller roads that one can take and see little traffic. I've found
similar in other rural areas I've cycled in throughout the UK. The
difference is the corner of SE England where population density is much
higher than elsewhere.

This is dependant on topography and land use. Mountainous areas are rural
but roads are generally restricted to valleys so concentrate the traffic
and can be very unpleasant for cycling.

not allways, i grew up on the edge of the south wales valleys while
you'd have to be a confident rider to use the heads of the valley road.
the main problem for road bikes is the hills there are plenty of leafy
lanes but they also tend to bloody steep, 30% or more. attaully the real
problem for biking on the road is the mounatins are just behind the
garden gate.

Quoted message said:

Alan

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Roger Merriman wrote on 28/11/2007 17:23:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And what if you just want a pottle in the countryside, perhaps along a
river, and away from noise and fumes?

if it is rual use the lanes or bridleways, what sustrans give one is
essenally park paths.

I don't like riding on bridleways, particularly if it's been raining
recently, because in my experience they're variously rutted, swampy or
just muddy. A compacted surface - not necessarily gravelled or
tarmacced! - I find easier.

Peter

--
http://www.scandrett.net/lx/
http://www.scandrett.net/bike/

Peter Scandrett said:

Roger Merriman wrote on 28/11/2007 17:23:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

And what if you just want a pottle in the countryside, perhaps along a
river, and away from noise and fumes?

if it is rual use the lanes or bridleways, what sustrans give one is
essenally park paths.

I don't like riding on bridleways, particularly if it's been raining
recently, because in my experience they're variously rutted, swampy or
just muddy. A compacted surface - not necessarily gravelled or
tarmacced! - I find easier.

Peter

whats wrong with lanes?

okay i grew up walking/riding and in time driving up and down lanes. but
why not lanes? they normally will be going the way you wanted?

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Tony Raven said:

Quoted message said:

Compare:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/weekendrides/leavalley/PB252044
A Sustrans upgraded path.
with:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/weekendrides/leavalley/PB252063
A proposed Sustrans upgrade.

Personally I prefer the latter. If you want a surfaced route through
the countryside try something called a road.

I frequently frequent roads - and have no problem cycling on some of
the country's busiest: A74 Carlisle to Gretna, A23 Portsmouth to
Havant, A2 Sun in Sands Roundabout to the M25. However, there are
times when I prefer a gentle pootle in a motor traffic free
environment - and I'd rather not slip and slide my way along a narrow
muddy track with nettles tickling my ankles.

Sustrans routes can also be a great place for new or nervous cyclists
to gain confidence.

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

wafflycat said:

"A.C.P.Crawshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> This is dependant on topography and land use. Mountainous areas are
> rural but roads are generally restricted to valleys so concentrate the
> traffic and can be very unpleasant for cycling.
Having cycled in hilly bits of Scotland, England & Wales, I found
pleasant cycling to be had without the need for farcilities.

One of these cases where you can pick and choose your geography for the
side of the point you're making, ISTM.

So, along the Carse towards Perth? very nice. Up the A9 from Perth?
Not /my/ idea of "pleasant cycling"...

In summary, there are places I really do appreciate extra infrastructure
if it's done well, even though there are lots of places I'd much sooner
they didn't bother.

With the Perth-centric examples above, close by there are plans with
Connect2 to put in a cycle-bridge over the Tay to Scone. That will
avoid a rather unpleasant bit of main road with several sets of traffic
lights and make a very good short-cut. You could try and paddle through
the river if you preferred, but as the UK's biggest river by discharge
volume that may not be a particularly Cunning Plan!

And indeed there is a plan to put in another cycle route between St
Madoes and Walnut Grove which will avoid having to cycle alongside the
A90. On a 1m wide pavement with no hard shoulder and lorries using
this as the main route between the South and Aberdeen.
yes there is an alternative if you want to cycle up and over Kinnoul
hill - a 1 in 5 and an ice trap in the winter.

There is also a long running issue over a new path that would provide
a link between the crossing at glendoick and the roads south of the
A90.
Campaigners want 150m of cycle path to link a minor road to this new
interchange. The HA (or their equivalent in Scotland) are bemoaning
this claiming there was no link there before hand. The fact that
previously one could (in theory) ride on the A90 and turn right in
both directions has eluded them. Now one has to either ride against
traffic on a 70mph busy road or struggle along a grass verge.

Both these links would make the Dundee - Perth corridor realistically
cycle friendly. Neither takes a huge amount of cash either. There is a
precedent with the link across the Barry Buddon range. If you have the
alternative of riding the A92 (narrow, busy, etc.) or a direct off
road smooth tarmac track that is 4m wide, ie wide enough to safely
travel in pairs in both directions at speed, there isn't really too
much decision making to be done.

What we have seen locally is a progression. Routes are established and
signed (albeit temporarily) but over time the poor bits are improved
and usage reflects this. Yes we have loads of nice minor roads that
are a joy to cycle on. It is the bits in between that need to be
targetted, the disjunctions in the system. People don't choose to not
ride because they don't have a cycle path on a quiet country lane,
they choose to not ride because they don't want to share 150m of main
road with 70mph rush hour traffic. At every meeting I have had with
the local cycle planners I have reiterated the need to remove bottle
necks. OK, route signing is good, but don't waste pots of money on
20km of unjoined white paint on pavements, spend it on things like
improving crossings over major roads and secure cycle parking.

From what I have seen of the Sustrans schemes, this is what they
propose to do. Big money allows the big projects to happen. Instead of
25k being grudgingly given by the local council to signpost a poor
route (still worthy in many cases as it highlights the possibilities
of cycle access) 250K can provide a foot/cycle bridge.

More power to your elbow.
More cycling routes for my MK2 Trike!!.
Tam

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is a cracking thread.
I do hope it goes on at this level.
Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.
Why not take the improvements AND cycle on the roads.
Must go into my dark dank garage to weld up the new trike s stub axle
carriers.
Incidentally 12mm high tensile bolts make excellent axles for Sturmey
Archer hubs.
Does nt steering geometry give you a headache.
Tam

Make no mistake, the more money spent on 'traffic-free' farcilities, where
cyclists are segregated away from roads, the greater the clamour to get us
off the roads completely. It's already been tried in the recent changes to
the Highway Code where a proposed change in wording would have meant that
cyclists would have been effectively forced off the roads on to cycle
farcilities if they didn't want to be found guilty of contributory
negligence if hit by a motorist, even if it was entirely the fault of the
motorist, if there was a farcility nearby. It was only because of intense
lobbying by cycling groups such as the CTC and by individual cyclists
kicking up a fuss that the proposed changes got dropped. The more money
spent on segregated farcilities, then there will be louder and louder cries
of 'we've spent £X millions' on providing cycle paths, you have to use them'
and it *will* be to the detriment of our current right to cycle on the road.
Another reason I will not support Sustrans who actively promote cycle
segregation. Simon is correct when he uses the term 'ghettoes' to describe
farcilites. If segregated farcilites are so good, then Milton Keynes should
be a positive beacon for cycling, due to its network of redways, but it
isn't. Indeed, there is a lower amount of cycling there than in surrounding
areas without the same level of segregation.

See http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html and
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:31:05 -0000, "wafflycat"

w*a*ff£y£cat*@£btco*nn£ect.com said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is a cracking thread.
I do hope it goes on at this level.
Sad to see cyclists arguing against cash being spent on cycling.
Why not take the improvements AND cycle on the roads.
Must go into my dark dank garage to weld up the new trike s stub axle
carriers.
Incidentally 12mm high tensile bolts make excellent axles for Sturmey
Archer hubs.
Does nt steering geometry give you a headache.
Tam

Make no mistake, the more money spent on 'traffic-free' farcilities, where
cyclists are segregated away from roads, the greater the clamour to get us
off the roads completely.

I see no evidence to back up that claim. Indeed, the opposite may be
the case.

Segregated facilities encourage more cycling. More cycling on
segregated facilities will lead, in time, to more cycling on roads.