Connect2



Ekul Namsob wrote:

> Do Sustrans and the OS have a good reason for not cooperating with one
> another?

From the OS's POV, almost certainly money.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Ekul Namsob wrote:

> Silly me for not realising that I would need a special map to follow a
> route from the bottom of the road to the city centre that bears the sign
> 'Preston City Centre'.

No, it's not silly of you, but I think it's important to draw a
distinction between "have no clues between them" and "only have finite
resources". I'm certainly not Sustrans' biggest fan, I've slated a lot
of their work, but it remains the case that it's 1 or maybe 2 cheers for
them IMHO, rather than "bugger off and don't trouble us again".

> So, it's just to link some places across the nation for some bicycles.
> It's not for commuters, who might have panniers. It's not to encourage
> sustainable transport solutions. It's only for people keen enough to
> invest in a special map (because OS maps and those published by the
> council and publicised by Sustrans don't carry the necessary warnings)
> who are willing to swim or wade part way to work.

A case of a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. If the NCN was not
launched until it was perfect then it would never happen. I'm happier
being in a position to give 1 cheer with reservations now than planning
the 3 cheers that will never happen.

> Indeed, hence my suggestion that those stretches which are dangerous or
> clearly unsuitable should not be classed as part of the network.

Which requires constructive criticism. For example, at the end of our
2004 summer tour along 300 miles of NCN1 I sent Sustrans this:
http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ncn1comments.htm

I had back thanks for my comments and /some/ practical reassurances of
improvements. Not everything I want (they still seem obsessed with
doing the Tour de Scheme in urban areas), but at least something
workable, and something that armed with a bit of knowledge I can tweak
to get something useful out of. But if you think it should be all
things to all people you're living in a dream world.

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
On Dec 3, 9:01 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
Namsob) wrote:
> If you remind me about this after Christmas, I'm reliably informed (by
> the postman who delivered the thing) that I'll be getting one of these
> <http://tinyurl.com/ywalqg>.
>
> In particular, I'm planning to have a go at the Lancashire Cycleway
> (routes 90 and 91) next year and I notice that there's a bit of a gap
> there.

Very nice bit of kit. :) Would be great to get the Lancashire Cycleway
on there, shout if you need any help.

cheers
Richard
 
On 3 Dec, 14:15, redbirdo <[email protected]> wrote:
> I daresay there is no evidence, but for what its worth just over a
> year ago I started cycling again having not done so for several years.
> I started off with short rides on traffic free paths and gradually
> worked my way up through quiet roads to busier ones and am now
> reasonably confident in a range of traffic situations. This was not
> planned, it just worked out that way. So, for me using the traffic
> free routes did lead to me cycling more on the roads. If they hadn't
> been there I'm not sure I'd have had the confidence to get started.
>
> Vicki
Yep, me too: about 10 years ago, following many years of occasional
local road cycling (to shops, mainly) I started riding to work on my
new MTB along the Downslink off-road path. Now spend far more time
leisure commuting on-road, recumbent-stylee.
 
On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:01:44 GMT,
Ekul Namsob <[email protected]> wrote:
> Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Dec 3, 6:42 pm, [email protected] (Ekul
>> Namsob) wrote:
>> > > I think Peter's talking about the printed maps and you're talking
>> > > about the website maps. The former are excellent - not just the paid-
>> > > for ones, a lot of the free ones are top quality too. The website maps
>> > > are indeed terrible (I've blithered on about building an OSM
>> > > alternative here before so will stop there).
>> >
>> > Why build an OSM alternative? Couldn't people just contribute to OSM?
>>
>> Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I mean; we are using OpenStreetMap to
>> build an alternative to the Sustrans cycle maps. It's a cycle route-
>> focused rendering, so NCN routes etc. are played up, motorways played
>> down. http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm , updated weekly with the
>> latest db dump from OSM. All contributions welcome. :)
>
> If you remind me about this after Christmas, I'm reliably informed (by
> the postman who delivered the thing) that I'll be getting one of these
><http://tinyurl.com/ywalqg>.
>
> In particular, I'm planning to have a go at the Lancashire Cycleway
> (routes 90 and 91) next year and I notice that there's a bit of a gap
> there.
>
I've just bought a Legend HCx. Would have got the Vista HCx except that I've
already got the Summit and I've not been very impressed with the compass
(I suspect that's something to do with using it on a steel framed bike)
and I've never had a use for the altimeter.

Anyone considering one of the Etrex I'd definitely recommend the H (high
sensitivity) chipset. Even works in a Desiro.

There were two things that put me off the 305. The fact that it has a
built in battery and the cadence/speed sensor is one unit which makes it
impossible to use on a recumbent. I'm waiting for an etrex sized unit
that takes AA batteries and does heart rate and cadence.

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/
 
Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Mark Annand <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Ekul Namsob wrote:
>>
>>> The City Council have big plans for a Guild Wheel (to be launched for
>>> the Preston Guild of 2012) which should connect various parts of the
>>> city.
>> OT, but does Preston's replica tramway bridge across the Ribble serve a
>> useful function now, and is it in fair condition?
>
> The 'replica' tramway bridge? The old tram bridge carries a part of NCN6
> between Bamber Bridge and Preston. That section is actually quite good
> and provides a reasonable shortcut. It's unfortunate that it leads to a
> section of Avenham Park through which cycling is prohibited but I can
> see how some people who work in the city centre would happily use that
> stretch.
>
> Cheers,
> Luke

Thanks for this - it's a replica in the sense that the original was a
wooden bridge, the structure of which was rebuilt in concrete some time
ago - but to resemble the original. Glad to hear that it's still with
us, as concrete structures can have a ... chequered career.

Best wishes

Mark
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> London has a great network segregated cycle facilities.
>
> Local to my part of London:
> 1. The Thames Path - on both banks (meandering East - West)
> 2. The Waterlink Way - Deptford to Keston Ponds following the River
> Ravensbourne from mouth to source (heading south)
> 3. The Lea Valley path - (heading north)
> 4. The Greenway - Hackney to Barking Creek (Not so local to me)
> 5. Parts of the Green Chain Walk
>
> Indeed, I can escape from London in almost any direction and barely
> use road or pavement.

The Thames Path in the east and center is broken up into short sections.
You have to frequently use the road or pavement to join the bits up. In the
west, a lot of it it is on very rough unlit path.

This is typical of the segregated cycle facilities I stumble accross in
London and try to follow. Not what I call "great". Hardly counts as a
network at all, let alone a seriously useful one.

The Greenway is the best path I've found, but still it has not encouraged
large numbers of people to cycle on it.

~PB
 
Pete Biggs wrote:

> The Greenway is the best path I've found, but still it has not encouraged
> large numbers of people to cycle on it.

Mind you, cycle paths are quite a bit better when there's no crowding... ;-/

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 protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
Colin McKenzie <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
> Maybe towpaths and other good off-road routes are cycle ghettoes - but
> they serve the same function as those motor vehicle ghettoes, the
> motorways.
>
> If connect2 creates new, useful, direct routes, it's worth doing.

The M5 bypass bridge that would have taken ~7 miles off the
Weston-super-Mare to Bristol and WsM to Clevedon journeys was deslected
from Connect 2. Because of that and the website's bugs, I didn't vote
for it at all. It still won. It was ever going to, structured like that,
up against those others. Not going to improve cycling here, except by
maybe keeping Sustrans busy elsewhere. The other projects nearby didn't
seem too bad, but I'm not sure they're big improvements either.

Meanwhile, I was emailed by more than one person telling me how to
vote for Connect 2 multiple times. Voting fraud and perversion of
public opinion? You bet. Normal for lottery-funded projects IME.

Season's greetings,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...] Segregated facilities do /not/ encourage more
> cycling, and they do /not/ lead to more cycling on the road. I hold up
> East Kilbride as a clear and stunning example [...]
> So if these - genuinely good - segregated facilities 'encourage more
> cycling', where are the cyclists who are thus encouraged? [...]

I think the above contains a dangerous assumption that those who start
on segregated facilities in places like East Kilbride will ride on roads
in the same towns. How many will start on car-free routes and continue
on roads after they move?

That's what I did, more or less. Now, as a more experienced cyclist, I
realise the dangers of most facilities (bad junctions, primarily, which
is a fundamental problem in most facility-building and the only way to
avoid it is not to build) and that I'm usually better on the road, but I
wonder how common this story is. It's rather difficult to tell, as no-one
with enough resources to get decent general data seems to be doing so.

Then again, it may still mean that building car-free routes does little
to help the areas that host them, at best. At worst, the rise in 'get
off the road' driver behaviour removes existing cyclists.

Season's greetings,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
 
MJ Ray wrote:

> Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...] Segregated facilities do /not/ encourage more
>> cycling, and they do /not/ lead to more cycling on the road. I hold up
>> East Kilbride as a clear and stunning example [...]
>> So if these - genuinely good - segregated facilities 'encourage more
>> cycling', where are the cyclists who are thus encouraged? [...]
>
> I think the above contains a dangerous assumption that those who start
> on segregated facilities in places like East Kilbride will ride on roads
> in the same towns. How many will start on car-free routes and continue
> on roads after they move?

They don't /start/ on the car-free routes. That's the point. The 'segregated
facilities' are empty. Reasonably well surfaced, well engineered, no
difficult gradients, free from litter and broken glass, easy to ride,
direct, convenient and EMPTY. No-one uses them.

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

;; when in the ****, the wise man plants courgettes
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > I think the above contains a dangerous assumption that those who start
> > on segregated facilities in places like East Kilbride will ride on roads
> > in the same towns. How many will start on car-free routes and continue
> > on roads after they move?
>
> They don't /start/ on the car-free routes. That's the point. The 'segregated
> facilities' are empty. Reasonably well surfaced, well engineered, no
> difficult gradients, free from litter and broken glass, easy to ride,
> direct, convenient and EMPTY. No-one uses them.

I may have missed it, but have you got the traffic surveys for that,
or is this like the M5 drivers thinking the A38 is empty because they
don't see much on it? It sounds a very interesting phenomenon.

Regards,
--
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
 
MJ Ray wrote:

> Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
>> MJ Ray wrote:
>> > I think the above contains a dangerous assumption that those who start
>> > on segregated facilities in places like East Kilbride will ride on
>> > roads
>> > in the same towns. How many will start on car-free routes and continue
>> > on roads after they move?
>>
>> They don't /start/ on the car-free routes. That's the point. The
>> 'segregated facilities' are empty. Reasonably well surfaced, well
>> engineered, no difficult gradients, free from litter and broken glass,
>> easy to ride, direct, convenient and EMPTY. No-one uses them.
>
> I may have missed it, but have you got the traffic surveys for that,
> or is this like the M5 drivers thinking the A38 is empty because they
> don't see much on it? It sounds a very interesting phenomenon.

I use them. Some mornings I pass one other cyclist, on other mornings I
don't. In the evenings, I never see another cyclist on the cycle paths
(occasionally on the road). And that's 'rush hour', both ways.

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

-- mens vacua in medio vacuo --
 
On 03/01/2008 18:12, Simon Brooke wrote:
>>>No-one uses them.
>
> I use them.

Errr...

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis
 
On Nov 30 2007, 10:55 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>
> > Tony Raven wrote:
>
> I came to my "right answer" the same way as I did for helmets - by
> studying the evidence and finding my original beliefs had no evidential
> basis.  You seem to have come to your answer through anecdote and common
> sense.  If you have the evidence that cycle facilities significantly
> increases cycling levels and make it safer please share it.
>
> --
> Tony

Tony's reading of the 'evidence' is badly skewed. With regard to the
Bloomsbury cycle track, for example, he ignores the evidence that
shows that the track (and that in nearby Royal College Street) is very
popular with ordinary cyclists. The RCS cycle track saw a threefold
use in the route after it was implemented - and this well before the
congestion charged was introduced. It is true that a handful of
ideologues don't like the Bloomsbury track, but our aim in Camden was
to increase cycling levels and that was done very successfully. The
implementation was far from perfect, but that does not invalidate the
concept - just as Camden's abysmal implementation of 20 mph zones
does not necessarily invalidate the 20 mph limit idea which Tony
promotes.

The problem in the UK is that cyclists' lobbying organisations are
firmly attached to an ideology that elevates road cycling to iconic
status. This policy derives from the 1930s and is fiercely enforced
by UK cycling organisations and reproduced through the generations.

In fact, Tony is well aware that there is no solid evidence that
segregated tracks are more dangerous than road cycling. He is also
well aware that those countries which have extensive provision of
cycling tracks are also those countries which have higher levels of
cycling, better safety and, absolutely critically, a much better age
and gender cyclist profile. While in the UK (according to OECD
statistics) there are 10 male cyclists for every 1 female cyclist, in
countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland there is a
rough balance of the sexes in the cyclist profile.

Paul Gannon
 
> In fact, Tony is well aware that there is no solid evidence that
> segregated tracks are more dangerous than road cycling.

Wot, including junctions of these tracks and the roads?
 
On Jan 13, 12:19 pm, Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote:
> > In fact, Tony is well aware that there is no solid evidence that
> > segregated tracks are more dangerous than road cycling.
>
> Wot, including junctions of these tracks and the roads?

Well, if you think this is the case, please cite the evidence, rather
than just posing a rhetorical question
 
[email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 30 2007, 10:55 pm, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>> says...
>>
>>> Tony Raven wrote:
>> I came to my "right answer" the same way as I did for helmets - by
>> studying the evidence and finding my original beliefs had no evidential
>> basis. You seem to have come to your answer through anecdote and common
>> sense. If you have the evidence that cycle facilities significantly
>> increases cycling levels and make it safer please share it.
>>
>> --
>> Tony
>
> Tony's reading of the 'evidence' is badly skewed. With regard to the
> Bloomsbury cycle track, for example, he ignores the evidence that
> shows that the track (and that in nearby Royal College Street) is very
> popular with ordinary cyclists. The RCS cycle track saw a threefold
> use in the route after it was implemented - and this well before the
> congestion charged was introduced.

Can you cite that. btw What do you regard as an ordinary cyclist.


> The problem in the UK is that cyclists' lobbying organisations are
> firmly attached to an ideology that elevates road cycling to iconic
> status. This policy derives from the 1930s and is fiercely enforced
> by UK cycling organisations and reproduced through the generations.
>
> In fact, Tony is well aware that there is no solid evidence that
> segregated tracks are more dangerous than road cycling.

I have first hand experience that tells me that roads are safer than
tracks.


He is also
> well aware that those countries which have extensive provision of
> cycling tracks are also those countries which have higher levels of
> cycling, better safety and, absolutely critically, a much better age
> and gender cyclist profile. While in the UK (according to OECD
> statistics) there are 10 male cyclists for every 1 female cyclist, in
> countries such as the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland there is a
> rough balance of the sexes in the cyclist profile.

The question is:
Do cycle tracks encourage cycling, or does cycling attract cycle paths.
TBH I think it is the second, cycle tracks are not built for cyclists,
they are built to get cyclists out of the way of motorists.

Cycle tracks just encourage pavement cycling, which is one of the most
anti-social things in this country.


[email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 13, 12:19 pm, Mark T
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>>> In fact, Tony is well aware that there is no solid evidence that
>>> segregated tracks are more dangerous than road cycling.
>> Wot, including junctions of these tracks and the roads?
>
> Well, if you think this is the case, please cite the evidence, rather
> than just posing a rhetorical question

Luckily John Franklin has done this for us:

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html
Cycle path safety: A summary of research
 
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, [email protected] <> wrote:
> On Jan 13, 12:19 pm, Mark T
> <pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > In fact, Tony is well aware that there is no solid evidence that
> > > segregated tracks are more dangerous than road cycling.
> >
> > Wot, including junctions of these tracks and the roads?
>
> Well, if you think this is the case, please cite the evidence, rather
> than just posing a rhetorical question

Not sure I understand this - you are allowed merely to assert that
there is loads of evidence, but not actually post any. Anyone that
disagrees gets criticised for not posting evidence...

Where have you cited the solid evidence that segregated tracks are no
more dangerous than road cycling? Maybe I just missed it.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Connect2 phone voting
Replies
37
Views
785
UK and Europe
Danny Colyer
D
M
Sustrans Connect2 projects, vote early vote often!
Replies
7
Views
482
UK and Europe
MJ Ray
M
Top Bottom Back