Connect2



Simon Brooke wrote:

> I've said - and I say again - that on a case-by-case basis, I'll support
> useful strategic links. But I won't support Sustrans, since they seem in
> my experience to be a Bad Thing, actively harmful to my and other
> cyclists' interests.
>

Herein lies a local problem, though. I pretty much agree with what
you've said about Sustrans in this thread. However, local cyclists who
know much more about the traffic issues than I do are clear that the
Connect 2 project in my area - the proposed bridge over the River Tay -
will be of great benefit to current and future cyclists. The project
has only grown legs as a result of fitting in with Connect 2. I've
voted for that scheme, therefore, in support of the views of colleague
cyclists. I don't believe that in doing so I've suddenly given my
blessing to all of the work of Sustrans.

I don't see a problem with supporting this particular scheme while
continuing to campaign for local road improvements and against
unnecessary and harmful cycle paths.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk
 
On 30/11/2007 14:38, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Both rangers and local authorities. The former tend to use stickers,
> the latter tend to put proper signposts up. I prefer the stickers as
> they're harder for the local in-breds to turn round!

When someone suggests putting up signs at a local authority cycle
meeting, I always ask that square posts should be used. It's great fun
to see the enlightenment spread across a council official's face as
(s)he realises just how easy it can be to stop signs from being turned
round.

--
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
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> However, back in the real world....
>
> Tony appears to be arguing that a bridge over a 70mph dual carriageway, or
> an underpass crossing a major bypass intersection where two 70mph roads meet
> with an intermediate roundabout, complete with high-speed side lanes, is a
> bad thing and should be opposed by all "cyclists who support right to ride
> on the road". His argument appears to be that the cyclist should use
> those roads to complete their journeys, rather than any cycle facility.
>
>
> Well, that might be fine for Tony. But it isn't going to get lots of people
> cycling. If the dual carriageway blocks your route, the average person does
> not assert their right to cycle. They assume cycling is impossible (it is to
> them) and take to their car. That appears to be the point of the majority
> of the "Connect2" proposals - provide a way around a blockage for
> pedestrians and cycles.
>
>

I have already stated I have no problem with facilities that provided
genuine new route options for cyclists but I do have problems with those
that parallel other routes. A short anecdotal story:

I used to cycle up Milton Road in Cambridge (being shouted at and
skimmed by cars for not cycling on the adjacent cycle path that crosses
something like 40 driveways, five side roads and several entrances to
pubs and shops). I would then cycle across the A14 roundabout/bridge
and on up the A10. I did that daily for years and I had no problems
with the traffic and neither did the many others I saw cycling the same
route. Then they decided to build a cyclists bridge. Its ungritted in
winter and fires you out into a trading estate with lots of big trucks
moving around. Then because there was the cycle bridge for cyclists the
road planners could have free reign in redesigning the road layout for
cars. These days you would have to be very brave to cross the A14 using
the road bridge and you see almost no-one doing so. Essentially the
facility has allowed the road to be made uncycleable for most people and
I don't believe that would have happened if the planners weren't able to
assume cyclists would be using the cycle bridge instead. Further south,
the M11 roundabout over which I also cycled daily remains as it was and
is just a cycleable today as it was then.

On top of that Sustrans have shown an incompetence at building cycle
facilities - there should be a Sustrans Facility of the Month site - so
on top of the above I have no confidence in Sustrans competence to build
a useful link. You'll probably find them replete with the usual
barriers to anything but a pannierless upright bicycle.

As for getting people cycling I'm still waiting for someone to come up
with evidence that cycle facilities create a significant increase in
cycling. It seems to be about as rare as the evidence that helmets save
lives.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

>
> David, I've possibly overstated my case here. Where a cycle route provides
> a genuine saving of distance or of gradient or an alternative to a busy
> and complex junction, /and/ is well surfaced and lit and swept to the same
> standard as nearby roads, and there is a strategic reason for putting a
> link there (i.e. a substantial population who could use the link if it
> were built, whether or not they currently cycle), and where the link
> crosses any existing roads at grade, there are traffic lights giving at
> least equal priority to cycle traffic, then I'm happy to support it.
>

You forgot to include the gritting in winter when its icy. Cambridge
spent millions on a cyclist bridge but have said they cannot afford the
costs of gritting it in winter. So in winter its left icy.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> But, for example, following NCN7 from Creetown into Gatehouse of Fleet, you
> get routed off a wide, quiet village street with a 30mph speed limit which
> takes you past all the cafes and shops, and instead taken through a maze
> of footpaths and back alleys and pedestrian bridges, with a number of 90
> degree turns you simply would not be able to ride a tandem through.
>

On the Northern Ireland Antrim Coast you could take the relatively quiet
and quite cyclable A2 from Cushenden to Ballycastle down the valley or
the Sustrans route that has a prolonged and steep climb over the
adjacent mountains. You would have to be a committed cyclist to do the
Sustrans route and I doubt it does anything to encourage people to
cycle.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> However, local cyclists who
> know much more about the traffic issues than I do are clear that the
> Connect 2 project in my area - the proposed bridge over the River Tay -
> will be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.

Local cyclists in Camden were clear that the Bloomsbury segregated
cycleway would be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
Apart from being downright dangerous it was recently described as the
worst place to cycle in London

--
Tony

?The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd.?
Bertrand Russell
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> However, local cyclists who
>> know much more about the traffic issues than I do are clear that the
>> Connect 2 project in my area - the proposed bridge over the River Tay -
>> will be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
>
> Local cyclists in Camden were clear that the Bloomsbury segregated
> cycleway would be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
> Apart from being downright dangerous it was recently described as the
> worst place to cycle in London

So the numpties in Camden are wrong /and therefore/, by
association, the punters on Tayside /must/ be wrong too.

Or not...

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/
 
Simon Brooke wrote:

>> moan moan grumble grumble grumble. How many long distance cycle
>> tourists do you know that don't carry maps?
>
> Exactly.

Exactly what? You can do Aberdeen to Thurso with one map which
bothers marking eateries and campsites and has cycle-specific info
(such as suggesting an alternative route but noting you do need to
carry bikes onto a foot-bridge by steps, and if off-road sections
have access gates and if so how many anbd where). You can't do
that without Sustrans.

> OK, if it has added value, what is that added value? Better surface?
> reduced speed of motor traffic? What have Sustrans added to those roads
> which makes them any /different/ - let alone any /better/ - for cycling
> than they would have been anyway?

You've now got a continuous, and continuously mapped and signed,
route and that is easier to follow than the plain old roads with
their signs designed for cars.

> OK, let's admit those over-elaborate
> cast iron signposts that give distance information in the most obscure
> places (the nearest one to here is in the middle of a carpark, which
> no-one in their right minds would cycle through and isn't on the NCN
> anyway).

I have no idea what you're talking about having never seen such a
thing, so I've not been including it.

> But apart from them, what?

I can cycle a short distance and have a sign to a place and a
direction to it that is from a cyclist's perspective. I never used
to get that. Without it, if I want to go to Perth or Forfar I'll
find myself on the A90, and I really /don't want to do that/.

> The roads were there. As you have agreed, anyone going cycling in an
> unfamiliar area has to take a map anyway, so you cannot argue the signing
> is a 'benefit'. The condition of the roads is unchanged.

There's a very, very big difference between having a map for the
odd double-check and having to constantly refer to it. And that
big difference is complete and frequent loss of momentum. And if
you try and pretend that doesn't matter, then I shall call you for
talking utter tosh.

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/
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> Bike builder Marin Gerritsen's site on cycle touring in the Netherlands
> gives a good insight into the Dutch cycling nirvana for keen cyclists as
> opposed to rolling pedestrians.
> http://www.m-gineering.nl/touringg.htm

I don't think NL is cycling Nirvana, but where it isn't it isn't
entirely down to not being able to use the roads. You're still
trying to address all levels of the thing with one argument, and
it's just dopey. One thing the Dutch are good at is pragmatic
policy, rather than assuming the world is black and white, and
that's a good lesson here. There are places where "vehicular
cycling" is good for everyone, and there are times where it's scary
and unpleasant, isn't any quicker for the bike and slows down the
traffic. That is *not* a good result, so please stop selectively
quoting examples that only fit the right answer you've already decided.

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/
 
Tony Raven wrote:

> I have already stated I have no problem with facilities that provided
> genuine new route options for cyclists but I do have problems with those
> that parallel other routes.

Simply stating "parallel" is such a stupidly incomplete description
of the possibilities that exist that it makes it an absurd piece of
tarring numerous different things with the same brush. It needs
far more context than "parallel" to be a useful point.

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/
 
Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
> > However, local cyclists who
> > know much more about the traffic issues than I do are clear that the
> > Connect 2 project in my area - the proposed bridge over the River Tay
> > - will be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
>
> Local cyclists in Camden were clear that the Bloomsbury segregated
> cycleway would be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
> Apart from being downright dangerous it was recently described as the
> worst place to cycle in London

So let me get your argument straight:

1. Cyclists near the River Tay are wrong about their local area
2. Cyclists in Camden are wrong about their local area
3. Tony Raven always knows best

What have I misunderstood?

Richard
 
On Nov 30, 6:17 pm, Simon Brooke <[email protected]> wrote:
> in message <[email protected]>, Peter Clinch
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > But you are going further than it's reasonable to go, IMHO. For
> > example, your immediately recent dismissal of any on-road NCN not having
> > /any/ added value.
>
> OK, if it has added value, what is that added value? Better surface?

YMMV may vary, obviously. But my experience is that the NCN routes on
rural roads are really well chosen, and that's why I come back to them
again and again. Among the ones I've cycled I'd cite particularly good
examples as the whole of NCN 8 (south of Criccieth); NCN 47 across
Pembrokeshire and Carmarthenshire (simply outstanding); NCN 5 from
Reading to Didcot and from Kidlington to Bromsgrove; NCN 23 from
Basingstoke to New Alresford; NCN RR47 from Burford to Northleach...
the list goes on.

In all these cases the roads were there beforehand, yes, but I
wouldn't have known how eminently cyclable they were. I like going off-
piste too, but I'd be the first to admit that many of my self-chosen
routes have actually turned out to be ****. And generally, in the
countryside, the signposting is good: it's the suburbs where it falls
down (sometimes literally ;) ).

Another plus is that the popular routes attract cycle touring
infrastructure. I found NCN 8 very cycle-friendly, even in the depths
of March: B&B proprietors were used to cyclists' requirements, road
garages had started catering for cycle repairs, and so on. Sustrans'
first major "challenge" route, the C2C, is of course the best example
of this.

I'm sure you'll come up with counter-examples in your view and your
area, but then I think it's becoming pretty apparent from this thread
that the most vocal urc posters are not Sustrans' target audience.

Richard
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> says...
>> However, local cyclists who
>> know much more about the traffic issues than I do are clear that the
>> Connect 2 project in my area - the proposed bridge over the River Tay -
>> will be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
>
> Local cyclists in Camden were clear that the Bloomsbury segregated
> cycleway would be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
> Apart from being downright dangerous it was recently described as the
> worst place to cycle in London
>

Well I know nothing of that route but I must assume it was poorly
designed or badly executed to be so unfit for its purpose. Of course it
would be a challenge to ensure that the Connect 2 projects were
well-designed, well-executed and properly maintained. That challenge
might not be adequately met. That still doesn't damn all such efforts
as intrinsically useless.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk
 
Simon Brooke wrote on 30/11/2007 13:04:
> You'll need the maps anyway, since the NCN signing is neither consistent
> nor continuous.

That's not always sustrans or the council's fault. I have been in the
situation on several occasions that the NCN signage is excellent out of
town, but when I found myself in an urban area the signs have been
missing, vandalised or otherwise tampered with. There's not a great deal
that can be done about that, is there?

As a side issue - in this case I think the stick-on reassurances of the
NCN routes on lampposts are really helpful - because if you miss a sign
you can retrace your steps and check you're on track rather than
carrying on in the hope of seeing another change of direction sign, and
a sticker isn't as vandalisable as a sign.

I thought whoever pointed out the point that cycle routes are often
invisible 'from the side' was very insightful, too.

Peter

--
http://www.scandrett.net/lx/
http://www.scandrett.net/bike/
 
On Nov 30, 9:42 pm, Peter Scandrett <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's not always sustrans or the council's fault. I have been in the
> situation on several occasions that the NCN signage is excellent out of
> town, but when I found myself in an urban area the signs have been
> missing, vandalised or otherwise tampered with. There's not a great deal
> that can be done about that, is there?

At OpenStreetMap we're attempting to map the NCN:

http://www.gravitystorm.co.uk/osm/
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/WikiProject_United_Kingdom_National_Cycle_Network

At present the maps are only viewable as raster images online, but
eventually we hope to produce downloadable PDFs for each route - so
even if you do choose to take a map, you don't have to pay for it.

cheers
Richard
 
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:42:28 -0000, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>says...
>> However, local cyclists who
>> know much more about the traffic issues than I do are clear that the
>> Connect 2 project in my area - the proposed bridge over the River Tay -
>> will be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
>
>Local cyclists in Camden were clear that the Bloomsbury segregated
>cycleway would be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
>Apart from being downright dangerous it was recently described as the
>worst place to cycle in London

Who by?

www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/issues/priority/bloomsbury/
 
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:36:07 -0000, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I have already stated I have no problem with facilities that provided
>genuine new route options for cyclists but I do have problems with those
>that parallel other routes.

Take a look at:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/misc/a27

It shows the A27 between Portsmouth and Havant.

Just to the south of the A27 you can make out the parallel Sustrans
cycle track.

I have cycled both the A27 and the Sustrans track. The Sustrans track
is undoubtedly slower than the A27, probably 25% slower - but it turns
a challenging and, frankly, terrifying journey into a pleasure.

Do you have a problem with this Sustrans inter-town connection?
 
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:36:09 -0000, Tony Raven
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>
>>
>> David, I've possibly overstated my case here. Where a cycle route provides
>> a genuine saving of distance or of gradient or an alternative to a busy
>> and complex junction, /and/ is well surfaced and lit and swept to the same
>> standard as nearby roads, and there is a strategic reason for putting a
>> link there (i.e. a substantial population who could use the link if it
>> were built, whether or not they currently cycle), and where the link
>> crosses any existing roads at grade, there are traffic lights giving at
>> least equal priority to cycle traffic, then I'm happy to support it.
>>
>
>You forgot to include the gritting in winter when its icy. Cambridge
>spent millions on a cyclist bridge but have said they cannot afford the
>costs of gritting it in winter. So in winter its left icy.

When I was in Cambridge I used a cyclist bridge over the railway
daily. I cannot recall a problem with ice.

For some reason I thought you were based near Reading.
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
> > says...
> >> However, local cyclists who
> >> know much more about the traffic issues than I do are clear that the
> >> Connect 2 project in my area - the proposed bridge over the River Tay -
> >> will be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
> >
> > Local cyclists in Camden were clear that the Bloomsbury segregated
> > cycleway would be of great benefit to current and future cyclists.
> > Apart from being downright dangerous it was recently described as the
> > worst place to cycle in London
>
> So the numpties in Camden are wrong /and therefore/, by
> association, the punters on Tayside /must/ be wrong too.
>

No, but assuming that because its a local cyclist group they will know
what's best is not always a good assumption. I've seen quite a few god
awful provisions installed at the request of local cyclists.

--
Tony

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has
taken place"
George Bernard Shaw
 
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> I don't think NL is cycling Nirvana, but where it isn't it isn't
> entirely down to not being able to use the roads. You're still
> trying to address all levels of the thing with one argument, and
> it's just dopey.


Not at all. The overwhelming probability is that any attempt to
install cycling facilities in the UK will be badly done. You can either
spend all your time hoping that next time you will have educated them to
do it a bit better, although that has been going on for years without
visible impact, or you can take the simple pragmatic approach of
dissuading them from trying in the first place given that the roads are
good, the cycle facilities are likely to encourage them to tamper with
the roads and make them worse and the cycle facilities they install will
need a lot of effort to try to get them to make them usuable. The
Cambridge Cycle Campaign spends a lot of time and effort trying to
educate the Council and then having to campaign for them to put right
what they have just installed. There seems to be no evidence that the
Council is learning from this exercise.

> One thing the Dutch are good at is pragmatic
> policy, rather than assuming the world is black and white, and
> that's a good lesson here. There are places where "vehicular
> cycling" is good for everyone, and there are times where it's scary
> and unpleasant, isn't any quicker for the bike and slows down the
> traffic. That is *not* a good result, so please stop selectively
> quoting examples that only fit the right answer you've already decided.
>

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

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