Maybe so but I wonder if the walkers I saw knew that and anyway my
question
Quoted message said:
still stands.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Is a cycle way a route where walkers should beware of cyclists or is it the other way round?
If you regard NCW designation as a route designation, not a user designation then you'll learn to accept that there will be users other than cyclists on the route. Remember, NCW route sections that are off road have always been designed to accommodate a range of users as part of the Sustrans philosophy of giving access to as many non-motorised transport users as possible. It isn't always possible to provide broad well surfaced within the budgets available and cyclists will have to learn to co-exist with walkers.
I've dug out a Sustrans map and looked at some of the Good Cycling Code contained within:
Be courteous:
Give way to pedestrians Remember that some people are hard of hearing or visually impaired. Don't assume that they can see or hear you. Where there are wheelchair users or hoprse riders, please give way Ring a bell or politely call out to warn of your approach; acknowledge people who give way to you.
I'd regard the quoted speeds as excessive when passing pedestrians at close quarters and their ire is justifiable. If sustained speed is the primary reason for being on the bike, use a minor road.
always been designed to accommodate a range of users as part of the
Sustrans
Quoted message said:
philosophy of giving access to as many non-motorised transport users as possible. .
Fair point and one that should equally be bourne in mind by those not on a bike I would have thought
It's the cyclist that's expected to cede to the pedestrian and equestrian. It's a pleasure to come across bike savvy pedestrians but sadly all to often, especially when in groups, they exhibit similar behaviour to sheep i.e. scatter in all directions making safe passage more difficult.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
I'd regard the quoted speeds as excessive when passing pedestrians at
close
Quoted message said:
quarters and their ire is justifiable. If sustained speed is the
primary
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
reason for being on the bike, use a minor road.
It is not possible to cycle between Callander and Strathyre on anything other than the cycle way or busy trunk road. You may hold that opinion re the speed however I am not aware of any speed limit in force on cycle
ways.
There may not be a speed limit per se but there will be a safe speed, open to interpretation of course, for passing pedestrians safely without cause distress and surprise. By all means cycle as fast as you want when the cycle way is clear but slowing down for passing pedestrians and equestrians is good for fostering good relationships between the disparate groups of users.
"bob watkinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
It seems to me what some people are saying is that these are cycle tracks
in
Quoted message said:
name only, and that we (cyclists) may be tolerated on them just so long as we do not interfere with those who have arrived in cars to walk four
abreast
Quoted message said:
on them.
A rather jaundied view. I don't have specific knowledge of the NCW path that you use but the ones that I have used: C2C, Three Rivers Route, Selby - York route and White Rose Way have local users who use the paths as much for pleasure as folk who drive out to the start (or middle) of them in their cars, offload their bikes and carve up the chattering hoards of pedestrians without a backwards glance. It cuts both ways Bob.
Is it a cycle route or isn't it? If the chattering hordes of pedestrians were to walk down the M6, would you consider that reasonable?
An entirely separate argument.
A cycle route is designed to accomodate non motorised transport users from the outset. Legislation excludes non motorised transport users from motorways from the outset.
That's not an excuse. Agreed whoever routed a National Cycle Route and a long distance footpath over the same piece of track should be shot, but fifteen - or even thirty - miles per hour should not be seen as unreasonable speeds for cycles on a designated cycle route.
No, it's prudent for planners to promote shared use. In many instances planning consent and access rights would not be granted for single categories of users. Excluding walkers from the outset and many of the existing off road routes quite simply would not exist.
It's really irresponsible of planners to promote walker/cyclist conflict; designated cyclepaths should never also be designated footpaths (and, obviously, vice versa).
No, it's prudent for planners to promote shared use. In many instances planning consent and access rights would not be granted for single categories of users. Excluding walkers from the outset and many of the existing off road routes quite simply would not exist.
Rode out on the tandem along route 7 near Callander yesterday. Riding at an average speed of about 15mph I was surprised at the amount of abuse I got by startled walkers who said I should slow down. Is a cycle way a route where walkers should beware of cyclists or is it the other way round? Also I was a little disappointed by the roughness of the route as I approached Strathyre. Is it generally the case that off road sections of the NCW network are often only suitable for mountain bikes or is this just a dodgy section?
Also I was a little disappointed by the roughness of the route as I approached Strathyre. Is it generally the case that off road sections of the NCW network are often only suitable for mountain bikes or is this just a dodgy section?
NCN?
No, that's very common. I find the paths terribly disappointing and no use at all for "sustainable transport".
Also I was a little disappointed by the roughness of the route as I approached Strathyre. Is it generally the case that off road sections of the NCW network are often only suitable for mountain bikes or is this just a dodgy section?
NCN?
No, that's very common. I find the paths terribly disappointing and no use at all for "sustainable transport".
Recently rode the railway path from Scarborough to Whitby [ Route 1 ].The surface ( if you can call it a surface ) was a disgrace.Muddy and rough just about sums it up which is a shame as some of the views are stunning.The signing leaves something to be desired as well especially around Ravenscar.
Also I was a little disappointed by the roughness of the route as I approached Strathyre. Is it generally the case that off road sections of the NCW network are often only suitable for mountain bikes or is this just a dodgy section?
NCN?
No, that's very common. I find the paths terribly disappointing and no use at all for "sustainable transport".
I also find some of the paths dissappointing. Not the Spen Valley Greenway though. Tarmac all the way, wide enough all the way. Not sure it actually goes anywhere useful but whenever I have used it on Winter Sunday mornings its been busy with family groups. No good for a speedy ride but perfect for a stree free tootle in the fresh air. The Selby - York could be perfect if only it was tarmac and a wider in places.
"bob watkinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:
Rode out on the tandem along route 7 near Callander yesterday. Riding at an average speed of about 15mph I was surprised at the amount of abuse I got by startled walkers who said I should slow down.
The route there is not just a cycle route, it's also part of a recognised long distance footpath, The Rob Roy Way (http://www.robroyway.fsnet.co.uk/).
That's not an excuse. Agreed whoever routed a National Cycle Route and a long distance footpath over the same piece of track should be shot, but fifteen - or even thirty - miles per hour should not be seen as unreasonable speeds for cycles on a designated cycle route.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:
Is a cycle way a route where walkers should beware of cyclists or is it the other way round?
Both.
Yes, but surely if a cycle route has any meaning at all it's a route on which cyclists can maintain reasonable speeds. If we all have to go at walking pace, what on earth is the point of calling it a 'National Cycle Route'?
Yes, but surely if a cycle route has any meaning at all it's a route on which cyclists can maintain reasonable speeds. If we all have to go at walking pace, what on earth is the point of calling it a 'National Cycle Route'?
It scores brownie points for the political animals that hover over so many of these things......
Frankly; I don't blame the walkers for their reaction.... On foot something hurtling towards you at 15MPH is a real problem, particularly if you're tired or unsure of your footing..... Doesn't leave the walker with enough reaction time..... OTOH ,, as a cyclist, I can fully appreciate the frustration the OP and others have expressed...
Yes, but surely if a cycle route has any meaning at all it's a route on which cyclists can maintain reasonable speeds. If we all have to go at walking pace, what on earth is the point of calling it a 'National Cycle Route'?
The segregated paths are an interesting approach around towns, but even if they cycle bit is separated from the pedestrian bit by a big white line, is painted red, and has big pictures of cycles along its length, the pedestrians still insist on walking all over it. This means that cyclists end up riding on the footpath and it all gets confused.
- Richard
-- _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard dot Corfield at ntlworld dot com _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street, _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ Except in the Twilight Zone.
If you regard NCW designation as a route designation, not a user designation then you'll learn to accept that there will be users other
than
Quoted message said:
cyclists on the route. Remember, NCW route sections that are off road
have
Quoted message said:
always been designed to accommodate a range of users as part of the
Sustrans
Quoted message said:
philosophy of giving access to as many non-motorised transport users as possible. .
Fair point and one that should equally be bourne in mind by those not on a bike I would have thought
Quoted message said:
I'd regard the quoted speeds as excessive when passing pedestrians at
close
Quoted message said:
quarters and their ire is justifiable. If sustained speed is the primary reason for being on the bike, use a minor road.
It is not possible to cycle between Callander and Strathyre on anything other than the cycle way or busy trunk road. You may hold that opinion re the speed however I am not aware of any speed limit in force on cycle ways.
It is not possible to cycle between Callander and Strathyre on anything other than the cycle way or busy trunk road. You may hold that opinion re the speed however I am not aware of any speed limit in force on cycle ways.
What you've got is the car drivers dream A road (ish) that is entirely de- restricted so that you can be the judge of the appropriate speed rather than some faceless bureacrat in an office somewhere. That you have ben unable to limit your speed to levels that do not intimidate other road (ish) users gives lie to the naive witterings coming from certain parts of the road lobby (Pool Smyth, ABD(?) etc).
You have never gone too fast for either the limitations of your bike or the track. Merely too fast for the other users. This is not a reflection on you, of course, just on human nature.
It seems to me what some people are saying is that these are cycle tracks in name only, and that we (cyclists) may be tolerated on them just so long as we do not interfere with those who have arrived in cars to walk four abreast on them.
