Sustrans Blues

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 22:11:04 +1000, wheelist
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It seems to me that every time I read a thread about Sustrans they get a
rather one-sided bashing. I tend to think that the majority of the
routes (at least the ones I've ridden) are good, despite the occasional
lack of thought.

For leisure rides they are often just fine. For commuting (i.e.
sustainable transport, which is kind of what's implied by the name
Sustrans) they are, almost without exception in my experience,
useless. There are stretches of NCN around me, I very rarely use
them. Never by design, in fact, and when I do use them by coincidence
it's generally only the quiet road sections.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:15:39 +0100, Mark McNeill
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

[Am I the only one who can hear Colin Sell in the background?]

<humph>With luck, yes</hump>

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff€y€cat*@€btco*nn€ect.com>

Quoted message said:

MJ Ray said:

In my experience, Sustrans have been more responsive by telephone and
email, while CTC do stupid things like emailing MIMEd and Worded texts
that I can't read, even when asked not to.

Then you don't actually know the CTC. It is now called the CTC precisely
because it does far far more than talk about touring. It simply is the UK's
main cycling organisation for cyclists, especially utility cyclists.

In reply to both helen s and clive -

Quite possibly I don't know the CTC, but my time with their local
volunteers is limited because we're all quite active and the
nationally-produced materials that I've seen (printed, web, email)
are inaccessible, uninformative or confusing. If it now doesn't mean
anything (and the "CTC is..." page of the web site doesn't confirm it),
their opaque name sums up my experience of them perfectly!

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you aren't aware of the excellent insurance and legal help the CTC
provides to its members so that if they are injured whilst cycling, they can
have suitable recourse to professional help and financial recovery.

I'm aware of it, but it's not interesting because I'm insured by a co-op.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you aren't aware of the vast amount of work the CTC does providing
cycle training - to provide the trainers and the courses for people to learn
how to cycle safely and with confidence.

I'm not aware of that, but maybe that's because I didn't even know that Peter
Church was a CTC member, let alone being the only CTC-listed adult training
provider in Norfolk or its neighbours (as far as I can see - their listing
service seems a bit of a mess. Who put North Kent under N, far away from Kent?)

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you don't know the the CTC is largely responsible for the
legislators in the UK knowing that the changes proposed to the Highway Code
were detrimental to the interests of all cyclists.

That was the topic where CTC kept sending me encoded emails after I heard
about it via the local Bicycle User Group. How much more could CTC do if
its communications weren't so mangled?

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you don't know that the CTC has a very good off-road section.

I don't go off-road for fun.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you don't know that the CTC makes sure that cyclists who do not wish
to be effectively forced off-road by the ever greater provision of off-road
farcilities have their rights to cycle on road protected.

No, I didn't know that. How does it make sure of that?

Quoted message said:

Last time I contacted my local Sustrans rep, he came out with a huge load of
twaddle about how cycling on a narrow shared-use cycle farcility with
strategically placed concrete bollards was supposed to be safer than cycling
on a wide, smooth road alongside. And how if I were to follow the Sustrans
suggested route to Fakenham from my place, I'd be doubling mileage quite
unnecessarily. Nice for a pootle, but nothing at all to do with SUStainable
TRANSport.

Why did he tell you about the double milage? It sounds like your local rep is
confused. Have you spoken to Nigel Brigham at the regional office about this?
Please do.

Quoted message said:

Oh how I wish Sustrans was not listened to by local authorities, as it seems
to tell non-cycling members of such places what non-cyclists think cyclists
want and need.... such as the painting of white outline bikes on footpaths
which miraculously turns them into shared-use farcilities, thus encouraging
cyclists, novice cyclists in particular, to think it's okay to cycle on the
footpath - period.

Sustrans guidence clearly explains the limited situations where segregated
paths are needed and advocates unsegregated otherwise. Even so, my main
problem with converting footpaths into shared-use is the low design speed
and consequent poor surface of off-road tracks. Even when there is a
road-side facility, high-speed cyclists will still need to be on-road.

Quoted message said:

I have no time for Sustrans through experience of their supposed
'facilities'

Come 'cyclynn' in sunny King's Lynn, where Sustrans NCN Route 1 now runs
along some picturesque riverside to the south and some converted ex-trunk
road to the north (and hopefully the Council will have removed those
stupid loose chippings from it by now...), with its two converted railway
lines (Sandringham Railway Path and Hardings Way) giving fairly fast,
flat direct routes through most of the urban area, with good sight-lines
and mostly-decent surfaces. Then maybe you'll see why I think they *can*
do good sometimes.

There's nothing like that with CTC's name on it yet here. I'm not saying
they're doing bad, but I don't usually hear what they do do beside some
member services and answering consultations. Sustrans helps build useful
things (and the odd design-fart, I agree) and explains things clearly to me.

Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/

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

Quoted message said:

There's nothing like that with CTC's name on it yet here. I'm not saying
they're doing bad, but I don't usually hear what they do do beside some
member services and answering consultations. Sustrans helps build useful
things (and the odd design-fart, I agree) and explains things clearly to
me.

Yes. That's because the CTC recognise that there's already a rather enormous
network of routes already available to cyclists. They're very active in
keeping these routes open for us. Do you want a CTC badge on every road sign
to commemerate this? Unfortunately this isn't as obvious as building a
labelled bike route - but it's far more useful.

cheers,
clive

wafflycat said:

I have little time for Sustrans.

I'm with Helen; my experience of Sustrans routes has led me to
purposefully avoid them. Bollards in the middle of narrow blind bends,
barriers blocking the route to all but the smallest, lightest, unloaded
bike, poor surfaces..... I've seen them all. They are a poor apology
for a cycle infrastructure.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Tony Raven said:

I'm with Helen; my experience of Sustrans routes has led me to
purposefully avoid them. Bollards in the middle of narrow blind bends,
barriers blocking the route to all but the smallest, lightest, unloaded
bike, poor surfaces..... I've seen them all. They are a poor apology for
a cycle infrastructure.

There's a well-written rant about Sustrans & other farcilities here:
http://www.brickbats.co.uk/Articles/Worry.html

Mike

wheelist said:

The major cycling organisations (CTC/British Cycling/Sustrans) seem to
regard each other as enemies. Certainly not as partners in the fight to
increase the number of cyclists and improve facilities, which is what
they all purport to do individually.

The problem is that one of them (ie Sustrans), is endorsing (and
possibly even adopting) policies that are sometimes damaging to the
aim of getting decent treatment of cyclists on the roads. Bad
facilities are very much worse than no facilities, and some of teh
sustrans endorsed facilities are indeed bad.

In my opinion, no, we should not be blindly supporting an organisation
that is sometimes doing harm to the cause of cycling as useful
transport mode.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

MJ Ray said:

Even once you know, a touring club is not interesting to many so-called
'utility' cyclists, whereas Sustrans is.

Tosh and bollocks, in my opinion.

Sustrans cares barely at all about utility cyclists. Sustrans caters
for recreational riders with very little purpose to their journey, not
utility cyclists. There are apparently a few sustrans facilities that
are useful to commuters and the like, but more by accident than
judgement, it seems.

Quoted message said:

Sustrans helps find off-road routes for us

Exactly. Everywhere that utility cyclists want to go, there is an
on-road route to already. Almost invariably, an off-road route is
not a utility route, because if there were a utilitarian purpose to a
route, someone would have built a road long ago.

Quoted message said:

Most of the time, Sustrans seem more clueful than Council or Police
reps,

Well yes, but it's not difficult to be more useful than a chocolate
teapot, either.

Incidently, your own observations contradict your stated belief - the
CTC does not use its former name, because it is no longer just a club
for cycle-tourists. That's why it's now called the CTC, not the
Cyclists Touring Club.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

MJ Ray said:

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff€y€cat*@€btco*nn€ect.com>

Quoted message said:

on a wide, smooth road alongside. And how if I were to follow the Sustrans
suggested route to Fakenham from my place, I'd be doubling mileage quite
unnecessarily. Nice for a pootle, but nothing at all to do with SUStainable
TRANSport.

Why did he tell you about the double milage? It sounds like your local rep is
confused. Have you spoken to Nigel Brigham at the regional office about this?
Please do.

Eh?

Are you saying the sustrans rep should have concealed the fact that
it's twice as far by sustrans 'facility' as it is by road?

Quoted message said:

problem with converting footpaths into shared-use is the low design speed
and consequent poor surface of off-road tracks. Even when there is a
road-side facility, high-speed cyclists will still need to be on-road.

So you're now saying sustrans, beacon of provision for utility
cyclists, is actually providing 'facilities' unsuited for people that
actually want to get where they are going in a timely manner? So
that's provisaion to utility cyclists who want their journey time
increased? Your notion of utility cycling seems a little divorced
from any I have previously encountered.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have no time for Sustrans through experience of their supposed
'facilities'

Come 'cyclynn' in sunny King's Lynn, where Sustrans NCN Route 1 now runs
along some picturesque riverside

QED.

The discussion is about utility cycling, and the first thing the
defender of sustrans can come up with is how pretty the route is. Not
that it's useful, not that it's direct, not that it is quick,
not, in fact, any utilitarian quality. But it is pretty.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Clive George" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Yes. That's because the CTC recognise that there's already a rather enormous
network of routes already available to cyclists. They're very active in
keeping these routes open for us. [...]

That's not my experience here. Six main streets in King's Lynn town centre
are closed to cyclists, including some that are open to motorists at certain
times. These closures block strategic cycle routes and there was a small
consultation on removing one of them. It failed. I don't remember CTC even
mentioning it.

If you can point to examples of CTC deterring the horrible "Cyclists
Dismount" (almost every road crossing), "Cycling Prohibited" (most
of the town centre) and "End of Route" (used any time any cycle route
rejoins a road) signs and their associated restrictions, I'll praise
that work whole-heartedly, but this town is *littered* with them.

--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/

Ian Smith <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The problem is that one of them (ie Sustrans), is endorsing (and
possibly even adopting) policies that are sometimes damaging to the
aim of getting decent treatment of cyclists on the roads.

I challenge you to find any such policy.

Quoted message said:

Bad
facilities are very much worse than no facilities, and some of teh
sustrans endorsed facilities are indeed bad.

Yes, there are some bad endorsed facilities. What are you doing to
get their endorsement reversed or the facility fixed or removed?

--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/

"MJ Ray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
for Sustrans through experience of their supposed

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

'facilities'

Come 'cyclynn' in sunny King's Lynn, where Sustrans NCN Route 1 now runs
along some picturesque riverside to the south and some converted ex-trunk
road to the north (and hopefully the Council will have removed those
stupid loose chippings from it by now...), with its two converted railway
lines (Sandringham Railway Path and Hardings Way) giving fairly fast,
flat direct routes through most of the urban area, with good sight-lines
and mostly-decent surfaces. Then maybe you'll see why I think they *can*
do good sometimes.

No thanks. If there's another NCN route I *loathe* it's NCN 1 through King's
Lynn. Three punctures in under half and hour due to the glass shards on it
:-( Avoiding dogs being allowed to run across the shared use farcilities on
long leashes... Avoiding footballs from the local yoof. Indeed, the amount
of white bicycles painted on King's Lynn footpaths is one reason I really
don't enjoy cycling in King's Lynn. Then there's the barriers that are
designed to keep motorcycles out, but don't yet cause hassle to get round on
a normal bike and if you happen to be on a recumbent - you have to lift the
recumbent over the barriers. No wonder kids think it's okay to cycle on
footpaths, KL is infested with the white bike painted on footpaths. Got to
get bikes off the roads!

Norfolk is a wonderful county for cycling in, but King's Lynn town for
cycling is not a pleasant experience for me. Cycling last night from
Grimston to Wendling was an absolute joy - but I avoid KL the town for
cycling. It's easier to cycle in Norwich than in King's Lynn and Norwich has
more traffic the KL and it's easier to cycle in the Parisian rush hour than
either Norwich or KL.

Cheers, helen s

in message <[email hidden]>, MJ

Ray (') said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[...] He asked me how I knew and I told him it was due to being a CTC
member. "Who?"

As someone who only got involved with the societies side of cycling in
the last year or two, I'm not surprised. Some CTC members *never*
expand the acronym on first use - you're not so famous you can avoid
it - and the same is true of some CTC publicity materials - see how
quickly you can find it on www.ctc.org.uk

Even once you know, a touring club is not interesting to many so-called
'utility' cyclists, whereas Sustrans is.

Except that, of course, that the CTC isn't primarily a touring club and
hasn't been for at least a century. Which may be why they don't expand
the acronym very often. CTC does far more for you as a utility cyclist
(and for me as a leisure/sporting cyclist) than Sustrans and British
Cycling put together ever will. The CTC is your national political
lobbying organisation, your legal defence fund, your local social rides
organiser, and much more besides.

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

;; 'I think we should trust our president in every decision
;; that he makes and we should just support that'
;; Britney Spears of George W Bush, CNN 04:09:03

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

Quoted message said:

Why did he tell you about the double milage? It sounds like your local rep
is
confused. Have you spoken to Nigel Brigham at the regional office about
this?
Please do.

He didn't. It's entirely clear from looking at a map and comparing the route
taken by Sustrans and the actual route that is 'sensible' without having to
get from A to B without going via X, Y and Z.

If I was being asked by a cyclist about how to get to Fakenham, I wouldn't
be saying follow the Sustrans signs unless they wanted a route that was very
indirect.

Cheers, helen s

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

Quoted message said:

Yes. That's because the CTC recognise that there's already a rather
enormous network of routes already available to cyclists. They're very
active in keeping these routes open for us. Do you want a CTC badge on
every road sign to commemerate this? Unfortunately this isn't as obvious
as building a labelled bike route - but it's far more useful.

cheers,
clive

Yes, those things called roads are an excellent network available to
cyclists. Use a map and you can have many an enjoyable hour of cycling on
excellent surfaces :-)

MJ Ray said:

Ian Smith <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The problem is that one of them (ie Sustrans), is endorsing (and
possibly even adopting) policies that are sometimes damaging to the
aim of getting decent treatment of cyclists on the roads.

I challenge you to find any such policy.

Farcility of the month this month.

Lots of the restrictive gates on lots of the sustrans paths.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Bad
facilities are very much worse than no facilities, and some of teh
sustrans endorsed facilities are indeed bad.

Yes, there are some bad endorsed facilities. What are you doing to
get their endorsement reversed or the facility fixed or removed?

Bing a member of my local cycle forum and asking the local highway
authority what they are doing about them, mainly. However, what I am
doing about it is irrelevant to the issue of why sustrans is endorsing
them in the first place.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

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

Quoted message said:

MJ Ray said:

Ian Smith <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The problem is that one of them (ie Sustrans), is endorsing (and
possibly even adopting) policies that are sometimes damaging to the
aim of getting decent treatment of cyclists on the roads.

I challenge you to find any such policy.

Farcility of the month this month.

Lots of the restrictive gates on lots of the sustrans paths.

URL being:-

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

Which is on glorious NCN 13 just down the road from me. Hedge has been
trimmed, so at least now you can see the large concrete bollard which gives
a chance to avoid it at least. Is this an improvement? ;-)

Cheers, helen s

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

Quoted message said:

If you can point to examples of CTC deterring the horrible "Cyclists
Dismount" (almost every road crossing), "Cycling Prohibited" (most
of the town centre) and "End of Route" (used any time any cycle route
rejoins a road) signs and their associated restrictions, I'll praise
that work whole-heartedly, but this town is *littered* with them.

Any chance of knowing why Sustrans effectively endorse such signs in the
first place by having them on cycle farcilities carrying the NCN signs?

See

http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/November2005.htm

and as for this..

http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co.uk/WarringtonCycleCampaign/facility-of-the-month/February2003.htm

and how about this :-O

http://www.nuttycyclist.co.uk/cycling/farcilities-signs-sustrans.htm

Cheers, helen s

MJ Ray said:

That's not my experience here. Six main streets in King's Lynn town centre
are closed to cyclists, including some that are open to motorists at certain
times. These closures block strategic cycle routes and there was a small
consultation on removing one of them. It failed. I don't remember CTC even
mentioning it.

Kings Lynn is home to one of the crappiest bit of Sustran route I've
come across. Its here:
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=52.774836,0.431728&spn=0.011838,0.041971&om=1
and involves crossing a side road near its junction with a main road,
doing a sharp left on onto the pavement and then an immediate sharp
blind narrow right into a concrete bollard. The person who designed it
must have been two wheels short of a bicycle.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

wafflycat said:

Yes, those things called roads are an excellent network available to
cyclists. Use a map and you can have many an enjoyable hour of cycling
on excellent surfaces :-)

Except in Kings Lynn it would seem where the network of hopeless
Sustrans routes and bicycles painted on pavements would appear to have
convinced the council it was OK to close some roads to bicycles.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci