Walking and Cycling: an action plan

John Hearns said:

The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/page/dft_susttravel_029200.hcsp

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I think
we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes)

I've said it before, but in general Sustrans paths == nice
not-too-challenging surfaces suitable for MTBs, so the family can hang
the bikes on the back of the car, drive to the start, ride 5 miles then
come home again. They have very little to do with sustainable
*transport*. Try commuting on one, unless you like arriving at work
covered in dust/slime (delete according to weather conditions).

Problem I find with cycle paths is that there's all sorts of junk strewn all
over them, from dog [censored] to broken bottles and stones. Whilst I applaud the
principle of installing these cycle paths, in reality you need IMO to be on
the road IMO.
KM

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/page/dft_sust
travel_029200.hcsp

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I think
we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes) and little talk of people getting to work via the roads,
and little talk of making main roads safer.

Yes, there is talk of Home Zones and Quiet Roads in rural areas,
so it does deserve praise.

One phrase stands out to me:"Although
most walking and cycling takes place on the local road networkthere is
scope for improving the safety of pedestrians and cyclists around national
roads"No-one would advocate cycling on the M1, or indeed big roads like
the A34. But this phrase smacks to me of "get those walkers and cyclists
offonto their own paths where they can pottle along and not get in theway
of ministerial Jaguars"
Sorry if I'm sounding cynical.

Zog The Undeniable said:

John Hearns said:

The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/page/dft_susttravel_029200.hcsp

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I think
we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes)

I've said it before, but in general Sustrans paths == nice
not-too-challenging surfaces suitable for MTBs, so the family can hang
the bikes on the back of the car, drive to the start, ride 5 miles then
come home again. They have very little to do with sustainable
*transport*. Try commuting on one, unless you like arriving at work
covered in dust/slime (delete according to weather conditions).

They also allow those whose function is to meet road safety targets, to
claim that accidents have fallen and cycle use has increased.

John B

Problem seems to be that, while transport is becoming more and more
polarized between walking and cycling and any other means of getting about
on your own steam and locomotion through the use of internal combustion
engines, most of us - at least those of us who use both methods - know that
it is possible to mix the two - the Dutch can do it
"Katanga-Man" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Problem I find with cycle paths is that there's all sorts of junk strewn

all

Quoted message said:

over them, from dog [censored] to broken bottles and stones. Whilst I applaud

the

Quoted message said:

principle of installing these cycle paths, in reality you need IMO to be

on

Quoted message said:

the road IMO.
KM

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/page/dft_sust

Quoted message said:

travel_029200.hcsp

Quoted message said:

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I

think

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes) and little talk of people getting to work via the

roads,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and little talk of making main roads safer.

Yes, there is talk of Home Zones and Quiet Roads in rural areas,
so it does deserve praise.

One phrase stands out to me:"Although
most walking and cycling takes place on the local road networkthere is
scope for improving the safety of pedestrians and cyclists around

national

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

roads"No-one would advocate cycling on the M1, or indeed big roads like
the A34. But this phrase smacks to me of "get those walkers and cyclists
offonto their own paths where they can pottle along and not get in

theway

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of ministerial Jaguars"
Sorry if I'm sounding cynical.

Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:40d56e28.0@entanet...

Quoted message said:

I've said it before, but in general Sustrans paths == nice
not-too-challenging surfaces suitable for MTBs,

But don't they also put their nice blue signs on roads I've been riding on
for 40 years (and me Dad) and claim them as cycle friendly routes to polish
their figures?

Pete

Peter B said:

But don't they also put their nice blue signs on roads I've been riding on
for 40 years (and me Dad) and claim them as cycle friendly routes to polish
their figures?

Yeah, to link up the gravel bits.

I *know* that planning permission and finances stop them laying tarmac
in most cases, but tarmac is what road bikes are designed for, and MTBs
are too slow on the road bits (unless you fit clicks, then they can't do
the gravel bits). Some people will tackle these paths on touring bikes,
and I have, but (a) you never know in advance whether it will be smooth,
well-crushed stone, sand (yes really) or neat railway ballast and (b)
even the well-crushed stone throws up gloop in the wet.

I'd be interested in a study of whether these paths actually increase or
decrease vehicular traffic.

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:40d5a6a1.0@entanet...

Quoted message said:

Peter B said:

But don't they also put their nice blue signs on roads I've been riding

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

for 40 years (and me Dad) and claim them as cycle friendly routes to

polish

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their figures?

Yeah, to link up the gravel bits.

I *know* that planning permission and finances stop them laying tarmac
in most cases, but tarmac is what road bikes are designed for, and MTBs
are too slow on the road bits (unless you fit clicks, then they can't do
the gravel bits). Some people will tackle these paths on touring bikes,
and I have, but (a) you never know in advance whether it will be smooth,
well-crushed stone, sand (yes really) or neat railway ballast and (b)
even the well-crushed stone throws up gloop in the wet.

I'd be interested in a study of whether these paths actually increase or
decrease vehicular traffic.

Surely it'd be an increase?

After all, the idea is (for the sake of argument) to get people out of cars
onto bikes. For every car there is a driver (who will ride one bike), and 0
or more passengers, who will need a bike each. So unless only
single-occupancy drivers make the switch, then you are going to increase
vehicular traffic.

Don't forget bikes are vehicles too :-)

P.S. anyone who attempts to out-pendant me by bringing up tandems or
rickshaws gets KFed ;-)

Zog The Undeniable said:

I *know* that planning permission and finances stop them laying tarmac
in most cases, but tarmac is what road bikes are designed for, and MTBs
are too slow on the road bits (unless you fit clicks, then they can't do
the gravel bits).

It's worse than that: some bits have blacktop surfaces, and they've
gone back and covered them with gravel! Gits!

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Nathaniel Porter" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

After all, the idea is (for the sake of argument) to get people out of

cars

Quoted message said:

onto bikes. For every car there is a driver (who will ride one bike), and

0

Quoted message said:

or more passengers, who will need a bike each. So unless only
single-occupancy drivers make the switch, then you are going to increase
vehicular traffic.

Don't forget bikes are vehicles too :-)

P.S. anyone who attempts to out-pendant me by bringing up tandems or
rickshaws gets KFed ;-)

Then I'll just mention kiddie-seats and trailers, since any discussion of
spelling would be pedantic. 🙂

Ben

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 16:42:58 +0100, "Nathaniel Porter"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

anyone who attempts to out-pendant me by bringing up tandems or
rickshaws gets KFed ;-)

Triplets should be safe, then.

http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/public.nsf/Documents/me-n-u2

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

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Zog The Undeniable said:

I've said it before, but in general Sustrans paths == nice
not-too-challenging surfaces suitable for MTBs, so the family can hang
the bikes on the back of the car, drive to the start, ride 5 miles then
come home again. They have very little to do with sustainable
*transport*. Try commuting on one, unless you like arriving at work
covered in dust/slime (delete according to weather conditions).

I've not noticed any problems in 5 years of commuting along a Sustrans
path :-P

But since you wrote "in general", I suppose I can only, generally,
agree. The Bath-Bristol path is great, but the other Sustrans paths
that I've ridden have had less than ideal surfaces.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<40d56e28.0@entanet>...

Quoted message said:

I've said it before, but in general Sustrans paths == nice
not-too-challenging surfaces suitable for MTBs, so the family can hang
the bikes on the back of the car, drive to the start, ride 5 miles then
come home again. They have very little to do with sustainable
*transport*. Try commuting on one, unless you like arriving at work
covered in dust/slime (delete according to weather conditions).

Absolutely correct. Off road Sustrans paths are have with few
exceptions surfaces unsuitable for year round use. Also the standard
of design tends to be cheap and nasty with sharp corners,steep
gradients and unsafe sightlines reducing a safe speed to wallking
speed in some places.
The only exceptions tend to be where the route follows a route
properly built for another purpose as in canal towpaths and disused
railways.
Not to menmtion the frequent gates. Would car drivers be happy with
roads where every few hundred yards they had to stop and get out there
car to negotiate a gate. I don't think so.
Iain

Reply to iarocu

Quoted message said:

Absolutely correct. Off road Sustrans paths are have with few
exceptions surfaces unsuitable for year round use. Also the standard
of design tends to be cheap and nasty with sharp corners,steep
gradients and unsafe sightlines reducing a safe speed to wallking
speed in some places.
The only exceptions tend to be where the route follows a route
properly built for another purpose as in canal towpaths and disused
railways.
Not to menmtion the frequent gates. Would car drivers be happy with
roads where every few hundred yards they had to stop and get out there
car to negotiate a gate. I don't think so.

Ar. A week or so ago, I had to go to Macclesfield; I realised I'd
never tried the Middlewood way, and thought (with some trepidation)
I'd try the trike on it.

The path starts in Macc by taking you through the *exit* of Tesco's
carpark, then over the next few miles there's a number of dismounts
(enforced by bars set in the path), tight switchbacks up to bridges,
narrow gaps in fences, mud & horseshit, &c. &c. At Poynton I threw in
the towel and dropped down onto Proper Roads, and life became
instantly much, much quicker and more fun. Sustrans paths -
especially canal/railway conversions - are all right in their way, and
to be fair taking a trike on one is perhaps asking a lot, but I'd
rather cycle with the rest of the traffic, ta ever so.

(I do have a soft spot for the Tissington trail, though, if I want a
gentle trundle.)

--
Mark, UK.
We hope to hear him swear, we love to hear him squeak,
We like to see him biting fingers in his horny beak.

Zog The Undeniable <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<40d56e28.0@entanet>...

Quoted message said:

John Hearns said:

The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/page/dft_susttravel_029200.hcsp

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I think
we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes)

I've said it before, but in general Sustrans paths == nice
not-too-challenging surfaces suitable for MTBs, so the family can hang
the bikes on the back of the car, drive to the start, ride 5 miles then
come home again. They have very little to do with sustainable
*transport*. Try commuting on one, unless you like arriving at work
covered in dust/slime (delete according to weather conditions).

Even if the surface is OK, the undergrowth on both sides is rarely
controlled properly. Used the cycle path from Didcot Station to where
I live last week and almost got torn to shreds by the various
plants/nettles/triffids that have now claimed it as their own.

- Richard

John Hearns said:

The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_susttravel/documents/page/dft_susttravel_029200.hcsp

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I think
we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes) and little talk of people getting to work via the roads,
and little talk of making main roads safer.

Yes, there is talk of Home Zones and Quiet Roads in rural areas,
so it does deserve praise.

One phrase stands out to me:"Although
most walking and cycling takes place on the local road networkthere is
scope for improving the safety of pedestrians and cyclists around national
roads"No-one would advocate cycling on the M1, or indeed big roads like
the A34. But this phrase smacks to me of "get those walkers and cyclists
offonto their own paths where they can pottle along and not get in theway
of ministerial Jaguars"
Sorry if I'm sounding cynical.

I read the report much the same way. Even if we allow the fact that
Sustrans type cycle routes have increased or will increase the numbers
of people using bicycles, it is probably not doing anything to reduce
the numbers of cars on the roads.

My reasoning for this is that there are far too few of the cycle routes
at the moment which makes it unlikely that there will be a way of
getting from where you are to where you want to be, using cycle routes
for most of the way. The routes will be used by the fortunate few who
happen to live at one end of a cycle route and work at the other, or by
motorists who drive to the route, cycle round it then drive home
again. As far as vehicular cycling goes, I don't think the cycle routes
are of much use.

Stick to the roads, they're faster and more direct.

Terry Duckmanton