Which Sustrans route should I do?

Bob said:

We would like to spend a week in August cycle camping along a Sustrans
route. We'd like a nice mix of countryside, country pubs and nice
towns. I imagine 20 miles a day would be enough most days, with plenty
of pub and cafe stops.

In previous years we've done Reading to Bristol, and Bristol to
Padstow, and Reading to Oxford as they're all easy to get to from where
we live. Don't mind travelling further to the start/end this year, but
can't decide where to go.

Any ideas ?

Yes. Stick two fingers up at Sustrans, and overpriced UK tourism. Get a
ticket with LD Lines to Le Havre, and enjoy northern France for about £30.

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob said:

We would like to spend a week in August cycle camping along a Sustrans
route. We'd like a nice mix of countryside, country pubs and nice
towns. I imagine 20 miles a day would be enough most days, with plenty
of pub and cafe stops.

In previous years we've done Reading to Bristol, and Bristol to
Padstow, and Reading to Oxford as they're all easy to get to from where
we live. Don't mind travelling further to the start/end this year, but
can't decide where to go.

Any ideas ?

Yes. Stick two fingers up at Sustrans, and overpriced UK tourism. Get a
ticket with LD Lines to Le Havre, and enjoy northern France for about £30.

Just done that, and would highly recommend it. Lots of great places to see.
It's £38 for the ferry.

In message <[email hidden]>

Bob said:

We would like to spend a week in August cycle camping along a Sustrans
route. We'd like a nice mix of countryside, country pubs and nice
towns.

Any ideas ?

Newcastle to Edinburgh has a spectacular coast , castles and abbeys.

--
CTC Right to Ride Representative for Richmond upon Thames

Funny you should say that, we just got back from a week cycle camping
in Normandy. Got the ferry between Poole and Cherbourg, though it cost
about £110 each (foot passenger and bike), will have to investigate
the £30 ones that have been mentioned next time.

France was good, but another week without proper beer would be a bit
much.

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

Quoted message said:

We would like to spend a week in August cycle camping along a Sustrans
route. We'd like a nice mix of countryside, country pubs and nice
towns. I imagine 20 miles a day would be enough most days, with plenty
of pub and cafe stops.

In previous years we've done Reading to Bristol, and Bristol to
Padstow, and Reading to Oxford as they're all easy to get to from where
we live. Don't mind travelling further to the start/end this year, but
can't decide where to go.

Any ideas ?

You might like to consider the Coast to Coast, C2C or the Walney to Wear,
W2W routes. You might like to take the maps for both routes with you, start
an Sunderland and flip a coint to decide which ride to do to add a frisson
of excitemnt to the commencement of the journey. Both rides are nice.
There are some grim bits but overall, both routes will offere5-6 days of
riding at the pace that you described.

elyob said:

"Al C-F" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bob wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Any ideas ?

Yes. Stick two fingers up at Sustrans, and overpriced UK tourism. Get a
ticket with LD Lines to Le Havre, and enjoy northern France for about £30.

Just done that, and would highly recommend it. Lots of great places to see.
It's £38 for the ferry.

That was the price the first time I looked. But after a bit of faffing,
by the time we'd chosen a weekend, the price had dropped.

As a cyclist, why would you stick 2 fingers up at an organisation campaign for improved cycle facilities? Surely you'd be better off riding them and suggesting improvements? (These are rhetorical questions and do not require another rant about farcilities or other anti-Sustrans bollocks)

So, Bob, how about heading from Bristol into Wales - take the 42 and then the 8 into North Wales.

If you're an MTBer there's loads of good offroad stuff as an alternative to some of the lanes.

I assume you've seen the Sustrans map?
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/general/NationalMap2006.pdf

Wheelist

wheelist said:

As a cyclist, why would you stick 2 fingers up at an organisation
campaign for improved cycle facilities?

Well, if the organisation and the cyclist have entirely different
notions of the term "improved" then you may well have a reason.

I'm not as negative as some here about Sustrans, and I'll be riding some
of their routes down Norfolk way soon as a demonstration of that, but
they are capable of some truly [censored] work at times. Quite why any "pro
cycling" organisation should have and use a stock of "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT"
signs remains a mystery to me, and a bloody annoying one at that.

Quoted message said:

Surely you'd be better off
riding them and suggesting improvements? (These are rhetorical
questions and do not require another rant about farcilities or other
anti-Sustrans bollocks)

That's what I do, but as was the case when we sent Sustrans the contents
of http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ncn1comments.htm the
answer, while encouraging on many levels, did reveal basic differences
of opinions. They remain ridiculously afraid of *roads* if there's any
alternative, even though it's slower and more dangerous their way, and
there's no sign of that changing.

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

quote='Peter Clinch'wheelist said:

As a cyclist, why would you stick 2 fingers up at an organisation
campaign for improved cycle facilities?

Well, if the organisation and the cyclist have entirely different
notions of the term "improved" then you may well have a reason.

I'm not as negative as some here about Sustrans, and I'll be riding some
of their routes down Norfolk way soon as a demonstration of that, but
they are capable of some truly [censored] work at times. Quite why any "pro
cycling" organisation should have and use a stock of "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT"
signs remains a mystery to me, and a bloody annoying one at that.

Quoted message said:

Surely you'd be better off
riding them and suggesting improvements? (These are rhetorical
questions and do not require another rant about farcilities or other
anti-Sustrans bollocks)

That's what I do, but as was the case when we sent Sustrans the contents
of personal.dundee.ac.ukncn1comments.htmOpen ↗ the
answer, while encouraging on many levels, did reveal basic differences
of opinions. They remain ridiculously afraid of *roads* if there's any
alternative, even though it's slower and more dangerous their way, and
there's no sign of that changing.

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 hidden] dundee.ac.uk~pjclinchOpen ↗[/QUOTE]..

It's a problem I admit.

I see one of the main problems of encouraging cycling is that many people are scared to use the roads. At the same time we need more cyclists on the roads in order to create a 'culture of road cycling' so that the roads become safer places to ride.

If Sustrans are afraid of roads (though there map shows a massive amount of on-road routes) then they seem to be working against this ideal.

However, in the short term I think we just need to get more people out on their bikes, and if it takes shared use paths, cycle specific paths, or off-road routes then it's a necessary step in the right direction.

Hopefully as these *new* cyclists gain confidence they'll take to the roads more and we'll have established a new cycling Utopia, albeit for the occasional [censored] Sustrans route.

wheelist said:

As a cyclist, why would you stick 2 fingers up at an organisation
campaign for improved cycle facilities? Surely you'd be better off
riding them and suggesting improvements? (These are rhetorical
questions and do not require another rant about farcilities or other
anti-Sustrans bollocks)

I take it you're another of the 'sustrans can do no ill' brigade? If
one believes that sustrans produce rubbish facilities and their
campaigning is damaging to teh rights of cyclists, it is not
"anti-sustrans bollocks" to point out that they are producing rubbish
facilities and their campaigning is damaging teh rights of cyclists.

Suppose teh mandarins announce tomorrow that bicycles are not
permitted on 'A' roads any more, for their own safety. Would
objecting to this be "anti-DoT bollocks"?

Just because they claim to have the best interest of cyclists at
heart, it doesn't mean an organisation is not damaging the cause of
cycling.

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

wheelist said:

I see one of the main problems of encouraging cycling is that many
people are scared to use the roads. At the same time we need more
cyclists on the roads in order to create a 'culture of road cycling' so
that the roads become safer places to ride.

Agreed.

Quoted message said:

If Sustrans are afraid of roads (though there map shows a massive
amount of on-road routes) then they seem to be working against this
ideal.

Though the on-road routes are generally when there is little or no
realistic alternative. And when there /is/ an alternative, even if it
means 3 times the distance round a selection of schemes and getting off
my bike half a dozen times to cross the road I could easily and less
dangerously cycle on, that's where I'll get pointed. <sigh>
And I know this, because it happened in any major town we've been
through on NCN1.

Quoted message said:

However, in the short term I think we just need to get more people out
on their bikes, and if it takes shared use paths, cycle specific paths,
or off-road routes then it's a necessary step in the right direction.

Hopefully as these *new* cyclists gain confidence they'll take to the
roads more and we'll have established a new cycling Utopia, albeit for
the occasional [censored] Sustrans route.

It will only be a step in the right direction /if/ your hope from the
second para. above is really the case. Might it also be the case that
they might come to depend on special routes away from the roads, because
they have been given the impression by Sustrans and others that these
are better in the universal sense than using those awful nasty *roads*
with motor vehicles on? I think that is a very real possibility.

Given the choice of X cyclists using the most appropriate routes with
skill and intelligence or 5X cyclists who think it's Madness to use
roads except as a last resort, I'll take the first option. The second
just gives TPTB an excuse to get me and the other X-1 like me shunted
off the roads.

More people on bikes in the short term is not /necessarily/ good for all
of us in the long term.

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

In article said:

As a cyclist, why would you stick 2 fingers up at an organisation
campaign for improved cycle facilities? Surely you'd be better off
riding them and suggesting improvements? (These are rhetorical
questions and do not require another rant about farcilities or other
anti-Sustrans bollocks)

"rhetorical question" does not mean "question I don't like the obvious
answer to, so don't want to hear answered".

Quoted message said:

(These are rhetorical questions and do not require another rant about
farcilities or other anti-Sustrans bollocks)

Umm, rhetorical questions don't exist on Usenet, at least in the sense that
you'll always get a reply.

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[...] Quite why any "pro
cycling" organisation should have and use a stock of "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT"
signs remains a mystery to me, and a bloody annoying one at that.

I don't know about your town, but all of those here are put up by the
County Council and Sustrans members criticised them on their visit
here in March.

Quoted message said:

[...] They remain ridiculously afraid of *roads* if there's any
alternative, even though it's slower and more dangerous their way, and
there's no sign of that changing.

The message I got suggested that it may be changing, but they still
feel unable to simply rebut any "roads are dangerous" concerns put
to them - maybe unsurprising given that a third of their network is
car-free and that seems to be the most famous third. I think a "let's
improve the safety of it all, then" retort may be possible, though.
Guess I'll find out eventually.
--
MJR/slef

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

Quoted message said:

Peter Clinch said:

wheelist said:

As a cyclist, why would you stick 2 fingers up at an

organisation

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

campaign for improved cycle facilities?

Well, if the organisation and the cyclist have entirely different
notions of the term "improved" then you may well have a reason.

I'm not as negative as some here about Sustrans, and I'll be

riding

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

some
of their routes down Norfolk way soon as a demonstration of that,

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

they are capable of some truly [censored] work at times. Quite why any

"pro

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cycling" organisation should have and use a stock of "CYCLISTS
DISMOUNT"
signs remains a mystery to me, and a bloody annoying one at that.

Quoted message said:

Surely you'd be better off
riding them and suggesting improvements? (These are rhetorical
questions and do not require another rant about farcilities or

other

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anti-Sustrans bollocks)

That's what I do, but as was the case when we sent Sustrans the
contents
of 'http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/ncn1comments.htm'
(http://www.personal.dundee.ac.uk/%7Epjclinch/ncn1comments.htm)

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

answer, while encouraging on many levels, did reveal basic

differences

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of opinions. They remain ridiculously afraid of *roads* if

there's

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

any
alternative, even though it's slower and more dangerous their

way, and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there's no sign of that changing.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells

Hospital

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email hidden]

'http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/'

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(http://www.dundee.ac.uk/%7Epjclinch/)..

It's a problem I admit.

I see one of the main problems of encouraging cycling is that many
people are scared to use the roads. At the same time we need more
cyclists on the roads in order to create a 'culture of road

cycling' so

Quoted message said:

that the roads become safer places to ride.

If Sustrans are afraid of roads (though there map shows a massive
amount of on-road routes) then they seem to be working against this
ideal.

However, in the short term I think we just need to get more people

out

Quoted message said:

on their bikes, and if it takes shared use paths, cycle specific

paths,

Quoted message said:

or off-road routes then it's a necessary step in the right

direction.

Quoted message said:

Hopefully as these *new* cyclists gain confidence they'll take to

the

Quoted message said:

roads more and we'll have established a new cycling Utopia, albeit

for

Quoted message said:

the occasional [censored] Sustrans route.

--
wheelist

"wheelist" <[email hidden]> wrote

[snip]

Quoted message said:

It's a problem I admit.

I see one of the main problems of encouraging cycling is that many
people are scared to use the roads.

And to get them riding on the roads, you need to convince them that
they are mistaken to be scared

But is spending millions and millions of pounds catering to their
mistaken ideas the way to tell them that they are wrong?

Quoted message said:

cyclists on the roads in order to create a 'culture of road

cycling' so

Quoted message said:

that the roads become safer places to ride.

Some evil person has been interfering with your brain, and has filled
it with horrible ideas about the dangers of cycling. Swimming is
seven times a dangerous as cycling, for goodness sake. Fishing is 41
times as dangerous (they fall in, apparently). The roads already are
safer places to ride. You cannot claim to be a friend of cycling if
you are spreading propaganda to the contrary.

Quoted message said:

If Sustrans are afraid of roads (though there map shows a massive
amount of on-road routes) then they seem to be working against this
ideal.

Indeed

Quoted message said:

However, in the short term I think we just need to get more people

out

Quoted message said:

on their bikes,

Short term? I've been hearing people say that for about a third of a
century, and thery were saying it before my time as well.

and if it takes shared use paths, cycle specific paths,

Quoted message said:

or off-road routes then it's a necessary step in the right

direction.

You have that backwards. If those things are a step in the right
direction, then it is perhaps desirable to take them. if not, not.

However, we don't have to say if, if ,if...

We have the examples of Stevenage, Harlow, and Milton Keynes to show
us that the experiment does not work. Those towns are **better**
than Sustrans paths can ever be, for two reasons.

First, the paths were laid out before the town was built, and so
could be built as bike paths should be built. In existing towns even
Sustrans can only take the leftover spaces between existing
buildings, unless you give them lots of dynamite, incredible
compulsory purchase powers, and gigantic quantities of money.

Second, at least in the older new towns, the paths were designed when
some traffic engineers still rode bikes. The designers knew about
cycling, and knew about traffic engineering as well. I'm not sure
the modern generation know about either.

Until Sustrans can, and is willing to, give an explanation for why
the new towns didn't work, including an explanation of what, if
anything, can be done to salvage matters, I wouldn't listen to
anything they say.

Here in London cycling is increasing, at least towards the centre,
and we know why. The secret isn't facilities, it's nobbling the
competition.

The congestion charge increases cycling

Bob Crow, and the RMT Union, with their tube and train strikes,
increase cycling.

Adding a fleet of brand new buses, with windows that don't open, and
no air conditioning, increases cycling, in the weather we have been
having lately.

Conditions in the tube so bad that all passengers are being advised
to carry a bottle of water increase cycling

Osama bin Laden's bombs increase cycling

Actually, it's possible that the free bike maps have increased
cycling as well, although its remarkable how non cyclists still seem
not to know about them, even those who must have seen many racks
containing them

Quoted message said:

Hopefully as these *new* cyclists gain confidence they'll take to

the

Quoted message said:

roads

They can't gain confidence until they have tried it, and obviously
trying it is highly inadvisable, or the government wouldn't have
spent all that money to provide alternates, though rather slow
alternates.

Quoted message said:

...more and we'll have established a new cycling Utopia, albeit

for

Quoted message said:

the occasional [censored] Sustrans route.

The Utopias exist at Stevenage, Harlow, Milten Keynes, and on a
smaller scale other places as well. Why not try one or two, and
report back.

I think a more likely scenario is that anyone wanting to try cycling
will first ask some cyclist he knows for advice, saying something
like, "How do you like all these new bike lanes then?" At that point
he is likely to receive the kind of reply you have seen in this very
thread. He will then conclude that, even with the new facilities,
cycling must be terribly dangerous, and give up the whole idea.

Jeremy Parker

MJ Ray said:

The message I got suggested that it may be changing, but they still
feel unable to simply rebut any "roads are dangerous" concerns put
to them - maybe unsurprising given that a third of their network is
car-free and that seems to be the most famous third.

Though actually it /should/ be surprising because if you bother doing
some reading you find it's far from unusual for taking people /off/ the
roads to *increase* the danger posed to them.

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/infrastructure.html is a good place to start.

They need to get past their base assumption that coming off the roads
*must* be better. It quite often isn't, and in safety as well as speed
and convenience.

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ian Smith said:

I take it you're another of the 'sustrans can do no ill' brigade?

..

No. I did admit that some Sustrans facilities/routes are [censored].

Peter Clinch said:

<snip> Might it also be the case that
<cyclists> might come to depend on special routes away from the roads, because
they have been given the impression by Sustrans and others that these
are better in the universal sense than using those awful nasty *roads*
with motor vehicles on? I think that is a very real possibility.

..

It might be, but I doubt it. I'm of the opinion that once a person gets used to being on a bike again they start to take short cuts. If the road is quicker they'll end up taking the road.

If road conditions were to be altered to discourage car use (tarffic calming, speed restrictions, greater use of speed cameras, parking charges) at the same time as these people are being encouraged to use their bikes then there is a definite likelihood that they'll use the roads.

Peter Clinch said:

More people on bikes in the short term is not /necessarily/ good for all
of us in the long term.

..

Agreed. Which is why we need to alter road conditions at the same time as increasing cycle useage as described in my previous paragraph.

Alan Braggins said:

"rhetorical question" does not mean "question I don't like the obvious
answer to, so don't want to hear answered".

..

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question posed for rhetorical effect rather than for the purpose of getting an answer.

I don't mind hearing answers, even if I don't agree with them. There are plenty of intelligent arguments flowing around in our debates I've not considered before. And I expected at least one answer of course, this being Usenet. But then healthy debate is a good thing isn't it? (Rhetorical question)

Wheelist

Peter Clinch <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Though actually it /should/ be surprising because if you bother doing
some reading you find it's far from unusual for taking people /off/ the
roads to *increase* the danger posed to them. [...]

Please don't confuse correlation and cause. I've read those papers,
but if some of the cyclists seen on the slower car-free routes (and the
small roads I've mentioned before) felt confident enough to go on-road,
I suspect the accident figures would change very rapidly. Some of the
slower car-free routes do on-road cyclists a service by stopping wobblers
making bizarre moves around the road. Until there's a better level of
cyclist education, I can't see that changing, sadly.

Quoted message said:

They need to get past their base assumption that coming off the roads
*must* be better. [...]

I suggest the base assumption is that both on- and non-road have a place.

--
MJR/slef