# You can vote for Sustrans online now!



## john59 (26 Nov 2007)

*Online voting for The People's £50 Million Lottery Giveaway is now open. 

*To register your online vote for Sustrans' Connect2 please do the following,

If you have not already registered at The People's £50 Million website you will need to do so before you can vote. Please use this link to go direct to the registration page - 
The People's £50 Million Website and complete all the required details.


John


----------



## Womble (26 Nov 2007)

Good thinking - was about to post this myself. Don't know if it's worth moving this to another forum where it would get noticed more. That amount of money could make a real difference.


----------



## domtyler (26 Nov 2007)

Why would I want to shoot myself in the foot? As far as I know Sustrans is an organisation set up to move cyclists off public roads onto poorly maintained off road cycle farcilities.


----------



## sheddy (27 Nov 2007)

Wouldn't mind stuffing some of this - http://www.flickr.com/photos/peoples50million/2000778264/in/photostream/


----------



## domd1979 (27 Nov 2007)

Black Country Urban Park would get my vote.


----------



## wafflycat (28 Nov 2007)

No thanks. No vote for Sustrans from me.


----------



## Elmer Fudd (28 Nov 2007)

I'll probably vote for it as if they open Frankland Viaduct it will change a 5 1/2m journey into a flatter 2m journey, selfish eh?


----------



## Tim Bennet. (28 Nov 2007)

I'm sorry, but cycling provision is just one part of the country's transport infrastructure. We spend loads of tax payers money each year on 'transport', and if there's enough money to build the new, but entirely pointless, A1/M62 motorway interchange extravaganza, then no one can claim poor cycling provision is through lack of money. It's just we haven't convinced them to spend it on the right things yet.

I too would vote for either the Dudley Park or Sherwood Forest (although I live near neither). Both would be great long term improvements and probably wouldn't get funded any other way.


----------



## Danny (28 Nov 2007)

domtyler said:


> Why would I want to shoot myself in the foot? As far as I know Sustrans is an organisation set up to move cyclists off public roads onto poorly maintained off road cycle farcilities.



This is complete rubbish. The majority of Sustrans routes are actually on public roads. They only build off road facilities where there is a need to bypass busy and dangerous main roads. 

Most of their off road routes that I have been on are well maintained, though a minority are not - much like the public road system! 

Sustrans is a charity and can only do so much with its limited funding - hence the lottery bid.


----------



## wafflycat (28 Nov 2007)

Dannyg said:


> This is complete rubbish. The majority of Sustrans routes are actually on public roads. *They only build off road facilities where there is a need to bypass busy and dangerous main roads.*
> 
> Most of their off road routes that I have been on are well maintained, though a minority are not - much like the public road system!
> 
> Sustrans is a charity and can only do so much with its limited funding - hence the lottery bid.



Not true. There's a section down from me where the road is neither busy nor dangerous, yet an NCN route has been put on to a narrow public footpath which is entirely unsuitable and dangerous, as it takes cyclists off the road and straight into a concrete bollard. There's also a large stretch of another NCN which is effectively unuseable by anything other than an offroad bike due to the surface of it - in winter it turns into a mudbath. A town near to me I avoid cycling in (King's Lynn), not due to the roads, but to the sheer abundance of cycle farcilities which are shared use, quite a few of which form part of an NCN route. A white paint outline bike on a footpath does not an adequate farcility make. I avoid cycling in Lynn as on the NCN there's so much broken glass I had three punctures in under half-an-hour last time I tried it. Then there's the hassle from local motorists to "get off the road!" and hassle from the peds to "Get off the footpath!" Sorry, but my experience of several Sustrans routes is a definite NO THANK YOU


----------



## Hilldodger (28 Nov 2007)

It would be far better if £50million wasn't spent on cycling, wouldn't it?


----------



## Hilldodger (28 Nov 2007)

sheddy said:


> Wouldn't mind stuffing some of this - http://www.flickr.com/photos/peoples50million/2000778264/in/photostream/



I know Katie, I worked with her at the Tour de France

She wasn't dressed like that, though


----------



## wafflycat (28 Nov 2007)

Certainly not on yet more farcilities. Could be useful spent on training and on public education that the roads are for sharing and on promoting the fun and health benefits of cycling.... Much easier to stick in yet more farcilities though


----------



## domd1979 (28 Nov 2007)

In this particular instance, quite probably.



Hilldodger said:


> It would be far better if £50million wasn't spent on cycling, wouldn't it?


----------



## Hilldodger (28 Nov 2007)

Both of you are showing your ignorance of how the bid has been put together.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


----------



## wafflycat (28 Nov 2007)

I love you too, Hilldodger 

I speak from my experience of Sustrans routes. It will not get my vote based on that experience. 

The clamour is already there to get cyclists off the roads and on to segregated farcilities - this type of bid only increases the risk of that happening IMO. Don't forget, this pushing cyclists off road and on to farcilites has already been tried - most recently with the proposed changes to the HC which was only defeated by intense lobbying by cycling organisations such as the CTC and by thousands of individual cyclists writing to their MPs. Spend £50 million on segregated farcilites and what the clamour grow once mroe to get us off the roads and on to those lovely farcilities that have been provided at great expense... If segregated farcilities really increased the number of people cycling, then why hasn't it happened with Milton Keynes, where the redways were installed? See 
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html and http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html 

It is also a fallacy that cycling on road is 'unsafe'. If it were, I wouldn't be doing it _(I cycle urban (town & city) and rural, dual carriageways to country lanes)_ and I certainly wouldn't have allowed my son to cycle to & from school and take part in time trials. The reality is that cycling on road is a remarkably safe activity. Yes, there are risks, but the Sustrans equation of 'safe' equalling 'traffic-free over-eggs the pudding about the real level of risk associated with cycling on road. The reality is the benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks: promoting traffic-free to equal safe makes folk think cycling on road is far more dangerous than it really is and it adds to the clamour to get cyclists off roads - after all, it's far too dangerous out there


----------



## Danny (28 Nov 2007)

I do not believe that Sustrans are part of some conspiracy to get cyclists off the road. As I previously pointed out, most of their long distance routes are actually on roads.

Most forum members are confident and experienced enough to cycle on main roads, but many occasional cyclists are not. I have many friends who would never cycle out into the country if it were not for the Sustrans routes. 

In York where I live, Sustrans provides several very well used routes which safely take cyclists out of York and across the busy ring road. You then eventually join onto country lanes and can cycle for miles with having to cross any main roads.

As I said previously, I am sure that not every Sustrans route is perfect, but I think it is unfair to rubbish them just because some specific bit of cycle route is poor. 

Also, while I can't speak for Kings Lynn where Waffly Cat lives, I know that around York Sustrans gets blamed for the design and condition of every cycle route in the city, when they are only actually responsible for a few specific sections - the rest being down to the local authority.


----------



## wafflycat (28 Nov 2007)

I don't think there's any conspiracy either. 

I do, however, believe that there is real clamour to get cyclists off the roads - it would have been a side effect of the propsed changes to the HC had they gone through. Luckily for we cyclists, it was spotted early on and successfully lobbied against. The promotion and provision of segregated cycling farcilites does promote the idea that cyclists don't belong on the roads. 

I think that the Sustrans promotion of segregated cycling farcilities will enhance that clamour to get cyclists off the roads and on to farcilities where they exist. It already happens now. Look how many of us post how we've been shouted at to 'get on the bl**dy cycle path!" and how the police can be downright keen to get us off the roads - as witnessed by the Daniel Cadden case. There's regular letters in newspapers from irate members of the public asking why cyclists aren't on cycle paths which have been provided at great expense..

I also believe that the Sustrans mantra that 'safe' equates to 'traffic-free' is misguided at best and at at worst, plain wrong - see my earlier posts for the links discussion between John Franklin & Sustrans and on his study of the Milton Keynes redways. 

I don't think that Sustrans *deliberately* seeks to have the right to ride on the road removed, but I do think it is the inevitable end result if we go ever more down the route of segregated farcilities.


----------



## domd1979 (28 Nov 2007)

It doesn't matter how the bid has been put together. Putting the on/off road debate aside (although it is an important one).... Your assertion appears to be that £50m spent on something non-cycling related is less beneficial than something cycling related. In this particular instance I happen to think that the other (non-cycling) alternatives for the dosh could benefit more people's quality of life.

Sustrans also irritate me immensely, particularly since they campaigned against the re-instatement of an old railway track bed, as, erm, a railway because they wanted it as a cycleway. Sustrans preference appeared to be they'd rather lots of china clay lorries were on the roads of Cornwall than divert one of their routes away from the rail alignment.



Hilldodger said:


> Both of you are showing your ignorance of how the bid has been put together.
> 
> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.


----------



## domd1979 (28 Nov 2007)

Agree entirely.

Cycling needs to be promoted as an every day form of transport, to replace car journeys (particularly short ones). Too much emphasis has been placed on promoting cycling as just a leisure activity rather than as a day to day form of local transport.




wafflycat said:


> I don't think there's any conspiracy either.
> 
> I do, however, believe that there is real clamour to get cyclists off the roads - it would have been a side effect of the propsed changes to the HC had they gone through. Luckily for we cyclists, it was spotted early on and successfully lobbied against. The promotion and provision of segregated cycling farcilites does promote the idea that cyclists don't belong on the roads.
> 
> ...


----------



## Danny (28 Nov 2007)

wafflycat said:


> I don't think there's any conspiracy either.
> 
> I do, however, believe that there is real clamour to get cyclists off the roads - it would have been a side effect of the propsed changes to the HC had they gone through....
> 
> ...



I am not sure that there is actually that great a "clamour" to get cyclists off the roads. The fact that some civil servants in the notoriously pro-car Department of Transport came up with some badly thought through changes to the HC doesn't amount to a public clamour. Nor does one ill judged police prosecution.

York has extensive cycle routes which I sometime choose to use, and sometime do not. I have never once had anyone say to me that I should not be riding on the road, nor have I ever seen a letter in our local paper suggesting this, even though they regularly publish a great many letters attacking cyclists for various alleged misdemeanour's. 

Until the road network is re-designed to properly cater for cyclists, and traffic laws are full enforced, many people will simply not cycle on busy roads. Sustrans are providing an alternative which has already succeeded in getting large numbers of people onto their bikes.


----------



## Danny (29 Nov 2007)

wafflycat said:


> It is also a fallacy that cycling on road is 'unsafe'. If it were, I wouldn't be doing it



I know it is a fallacy, you know it is a fallacy, but the problem is that most occasional cyclists believe that it is unsafe, and simply won't use their bikes on main roads.


----------



## wafflycat (29 Nov 2007)

It's a fallacy which is promoted by Sustrans as it equates 'safe' as 'traffic-free' and encourages segregated routes. It should not be encouraged.


----------



## Tim Bennet. (29 Nov 2007)

> Until the road network is re-designed to properly cater for cyclists, and traffic laws are full enforced....


Then let's have a proposal to spend £50m on dealing with these core issues.


----------



## Tony (29 Nov 2007)

I am on my way back from Australia in a couple of hours. Over here, you are obliged by law to use on-road cycle lanes. It makes right turns interesting. There are plenty of off-road cycle routes, all of which have big signs reminding cyclists that peds have right of way on them at all times. 
That sums up Sustrans for me!


----------



## Pete (29 Nov 2007)

Of course all roads can be 'safe' if everyone using them drives/rides carefully and in accordance with the Law. Indeed I find riding on a dual carriageway reasonably 'safe' as long as everyone can see me, I don't play silly-b*ggers, and I follow the 'correct' procedure when turning right...

Safe, yes. Pleasant? No. No-one will honestly claim, from the bottom of their heart, that cycling on a D/C with heavy traffic including nose-to-tail HGVs roaring past at 80mph is actually a 'pleasant' experience. And part of the drive to get more people out on their bikes, is surely to make cycling be, and appear to be, a pleasurable experience to them.

I honestly don't know the best answer here. I avoid the 'facilities' when they're obviously going to impede my progress (even at my slow pace!). the ones with right-angle corners and trees in the middle of the path, the examples in the excellent Warrington website. I use cycle routes when they're an obvious shortcut that actually speed up my progress (e.g. not having to thread through a traffic queue).

I take issue with the comments about bollards. If a bollard is well placed so that it can be seen from a distance, I don't have a problem. After all, I have a handlebar on my bike, I can steer! Bollards, I'm afraid, are a necessary impediment on one of my favourite cycle-routes, to keep out the fly-tippers and Gypsies. Recently a group of Gypsies demolished a row of bollards to get their caravans onto this place which is a blocked-off country lane given over to cycle path/bridle path use, which they then completely blocked: I couldn't cycle along it at all. I like to claim I'm fairly tolerant, but that's not on, in my book. They were duly evicted after a few days, and the bollards have been replaced with a much more robust-looking set: a double row instead of a single one, and I hope they are effective this time. I really do. I'm quite happy to ride between them, and I'm glad they're there.


----------



## marinyork (30 Nov 2007)

There have been letters in the York paper suggesting cyclists should be off the road. The letters are so wrapped up in Mike Usherwood surrealism and people complaining about various things though that they make up a small percentage of cycling letters. If you got rid of Mike Usherwood I think they'd actually be a lot more prominent calls for getting us off the road.

I did use to get people in the east of York suggesting that I should shouldn't be using the old design Grimston Bar roundabout and that there was an NCN nearby or stupid dangerous lanes around the roundabout. People on the A166 used to get extremely irrate although I've experienced people who don't drive at 60+mph getting the same abuse. Sustrans is crap. It may have a few good bits near York but most of it is crap. On their online routes they selectively advertise a rubbish set of cycle lanes. I sometimes used to go to Tadcaster and a decent offroad parallel cycle track existed for those who didn't want to be mowed down by maniacs on the A64 but wanted a direct route. Sustrans didn't like advertising this because they wanted to get a new route on a popular set of country lanes with serious cyclists that were on rolling hills that there wasn't much of a chance getting the general public to use. It's the political rubbish that is as irritating as their incompetance. Then you'll see some spokesperson on the tv (granted it is hard to get your point across in a soundbite to some journalist who isn't remotely interested in cycling) going on about traffic free routes to Timbuktu.


----------



## Danny (1 Dec 2007)

wafflycat said:


> It's a fallacy which is promoted by Sustrans as it equates 'safe' as 'traffic-free' and encourages segregated routes. It should not be encouraged.



If you look at the Sustrans website, you'll see that what they are promoting is something quite different. 

Sustrans is all about promoting sustainable transport and encouraging people who are currently using cars to walk or cycle. Off road routes is *one* of the ways Sustrans is trying to achieve this. Calling them "segregated" is a very emotive term - I would say they are providing an alternative for people who do not want to cycle on roads, or do not feel confident to do so. 

Sustrans does do other other things to promote cycling. In York, and other cities, they have run a very successful programme to encourage secondary school children to cycle to school, which has resulted in a significant increase in children travelling by bike. This programme is all about children learning to cycle safely on *roads*.

There is plenty of evidence that Sustrans has succeeded in getting more people cycling on the road, on off-road routes, and on the national cycle network which is a combination of on and off road roads.


----------



## Danny (1 Dec 2007)

marinyork said:


> Sustrans is crap. It may have a few good bits near York but most of it is crap. On their online routes they selectively advertise a rubbish set of cycle lanes. I sometimes used to go to Tadcaster and a decent offroad parallel cycle track existed for those who didn't want to be mowed down by maniacs on the A64 but wanted a direct route. Sustrans didn't like advertising this because they wanted to get a new route on a popular set of country lanes with serious cyclists that were on rolling hills that there wasn't much of a chance getting the general public to use. I



"Most of it is crap"...how many Sustrans routes have you actually used in different parts of the country? Most of the ones I have been on have been very good. 

Also I don't see why Sustrans are under any obligation to advertise a pretty poor route alongside a major dual carriageway which they did not build. When I rode on it, it was precisely the sort of badly maintained track that people in other posts have been trying to attribute to Sustrans.


----------



## marinyork (1 Dec 2007)

As I've said before I've done fairly large parts of the ones in Yorkshire and also on far few occasions some in the south of england.

They aren't under an obligation, but why bother putting anyone elses routes on, seems dishonest and politicised to me? They are of mixed quality and usefulness. Your comment about the tadcaster path about it being badly maintained seems absurd, there are sections near the flyovers that are bad but most of it is decent, if that is the case then just about every sustrans route must be "pretty poor". It's decent quality and direct, what sustrans isn't. It's traffic free so it should be the perfect cycle route for sustrans but they don't bother putting it on because of political reasons and it's not winding and scenic country enough for them. I just don't agree with sustrans trying to take the credit for other peoples' already well established routes - seems pointless glory taking to me.

They do actually emphasise the "traffic-free" in their soundbites on tv, whether they mean to or not. One of the connect2 schemes near me if they get the funding is as much about locals having a very bad time crossing over a bottleneck road that is unpleasant as the cycling part of it. Sustrans should focus almost exclusively on problem areas and short cuts - motorways, canals, rivers, very busy A roads whether they be for peds or cyclists.


----------



## domd1979 (1 Dec 2007)

Why then did they object to the Bodmin & Wenford Railway's proposal to extend along former route alignment in order to carry china clay, which would have taken a significant number of HGVs off the local road network? 




Dannyg said:


> Sustrans is all about promoting sustainable transport


----------



## Brock (1 Dec 2007)

I still find the vehemence, paranoia and selfishness displayed by the most vociferous anti Sustrans bleeters strange. I mean, yes, there IS a perfectly good road network that we are all allowed to ride on, yes, most of us are perfectly able and confident enough to ride on roads that are busy with fast traffic, and yes, there might well be some NCN sections that are far from perfect. However, the provision of alternative links, signed routes through pleasant lanes and shortcuts avoiding nasty traffic filled stress points can only be a good thing in my view.
I commute happily on main roads every day and love every minute of it. When I'm cycling for leisure I often make use of Sustrans routes and 'farcilities' (oh my! How I giggle at that hilariously witty wordplay) and am grateful for them. The provision of such facilities DOES encourage people to cycle, whatever dusty, dubious and contrived statistics to the contrary some may pull out of their fudgehole.

Linking Sustrans with some fictional underground movement to outlaw cycles on roads seems a ludicrous reason to be so unhelpful towards them. It exists as a powerful and established charity which is working to promote cycling, and I find it bizarre that cyclists aren't prepared to contribute and praise the good works Sustrans does, while suggesting ways for improvement to the areas that cause such consternation. Could it just be elitist snobbery?

I'll be voting for them, because it costs me nothing, increases the profile of cycling, and will benefit me directly with the improvements to facilities locally.
Could the money be spent in better ways to promote cycling? Possibly. Is there an opportunity to do that in this vote? No.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (1 Dec 2007)

The main problem I have with Sustrans is that their name is all wrong. It's not about sustainable transport, it's about going out for a pleasant, traffic free, Sunday afternoon pootle with the kids. Very nice and hats off to those who enjoy it, but it's not transport in any sense I understand the word.


----------



## Brock (1 Dec 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> The main problem I have with Sustrans is that their name is all wrong. It's not about sustainable transport, it's about going out for a pleasant, traffic free, Sunday afternoon pootle with the kids. Very nice and hats off to those who enjoy it, but it's not transport in any sense I understand the word.



Vote for the Eden project then, they're obviously going to create paradise and a state of perfect bliss if they nab the 50 million.


----------



## domd1979 (1 Dec 2007)

No, it isn't elitist snobbery.

Sustrans largely (but not exclusively) promotes leisure cycling - don't have a problem with that. But, they make all sorts of other claims. Their own statistics show that the NCN is predominantly used for leisure purposes. They try to imply massive carbon savings "if all the journeys made on NCN had been made by car". Buried away in their own stats are figures showing that the majority of NCN journeys haven't replaced car journeys, and clearly its never going to be the case that people would make the journey by car if they're out to enjoy a cycle ride!

Where cycling really needs to be promoted is as a day-to-day form of transport for short journeys (say <5miles), as an alternative to the car. The NCN doesn't really provide for this. Segregation, whilst nice for leisure rides in more rural areas, is causing problems for promoting cycling as a mainstream form of transport. It would help if Sustrans were more honest about the primary function of the NCN rather than trying to make claims about functions it fulfils that it clearly doesn't. If cycling is ever to be seen as a mainstream form of transport, then the approach to promoting segregated routes needs to be changed and balanced out with promoting utility cycling, and the rights of cyclists to use the road network. Increasingly car driving society appears to be taking the view that cycling should be a segregated activity for all cycle trip purposes. Sustrans approach has inevitably contributed to that.



Brock said:


> Linking Sustrans with some fictional underground movement to outlaw cycles on roads seems a ludicrous reason to be so unhelpful towards them. It exists as a powerful and established charity which is working to promote cycling, and I find it bizarre that cyclists aren't prepared to contribute and praise the good works Sustrans does, while suggesting ways for improvement to the areas that cause such consternation. Could it just be elitist snobbery?


----------



## Brock (1 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> No, it isn't elitist snobbery.
> 
> Sustrans largely (but not exclusively) promotes leisure cycling - don't have a problem with that. But, they make all sorts of other claims...



Do they really make such wildly inaccurate claims? Surely any charity is legally bound to some degree of honesty in its own promotional material? If they point out that cycling produces much less carbon than cars, then I don't suppose anyone will mistakenly jump to the conclusion that Sustrans is about to turn global warming around.



domd1979 said:


> Where cycling really needs to be promoted is as a day-to-day form of transport for short journeys (say <5miles), as an alternative to the car.



Why does it?

In my experience Sustrans is doing a reasonable job of improving the local environment for walkers and cyclists by increasing the journey options for these groups without really inconveniencing anyone else.

If people are more tempted to try cycling as a leisure activity because there are pleasant routes for them to try locally at the weekend, then they are far more likely to realise the bicycle is actually a perfectly viable form of transport, and go on to use it for journeys they may have made by car in the past.

If you really want to force people out of cars and onto bicycles for day to day transport, lobby for an increase in road tax and more widespread congestion charges in cities. that'd suit me.


----------



## John the Monkey (1 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> If people are more tempted to try cycling as a leisure activity because there are pleasant routes for them to try locally at the weekend, then they are far more likely to realise the bicycle is actually a perfectly viable form of transport, and go on to use it for journeys they may have made by car in the past.



...or view it as an activity that takes place in leisure time, or at most only on specially allocated "safe" tracks and paths, per the point Dom made last;



Domd1979 said:


> Increasingly car driving society appears to be taking the view that cycling should be a segregated activity for all cycle trip purposes. Sustrans approach has inevitably contributed to that.



I'd be interested to see a study looking at both hypotheses, myself, I don't think there's ever been one, and I can't recall anyone quoting one last time this debate was had. My personal view accords more with Domd1979's (knowing people who will happily drive their bikes to trails to ride, but would never consider riding on the public road) but I readily admit that I base that only on talking to a fairly small number of acquaintances.


----------



## Brock (1 Dec 2007)

John the Monkey said:


> My personal view accords more with Domd1979's (knowing people who will happily drive their bikes to trails to ride, but would never consider riding on the public road) but I readily admit that I base that only on talking to a fairly small number of acquaintances.



So based on that experience you would consider the provision of such 'trails' a bad thing? I would contend that your friends' quality of life and health is being improved even if they do stubbornly refuse to cycle to work on the road, and so surely those particular trails are worth having?

I feel I should point out again that the majority of NCN routes are ON ROAD. Obviously some particularly timid cyclists will just travel the totally traffic free sections for a short Sunday pootle before loading their cycles back into the 4x4 to drive home, but I'm sure many will make the transition onto the quiet roads and gain confidence with traffic in a way that might just end up with them using the bicycle to fight evil, crime and planetary implosion.


----------



## marinyork (1 Dec 2007)

Was quite amused to see that Sheffield City Council are gunning for the sustrans connect2 scheme, highly ironic as a competitor is Sherwood Forest. Also that the scheme would cost an eye watering £1.5M in total.


----------



## Gerry Attrick (1 Dec 2007)

I reckon the Sustrans routes have a perfectly good role in the encouragement of cycling. I returned to cycling relatively recently and as an old beggar, I found even some of our quiet lanes around here somewhat intimidating. Because the lanes are quiet, Mr and Mrs Ford-Focus and the like think they can go tearing down them without the hindrance and bother of meeting me coming the other way round a blind bend. 'Taint pleasant for experienced wheelers let alone me. So I decide to get used to the bike on a sustrans bike track and others like it. Thoroughly enjoyable, lots of time to poke your head up and admire the girl......err magnificent scenery, and no pressure from the petrol heads. 

Take Mrs Gerry (please), she would never have set her posterior on a saddle without first trying out the traffic-free routes. I got myself a road bike after gaining confidence, and use it on all types of roads. Now surely that's something to be encouraged. People will naturally want to travel on ordinary roads when they (re) discover the pleasures cycling holds. Sustrans is good enough for my vote.


----------



## domd1979 (1 Dec 2007)

> Why does it?



Because cycling is a form of transport, and needs to be seen as a viable means of transport for day to day journeys to replace some of the high proportion of car journeys which are short in length. 




> If people are more tempted to try cycling as a leisure activity because there are pleasant routes for them to try locally at the weekend, then they are far more likely to realise the bicycle is actually a perfectly viable form of transport, and go on to use it for journeys they may have made by car in the past.



Bicycle ownership in the UK is at roughly the same level as car ownership. The very small proportion of traffic that is bicycles implies that the majority of bicycles are bought entirely for leisure purposes and never get used for anything else. IMO, a serious effort needs to be put into changing public attitudes before the cross over from leisure to utility cycling will occur.




> If you really want to force people out of cars and onto bicycles for day to day transport, lobby for an increase in road tax and more widespread congestion charges in cities. that'd suit me.



Agree entirely that the cost of motoring needs to be increased. Although, most road pricing proposals appear to be predicated on spending the revenue on public transport provision. It would be good to see a proportion of any road pricing revenue (when it eventually happens somewhere outside London) spent on cycling.


----------



## marinyork (1 Dec 2007)

Sustrans seem to go on about walking very rarely when I see them on tv. It's always going on about offroad routes that are about as useful as Irish famine relief roads. Sustrans to me come across as the sort of people that in other circles are convinced that suddenly everyone is going to jump on a train or a bus and do polls about them and come up with a load of superficial and cosmetic changes - buses smell, they are noisy, dirty, blah, blah, blah, etc. These superficial changes are enacted and not much changes. This is the same thing, off road cycle tracks going nowhere are the same cosmetic nonsense. Sustrans could build hundreds of miles more and find no change in cycling. To get people to change you need to clobber them financially, change attitudes and build practical solutions.


----------



## John the Monkey (1 Dec 2007)

Brock said:


> So based on that experience you would consider the provision of such 'trails' a bad thing? I would contend that your friends' quality of life and health is being improved even if they do stubbornly refuse to cycle to work on the road, and so surely those particular trails are worth having?


I wouldn't disagree - in the sense of my friends having something nice to do on clement weekends, those trails are grand - the local bike hire shops did well out of them before they took the plunge and bought their own gear, and it's been fun talking to them about their experiences.

It hasn't cut their car journeys though - one of them visits his parents pretty frequently (he's single, and has to eat somewhere  ) about a 2 mile trip, that he does by car. The others among them think I'm mad/brave for riding with traffic, and wouldn't think of doing so, despite my suggestions about road positioning, and how to stay out of trouble.

My post wasn't intended to judge outcomes as such, just question the assertion


> If people are more tempted to try cycling as a leisure activity because there are pleasant routes for them to try locally at the weekend, then they are far more likely to realise the bicycle is actually a perfectly viable form of transport


- as yet, I've not seen that from the people I know, although they've gained a very pleasant hobby.



> but I'm sure many will make the transition onto the quiet roads and gain confidence with traffic in a way that might just end up with them using the bicycle to fight evil, crime and planetary implosion.



I dunno about the last part, but I hope you're right about the first - certainly Gerry's experiences back that up, and is good to hear.


----------



## gpx001 (2 Dec 2007)

Sustrans get my vote - at least they are trying to imrpove cycling facilities in the UK. I use a few of their National Cycle Routes regularly, which have both on and off road sections and whilst not 100% brilliant, they provide a decent cycle friendly marked route in and out of the towns and city I use.


----------



## Brock (2 Dec 2007)

domd1979 said:


> Because cycling is a form of transport, and needs to be seen as a viable means of transport for day to day journeys to replace some of the high proportion of car journeys which are short in length.



Yeah but I mean, on a basic level, why does it? There always seems to be this _need_ to get people onto bicycles, I'm trying to work out what the reason for that actually is.

Is it simply carbon footprint maths? I've never really seen myself as an eco warrior


----------



## Danny (2 Dec 2007)

Because road transport accounts for a significant proportion of the UK's carbon emissions. If we want to avert catastrophic global warming then the UK will need to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. 

Amongst the other things we will need to do to achieve this is to bring about a massive shift away from car use, and instead get people to walk, cycle and use public transport.


----------



## jonesy (2 Dec 2007)

Dannyg said:


> Because road transport accounts for a significant proportion of the UK's carbon emissions. If we want to avert catastrophic global warming then the UK will need to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.
> 
> Amongst the other things we will need to do to achieve this is to bring about a massive shift away from car use, and instead get people to walk, cycle and use public transport.



IMHO carbon is not the best argument for promoting cycling or walking. The trips most readily converted to cycling and walking are short, so the carbon saved even by a very significant modal shift to cycling from driving will still be a comparatively small part of the transport total. Nonetheless, there are plenty of very good reasons for encouraging more cycling: congestion, health, accessibility and social inclusion; these reasons are sufficient in themselves to justify more cycling and any carbon savings can be seen as a useful bonus.


----------



## Danny (2 Dec 2007)

mjones said:


> IMHO carbon is not the best argument for promoting cycling or walking. The trips most readily converted to cycling and walking are short, so the carbon saved even by a very significant modal shift to cycling from driving will still be a comparatively small part of the transport total. Nonetheless, there are plenty of very good reasons for encouraging more cycling: congestion, health, accessibility and social inclusion; these reasons are sufficient in themselves to justify more cycling and any carbon savings can be seen as a useful bonus.



I take your point, and would also agree that cycling brings about plenty of other benefits. However I would still say that there are still significant carbon savings to be had from eliminating multiple short journeys by car* (e.g. the school run) as these still account for a significant proportion of car miles. Reducing car use will also help reduce air pollution which is still dangerously high in many towns and cities.

* I am sure there are scientific models which will tell us the relative carbon savings to be had from eliminating short and long car journeys. I won't pretend to have that level of expertise.


----------



## marinyork (2 Dec 2007)

Yes I would agree with MJones. Congestion, reduced pollutants and noise alone are good enough reasons for me. We've probably all got neighbours who drive 2-5 minutes round the corner not just when they are in a hurry or part of a journey elsewhere on the way but for the sake of it. This courses a disproportionate amount of congestion that with the amount of carbon used and length of journey is very difficult to clobber them financially to stop them doing it as often. If you got them walking or cycling more often they'd probably be slightly happier and healthier and may even start thinking about how they got about longer journeys.


----------



## snorri (2 Dec 2007)

I don't think the carbon savings issue, although valid, is a good selling point for cycling because the gains are all but invisible. People can feel healthier quite soon if they start cycling, it is easier to get around in towns and cheap too, parking is more convenient, so these issues sell cycling more effectively I think.


----------



## marinyork (2 Dec 2007)

I'd agree, apart from the parking bit.


----------



## Tony (4 Dec 2007)

I've said it before, but Sustrans said they were supporting cycling and walking. That phrase sums up an awful lot of their "cycle routes"---be prepared to walk, and forget about taking anything other than an unloaded upright solo.


----------



## sheddy (8 Dec 2007)

Local projects in Cardiff, Glasgow, Hastings and Perth on the video -
http://www.thepeoples50million.org.uk/projects/connect2


----------



## phaedrus (12 Dec 2007)

*They Won!!*

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7140621.stm


----------



## gavintc (12 Dec 2007)

According to the comment, they got 42% of the vote. That is not bad going for a sport deemed not worth supporting by our wonderful government. 

I think the government are out of step with the mood of the nation - surprise surprise.

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/British_Cycling_blanked_article_166673.html


----------



## bof (12 Dec 2007)

I'm not pro Sustran for a variety of reasons, but theirs was the only project that offered (apparent) benefits across a wide swathe of the UK, otherwise it was a vote for Cornwall, the Black Country or Sherwood Forest and most of us don't live that near any of those. Not surprising, then, that it won.

Incidentally when I tried voting (for the Black Country even though its nowhere near me) it kept rejecting my "funny writing" code, so I gave up


----------



## Rhythm Thief (12 Dec 2007)

gavintc said:


> According to the comment, they got 42% of the vote. That is not bad going for a *sport *deemed not worth supporting by our wonderful government.



Sport?  Mode of transport and nothing else for me.


----------



## snorri (12 Dec 2007)

Rhythm Thief said:


> Sport?  Mode of transport and nothing else for me.



I'll second that.
You beat me to it RT.


----------



## Danny (13 Dec 2007)

gavintc said:


> According to the comment, they got 42% of the vote. That is not bad going for a sport deemed not worth supporting by our wonderful government.
> 
> I think the government are out of step with the mood of the nation - surprise surprise.
> QUOTE]
> ...


----------

