# National Cycle Network - some paths not very good?



## NorthernDave (11 Nov 2018)

Well, that's not the exact phrase they used in this article:

The Guardian: National Cycle Network has many 'crap' paths, says charity in charge.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...rk-has-many-crap-paths-says-charity-in-charge

We've discussed this on here many times before, but what is the answer?


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Nov 2018)

Sustrans cannot even tell you what the surfaces of their network are. So bad is their admin and ability to present the information. Needs to be minimum standards like they do for road building and compliance needs to be reported publicly. Not just width, and surface standards but also ones for accessibility, acceptable barriers, road crossings, mimi um lengths. All that fail should be struck off any that counted towards council grants.


----------



## tom73 (11 Nov 2018)

So we ride on the road and have to work our way though and be on the look out the ever growing pot holes and crumbling road net work. Well at the same time watching our backs for the planks in the tins boxers. 

So we go off road on to a highway made for cycling only to find that it's not much better than the pot hole roads we took to the cycle network to avoid in the 1st place. Even if we do find a good bit the path maybe blocked so we have to carry our bike over them. 

We just can't win can we ?


----------



## Drago (11 Nov 2018)

Crap is quite generous.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (11 Nov 2018)

I rarely use cycle infrastructure away from home as it is so unpredictable.


----------



## tom73 (11 Nov 2018)

Forgive my question but as a newbie I want to check if I have this right. 
National Cycle Network is it just a miss-mash of local authority paths under a united name? 
Or is it a mix of local authority and Sustrans ownership with no one really taking ownership or over sight of it?


----------



## fossyant (11 Nov 2018)

Crap is fine if you use a MTB, thats often too smooth.... NCNs are very variable and certainly not suited to road bikes. Hybids or cross bikes with sturdy tyres as a minimun. PS note the lack of the term 'adventure bike' - its a cross bike OK. Been one of those for donkey's years.


----------



## Drago (11 Nov 2018)

Imagine Chris Grayling spent several years eating random meals of tarmac, paving slabs, and clay based mud. Attach wheels to him and wheel him about at random while he poops out various different surfaces. For a bit of light relief throw in the of odd random anti motorcycle obstacles so I can't push Mrs D's wheelchair down them. Then drop a tactical nuke on it, and rebuild it using digestive biscuits mortared together with prit stick, and it would still be better and more conveniently placed than the real thing.


----------



## lane (11 Nov 2018)

Done on the cheap obviously. The answer


tom73 said:


> Forgive my question but as a newbie I want to check if I have this right.
> National Cycle Network is it just a miss-mash of local authority paths under a united name?
> Or is it a mix of local authority and Sustrans ownership with no one really taking ownership or over sight of it?



I am no expert but I don't think Sustrans own any of the paths (stand to be corrected) otherwise you are spot on. Mish mash with no real ownership is just about right.


----------



## Sunny Portrush (11 Nov 2018)

I do have a lot of time for Sustrans and the work they do ( I don`t work for them I hasten to add). I live right on NCN 1 and have seen the upgrade in the paths over the years but sometimes they manage to shoot themselves in the foot. With Sustrans help, a small section of cycle path has been built west out of West Barns (virtually Dunbar) in East Lothian. A lovely new surface was laid except that all the man-hole covers on the stretch of path are 2/3" above the surface so you have to be wary or you`ll go arse over, er, elbow!


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2018)

I'd like to say that there is _nothing _wrong with NCN 68 through Hebden Bridge ...

That Chris Froome couldn't cope with on the way up and a kamikaze downhill mountain biker with a death wish would be worried about on the way down!


----------



## snorri (12 Nov 2018)

tom73 said:


> Forgive my question but as a newbie I want to check if I have this right.
> National Cycle Network is it just a miss-mash of local authority paths under a united name?
> Or is it a mix of local authority and Sustrans ownership with no one really taking ownership or over sight of it?


It's a mix of owned and maintained (or not maintained) by the local authority or trunk road authority with a small proportion owned by Sustrans and maintained by Sustrans volunteers. Sustrans have undertaken to provide mapping of the entire NCN regardless of ownership of individual route sections.
Some route sections not owned by Sustrans, are inspected by Sustrans volunteers who report the defects they find to the appropriate authority, but these reports are usually ignored.AFAIK.


----------



## Andy in Germany (12 Nov 2018)

ColinJ said:


> I'd like to say that there is _nothing _wrong with NCN 68 through Hebden Bridge ...
> 
> That Chris Froome couldn't cope with on the way up and a kamikaze downhill mountain biker with a death wish would be worried about on the way down!
> 
> View attachment 438301



I like that "Unsuitable for motors" but fine for people who use muscle power. Obviously our safety isn't as important.


----------



## rogerzilla (12 Nov 2018)

Nearly all the off-road paths out of town are roughly surfaced and no use for road bikes or for commuting (too muddy). The town ones are glassed and you need slime tubes or Marathon Plus tyres. I wouldn't plan a route using the NCN.


----------



## Andy in Germany (12 Nov 2018)

[QUOTE 5438986, member: 9609"]NCN1 just south of berwick, this is a good day as it's often full of coo's
View attachment 438303


If you get into a panick with the cows, you have two options, climb over the wall to the right and dodge the trains on the east coast mainline, or, jump 100' off the cliff to the left into the north sea.[/QUOTE]

To be fair our local authority spent about 12 years alternating between insisting a very similar field (sans cliff and cows) was a cycleway and promising to surface it 'next year'. Eventually they made the worlds most expensive cycle path: 50 000 € for a gravel path 50cm wide and perhaps 300m long...


----------



## tom73 (12 Nov 2018)

snorri said:


> It's a mix of owned and maintained (or not maintained) by the local authority or trunk road authority with a small proportion owned by Sustrans and maintained by Sustrans volunteers. Sustrans have undertaken to provide mapping of the entire NCN regardless of ownership of individual route sections.
> Some route sections not owned by Sustrans, are inspected by Sustrans volunteers who report the defects they find to the appropriate authority, but these reports are usually ignored.AFAIK.



So it's National network with no one overseeing it, coordinating repair or maintenance , recruiting and managing volunteers. The only thing national about it is a map of a route. So how can anyone begin to even try and fix it? Unless local councils shock horror work together or even more mind-blowing hand the whole lot over to a truly national trust as we have with the canal network. Then in short we are stuffed. Knowing what I know and my past experience with local government empire building Sustrans may as well knit fog.


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> I like that "Unsuitable for motors" but fine for people who use muscle power. Obviously our safety isn't as important.


I have posted that picture many times but you are the first person to comment on the sign - I was careful to get it in the shot! 

Unfortunately, the NCN sign is some distance away so it would be difficult to get both in. 

I might have another go next time I cycle over there. To the bottom of it by road, that is! I only tried cycling down once, chickened out, and crashed when I braked...


----------



## Ian H (12 Nov 2018)

The only news here is that Sustrans have admitted it (or belatedly found out).


----------



## snorri (12 Nov 2018)

tom73 said:


> So it's National network with no one overseeing it, coordinating repair or maintenance , recruiting and managing volunteers. The only thing national about it is a map of a route. So how can anyone begin to even try and fix it? Unless local councils shock horror work together or even more mind-blowing hand the whole lot over to a truly national trust as we have with the canal network. Then in short we are stuffed. Knowing what I know and my past experience with local government empire building Sustrans may as well knit fog.


Local councils and trunk road authorities already maintain the roads network in their own particular geographical area to nationally agreed standards. There is no reason why the cycle network could not be similarly maintained, apart from the apathy of these organisation towards cycling and walking. If or when the cycling lobby became as vociferous as the motoring lobby, then things could change. Unfortunately the cycling lobby is already split between utility and sport cycling whose wishes can be quite different.


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2018)

snorri said:


> It's a mix of owned and maintained (or not maintained) by the local authority or trunk road authority with a small proportion owned by Sustrans and maintained by Sustrans volunteers. Sustrans have undertaken to provide mapping of the entire NCN regardless of ownership of individual route sections.
> Some route sections not owned by Sustrans, are inspected by Sustrans volunteers who report the defects they find to the appropriate authority, but these reports are usually ignored.AFAIK.


Nearly correct. The defect reports are not ignored, but closed as "does not meet our policy intervention level" regardless of what's in the authority's policy.

Sustrans's mapping seems to be fantasy, seemingly largely based on reports from the highway authorities which are, shall we say optimistic? OpenStreetMap's volunteers usually do better.

IMO a key problem is the refusal of government to set any binding minimum standards. Under Cameron, this was because localism. Now it's probably because Hammond and Grayling hate cycling.


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> Eventually they made the worlds most expensive cycle path: 50 000 € for a gravel path 50cm wide and perhaps 300m long...


Not even close, sadly. I give you this abomination on Sustrans National Route 1 https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/norwichs-£10k-per-meter-cycle-lane.191155/ and I suspect there may be worse out there.


----------



## Andy in Germany (12 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Not even close, sadly. I give you this abomination on Sustrans National Route 1 https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/norwichs-£10k-per-meter-cycle-lane.191155/ and I suspect there may be worse out there.



At least yours was paved. And more than 50cm wide. 

I remember reading that in Germany they calculate for 1 000 000€ per _metre _of major road. It makes me wonder why Cycle infrastructure is "too expensive"


----------



## Alex H (12 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> At least yours was paved. And more than 50cm wide.
> 
> I remember reading that in Germany they calculate for 1 000 000€ per _metre _of major road. It makes me wonder why Cycle infrastructure is "too expensive"



I don't think construction cost have risen by 8 times in 10 years 

http://www.worldhighways.com/sections/eurofile/news/european-highway-construction-costs-evaluated/

(Germany €8.24 million/km unless mountainous terrain where costs rise to €25.99 million/km)


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2018)

Alex H said:


> I don't think construction cost have risen by 8 times in 10 years
> 
> http://www.worldhighways.com/sections/eurofile/news/european-highway-construction-costs-evaluated/
> 
> (Germany €8.24 million/km unless mountainous terrain where costs rise to €25.99 million/km)


More questions than answers there, such as what spec road, how many lanes, shoulders or not and so on. And there's no source reference linked to check


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2018)

Video announcement 
View: https://youtu.be/L7ngWCwfzDI


----------



## briantrumpet (12 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Video announcement
> View: https://youtu.be/L7ngWCwfzDI



"Paths for everyone" is rather more honest... at least it doesn't give the impression that cyclists can be sure to be able to ride along them.


----------



## Threevok (12 Nov 2018)

I am extremely lucky where I live, that all the routes I use are well maintained - in fact a little too well maintained as the local council has a poo bin and control gate fetish.

They are also well planned, as most are old railway lines, so there are no huge hills or blind bends to contend with (not that hills bother me much)

Some of the ones near Merthyr are a bit silly and (in the case on on-road ones) downright dangerous in places


----------



## MontyVeda (12 Nov 2018)

Threevok said:


> I am extremely lucky where I live, that all the routes I use are well maintained - in fact a little too well maintained as the local council has a poo bin and control gate fetish.
> 
> They are also well planned, as most are old railway lines, so there are no huge hills or blind bends to contend with (not that hills bother me much)
> 
> Some of the ones near Merthyr are a bit silly and (in the case on on-road ones) downright dangerous in places


pretty much the same up here. The first one I was aware of was laid in the early 80s on the disused railway between Lancaster and Morecambe. It was a chalky surface that quickly potholed and was fully tarmacked by the 90s. Many other stretches of disused track have since been given over to walkers, riders and cyclists... which is nice.

After watching _Walking Britain's Lost Railways_... I can't help but imagine what routes we'd have if all the abandoned railways became public rights of way after Beeching's Axe came down. Give me a time machine and i'll form a lobby group to make sure this happened.

There was a spokesperson from Sustran's discussing this on Radio 4's you and yours today... maybe worth a listen.


----------



## mjr (12 Nov 2018)

briantrumpet said:


> "Paths for everyone" is rather more honest... at least it doesn't give the impression that cyclists can be sure to be able to ride along them.


At least "paths" is debatable, but yes, I really don't like "paths" or "traffic-free" (we want them to be successful and contain cycle and foot traffic!) so I'm not yet convinced Sustrans has changed enough to be really useful... but we live in hope!


----------



## NorthernDave (12 Nov 2018)

Some big figures being quoted, so here's mine:

£1m per km for the appalling Leeds - Bradford Cycle Superhighway*

Parts of it are just a cycle lane painted on the existing carriageway or shared paths, so other parts must have been _really_ expensive.

* - this is the official figure. As works massively overran and the final cost doesn't appear to have been announced, who knows what the actual costs is?


----------



## kynikos (12 Nov 2018)

Path? What path? NR 67 on my way into Leeds and the main route of the Trans Pennine Trail.

...and a 4.5 mile detour if you arrive there and can't make it up the steps.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (12 Nov 2018)

We ought to have a photo thread on crap Sustrans network.


----------



## Pale Rider (12 Nov 2018)

We are fortunate in the north east to have several former mineral lines that have been converted into Sustrans paths.

There's not a lot to complain about on the C2C route from Sunderland up into deepest County Durham.

More than 35 miles of mostly off-road, mostly well maintained cinder, gravel or tarmac path.

Same with NCN 1 down the east coast.

Both the paths are also direct, which makes them better for route planning than the roads.

It's even possible to crack on - showing due regard for other users - so it does feel like you are getting somewhere.


----------



## Nigel-YZ1 (12 Nov 2018)

Near Wath the powers that be trialed a new surfacing material. It looks like tarmac with flecks of Rotherham Council champagne corks in it.
They must have thought it a success as there's over a mile of it near Penistone.
It's laid rough and is nice and bouncy for pedestrians, but tooth rattlingly rough for cyclists. One of those reactive substances.
Further up its tarmac covered in fine pea gravel.

If they stopped farting about trying to control the usage they may have enough cash to do the job properly.


----------



## NorthernDave (12 Nov 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> We ought to have a photo thread on crap Sustrans network.



Good call.

I've mentioned this previously, but if I cycle less than a mile from home I can join NCN 66 which will take me all the way to Wetherby.
(For the purposes of this exercise, we'll ignore the fact that there is a significantly shorter route to Wetherby, virtually all on quiet and well tarmacked country lanes).
The first bit of 66 is straight forward on street cycling. It then turns a 90 degree corner onto a rough packed bridleway which is frequently overgrown and unsuitable for a road bike. This deposits you onto a large and busy office / retail park road network.
Across this and then eyes peeled for the almost hidden turning, virtually on the roundabout that takes traffic from the office / retail park onto the motorway.
It's then a shocking poorly surfaced climb up a steep muddy slope onto another bridleway, which has a horse gate thing at the top, then round a couple of narrow turns (hope there are no horses about!) and onto the bridleway proper, which is fairly well packed earth and normally in reasonable condition, the odd few puddles excepted.
This takes you to a junction - NCN 66 turns right over a steeply arched bridge over the M1. (Were you allowed to go straight on and then left you could descend across a field and join another existing bridleway (and traffic free route) to where you're heading, but this missing link is a footpath so no bikes allowed  )
Instead you cross the bridge and descend into woods on the bridleway which is a fun ride on an MTB (if there are no peds / dogs about), but again totally unsuitable for a road bike. This brings you out onto a short stretch of cinder road, which soon becomes tarmac and you're then on the road for well over a mile, including a relatively busy section used as a rat run over the motorway (this is also part of the west Yorkshire Cycle Route, something that appears to be a local council initiative and nothing to do with Sustrans).
Eventually you reach a right turn down a farm access road (gated) which is where you'd arrive opposite if the earlier mentioned route was available to you.
Down the smoothly surfaced access road to another gate and you're then onto a rocky rutted bridleway which climbs up and is definitely a no-go for an MTB.
This levels off and continues to be rocky, rutted and potholed / puddled for some distance (still good fun on an MTB) before reaching here:




You can see how muddy it is - and this was after a fairly dry spell. You can just make out where a small stream runs to the side of the route and this regularly overflows.
The route goes through the tunnel which has an inch or two of standing water in it for much of the year, more in winter, and is unlit and curves off to one side so you need lights, no matter how sunny it is.
Out the other side the standing water is normally deeper and muddier and this continues for a couple of hundred yards beyond the tunnel in all but the driest spells.
It's then decent-ish packed earth for a good way, before turning back to a rocky / rutted surface where it drops down into Aberford.
This was the bike at the end of this section:




The route now takes to the road, through the village and then running parallel to the A1(M) for around two miles mainly uphill to Bramham Crossroads, which is a large and busy roundabout where the A64 crosses the A1(M) which you'll need to negotiate at least 4 slip roads depending on your choice of direction.
Shortly after the roundabout you have a choice of staying on the fast road, or taking to the parallel shared path. Bramham is around 2 miles north.

Once in Bramham NCN 66 continues as a shared path separated from the A1(M) by acoustic fencing, with an interesting and unavoidable dogleg on a flinty / rutted farm track, before taking to another bridleway to where the A659 crosses under the A1(M). Negotiate that roundabout safely and it's another shared tarmac path down the hill to Wetherby where after negotiating another large roundabout you're back on the road to get into the town.

So, most of the route on tarmac (and a significant amount of that on busy roads) making it a bind to be on an MTB with knobbly tyres, but linked by other sections that are effectively impassable on a road bike. 
And nothing on the Sustrans website (or anywhere else that I can see) to advise what the surface will be before you get there.


----------



## kynikos (12 Nov 2018)

NorthernDave said:


> Across this and then eyes peeled for the almost hidden turning, virtually on the roundabout that takes traffic from the office / retail park onto the motorway.



_ I spent the best part of 15 minutes riding around before finding that a couple of weeks ago. :-(_


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2018)

ColinJ said:


> I have posted that picture many times but you are the first person to comment on the sign - I was careful to get it in the shot!
> 
> Unfortunately, the NCN sign is some distance away so it would be difficult to get both in.
> 
> I might have another go next time I cycle over there. To the bottom of it by road, that is! I only tried cycling down once, chickened out, and crashed when I braked...


I cheated - here it is photographed by the Street View car!


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2018)

NorthernDave said:


> Good call.
> 
> I've mentioned this previously, but if I cycle less than a mile from home I can join NCN 66 which will take me all the way to Wetherby.
> (For the purposes of this exercise, we'll ignore the fact that there is a significantly shorter route to Wetherby, virtually all on quiet and well tarmacked country lanes).
> ...


I have plotted a 100 mile route from Garforth up to Wetherby and round in a big loop past Selby and back up to Garforth. I'm hoping to do it on my singlespeed road bike in the Spring. From the sound of it, several of the roads/paths I was going to use are mentioned in your post. I might ask you to take a quick look at the route next year before I do my ride and point out any potential problems. In fact, I might do it as a forum ride and you'd be welcome to come along.


----------



## classic33 (12 Nov 2018)

ColinJ said:


> I'd like to say that there is _nothing _wrong with NCN 68 through Hebden Bridge ...
> 
> That Chris Froome couldn't cope with on the way up and a kamikaze downhill mountain biker with a death wish would be worried about on the way down!
> 
> View attachment 438301


Coming down isn't a problem, it's the 90° left-hander required at the bottom to avoid the wall.


----------



## NorthernDave (12 Nov 2018)

ColinJ said:


> I have plotted a 100 mile route from Garforth up to Wetherby and round in a big loop past Selby and back up to Garforth. I'm hoping to do it on my singlespeed road bike in the Spring. From the sound of it, several of the roads/paths I was going to use are mentioned in your post. I might ask you to take a quick look at the route next year before I do my ride and point out any potential problems. In fact, I might do it as a forum ride and you'd be welcome to come along.



No problem. Not sure my legs have got an imperial century in them at the moment, but at least I've got time to prepare!


----------



## classic33 (12 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> I like that "Unsuitable for motors" but fine for people who use muscle power. Obviously our safety isn't as important.


Narrow with no way but backwards down the slope.

The fact they've included raised sets of stones gives an indication of how steep it is.


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> Coming down isn't a problem, it's the 90° left-hander required at the bottom to avoid the wall.


(Speaking from a lot of experience of walking up and down that path...) IF it could be guaranteed that there would be nobody walking about below you (especially with dogs and/or children!) AND there were no leaf mulch on the cobbles AND there were no moss on the cobbles AND there were no dust on the cobbles AND there were no twigs on the cobbles AND the cobbles were dry AND there were no bits of broken down retaining wall spread around the cobbles AND there were no idiot coming up in a 4x4 and getting stuck (I encountered one once, and he had to reverse all the way back down!) AND there were no idiots on motorbikes coming up at you (I encountered one of them once too, but at least he actually managed to keep going and might have got out of your way!) AND there were no parked cars at the bottom AND the road that you would emerge onto were kept clear of traffic AND (ideally) you had a downhill mountain bike ...

... _THEN _you would stand a reasonable chance of getting down in one piece as long as you didn't get scared and brake too suddenly!


----------



## snorri (12 Nov 2018)

YukonBoy said:


> We ought to have a photo thread on crap Sustrans network.


If you had said crap National Cycle Network I would have supported you, but trying to differentiate between the parts maintained by Sustrans, local authorities and trunk road contractors makes the task quite tiresome and can only result in controversy.


----------



## classic33 (12 Nov 2018)

ColinJ said:


> (Speaking from a lot of experience of walking up and down that path...) IF it could be guaranteed that there would be nobody walking about below you (especially with dogs and/or children!) AND there were no leaf mulch on the cobbles AND there were no moss on the cobbles AND there were no dust on the cobbles AND there were no twigs on the cobbles AND the cobbles were dry AND there were no bits of broken down retaining wall spread around the cobbles AND there were no idiot coming up in a 4x4 and getting stuck (I encountered one once, and he had to reverse all the way back down!) AND there were no idiots on motorbikes coming up at you (I encountered one of them once too, but at least he actually managed to keep going and might have got out of your way!) AND there were no parked cars at the bottom AND the road that you would emerge onto were kept clear of traffic AND (ideally) you had a downhill mountain bike ...
> 
> ... _THEN _you would stand a reasonable chance of getting down in one piece as long as you didn't get scared and brake too suddenly!


There's a chance you could make it doen then.


----------



## lane (12 Nov 2018)

News report regarding NCN


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46179270


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> There's a chance you could make it doen then.


EXCEPT that there are usually people meandering about, and at this time of year there is going to be leaf mulch, moss and twigs on the cobbles, which will often be damp. The walls may have been repaired since I was last up there, and usually there ISN'T a fool driving a car or riding a motorbike up it (or even attempting to cycle up it!) but there are nearly always cars parked at the bottom and the road is usually open to traffic. 

So, having chickened out and crashed on my one and only descent, I am not trying again!

I've never tried riding up it. If I ever get fit enough to give it a good go then I'll try it when the surface is clean and dry.


----------



## classic33 (12 Nov 2018)

The last 50 feet are the worst, on two wheels.


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> The last 50 feet are the worst, on two wheels.


Indeed - after a lot of 15-20% you suddenly hit a drainage channel and then it is immediately a scary 25-30%. If you misjudged it you could take off when you hit the channel and see the path just drop away beneath you. If you didn't manage to keep your front wheel up when you landed you could easily be tossed over the bars and things would be _very _nasty...!


----------



## classic33 (12 Nov 2018)

ColinJ said:


> Indeed - after a lot of 15-20% you suddenly hit a drainage channel and then it is immediately a scary 25-30%. If you misjudged it you could take off when you hit the channel and see the path just drop away beneath you. *If you didn't manage to keep your front wheel *up when you landed you could easily be tossed over the bars and things would be _very _nasty...!


That's where you're going wrong, attempting it on only one wheel.


----------



## ColinJ (12 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> That's where you're going wrong, attempting it on only one wheel.


I never got that far... I lost my nerve by the time I'd drawn level with the little grave yard on the left at the top. (I think it's where they bury the cyclists who die attempting the descent! ) I dabbed the front brake and went straight over the bars. Fortunately I managed to grab the handrail on the wall as I fell so I only ended up with a sore arm/shoulder!


----------



## Andy in Germany (13 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> There's a chance you could make it doen then.



Oh, you'll get _down_. Gravity will see to that...


----------



## Aravis (13 Nov 2018)

NorthernDave said:


> Good call.
> 
> I've mentioned this previously, but if I cycle less than a mile from home I can join NCN 66 which will take me all the way to Wetherby.
> (For the purposes of this exercise, we'll ignore the fact that there is a significantly shorter route to Wetherby, virtually all on quiet and well tarmacked country lanes).
> ...


According to the report published yesterday, none of the 5273 off-road miles of the network have been classified as "very poor".

On the other hand, 62% of the 11302 miles which are on-road are "very poor". It therefore follows, in the opinion of the report compilers, that the abomination you've featured is better than any of these thousands of miles of road.

Opinions are what they are; Sustrans doesn't appear to speak for me.


----------



## rogerzilla (13 Nov 2018)

Sustrans wouldn't get a penny of my.money voluntarily but it gets a lot of taxpsyers' money. I want smooth tarmac and they're still building for the MTB generation.


----------



## srw (13 Nov 2018)

Aravis said:


> On the other hand, 62% of the 11302 miles which are on-road are "very poor". It therefore follows, in the opinion of the report compilers, that the abomination you've featured is better than any of these thousands of miles of road.



YOu could always do the unthinkable and read the original report, where you'll find that "Inadequate surface accounts for 28% of the issues, with 831 miles of traffic-free Network currently unsuitable for a narrow-tyred hybrid bike to pass comfortably". And that one respondent, asked what they would change if they could only change one thing said "Better surface. Ours is a mud bath so you can’t go anywhere useful on it – like work or meetings where you have to turn up looking clean. It’s leisure only on the mountain bike.". And that "Adopt a new quality standard to ensure path widths and surfaces are built for everyone." is an outcome of the review.

You'll also discover that "69% of the issues for on-road sections are related to traffic safety – these are roads where the traffic speeds and/or flows are too high to be deemed acceptable for an unaccompanied 12-year-old to cycle alone. This traffic safety assessment has been based on a comprehensive and empirical traffic speed and flow dataset using actual vehicle numbers and speeds from commercial fleets, GPS, cell towers and mobile devices." And they've recognised that where they can't reduce traffic speeds or reroute they need to be able to decommission sections.

You can disagree with the proposed standard, but it is what it is - the aim is to provide routes that inexperienced cyclists who are not particularly traffic aware can ride safely. The proposed on-road solutions - to reduce speed on a lot of roads - will benefit even the grey-haired grumpy old men who seem to make up the majority of CC's users these days.


----------



## Andy in Germany (13 Nov 2018)

srw said:


> The proposed on-road solutions - to reduce speed on a lot of roads - will benefit even the grey-haired grumpy old men who seem to make up the majority of CC's users these days.



I don't have grey hair.


----------



## swansonj (13 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> I don't have grey hair.


I do. And I am grumpy about Sustrans. But I like to think it’s because I see the bigger picture. By plugging the concept of a National Cycle Network that is different from (a) roads and (b) bridleways, they give a strong nudge to the surrender of the concept that (a) roads and (b) bridleways are part of the shared public infrastructure at the disposal of cyclists (and pedestrians). Short term gains at the risk of a potentially much bigger long term loss.


----------



## Aravis (13 Nov 2018)

srw said:


> YOu could always do the unthinkable and read the original report, where you'll find that "Inadequate surface accounts for 28% of the issues, with 831 miles of traffic-free Network currently unsuitable for a narrow-tyred hybrid bike to pass comfortably".


The report which I was quoting from. Sure, Sustrans recognises the problem of "inadequate" surfaces, but when they imply that a track which is practically impassable due to deep mud or standing water is less bad than a road on which motor vehicles might pass at over 40mph, they show themselves to be out of touch with a large proportion of cyclists.

I'm not disagreeing with the standards Sustrans are using, just pointing out that they're relevant only to a subset of cyclists. But Sustrans always seems to want to give the impression it speaks for everyone.


----------



## Andy in Germany (13 Nov 2018)

swansonj said:


> I do. And I am grumpy about Sustrans. But I like to think it’s because I see the bigger picture. By plugging the concept of a National Cycle Network that is different from (a) roads and (b) bridleways, they give a strong nudge to the surrender of the concept that (a) roads and (b) bridleways are part of the shared public infrastructure at the disposal of cyclists (and pedestrians). Short term gains at the risk of a potentially much bigger long term loss.



I see the problem. We are fortunate here that we have a dense network of _Feldwege _which are similar in concept to a Bridleway, except that they are generally paved, or at least gravel, and open to all non-motorised traffic. They are also _all _open for public use unless there's a good reason to close them off.

This means that in rural areas there's generally a traffic free or at least minimal traffic route between towns. In our area it is even more direct than the road, although that's more luck than judgement...


----------



## srw (13 Nov 2018)

Aravis said:


> Sustrans always seems to want to give the impression it speaks for everyone.


By conducting surveys which demonstrate that the majority of people want traffic free riding?

Like it or not (and like @swansonj I'm not entirely convinced, though if I take his words at face value unlike him I've noticed that the national cycle network is being proposed as a shared use supplement to, not an alternative to roads, bridle ways and other shared use ways to get around) the charity whose name my phone refuses to let me type is speaking to, and for, the general population who want to ride and walk more, not the minority of us who already cycle regularly. And in particular not to the subset of that minority who are agitated enough to post about it online.


----------



## NorthernDave (13 Nov 2018)

For clarity, I don't particularly want to see a cycle network of pristine motorway smooth tarmac cutting through the countryside.
And I quite enjoy riding the bridleway sections I've outlined up thread - when I'm on the right bike, because I know local non-NCN routes that minimise time on the road to get to them.

What we need is a bit of logic being applied, routes being colour coded based on surface / accessibility, so people know what they will find when they get there rather than getting stuck and unable to proceed, or finding themselves on the wrong bike.


----------



## rogerzilla (13 Nov 2018)

Narrow-tyred hybrid bike? What about a road racing bike? They're not exactly rare among commuters. Imagine if most of the road network was only accessible to 4x4s!


----------



## Aravis (13 Nov 2018)

srw said:


> By conducting surveys which demonstrate that the majority of people want traffic free riding?
> 
> Like it or not (and like @swansonj I'm not entirely convinced, though if I take his words at face value unlike him I've noticed that *the national cycle network is being proposed as a shared use supplement to, not an alternative to roads*, bridle ways and other shared use ways to get around) the charity whose name my phone refuses to let me type is speaking to, and for, the general population who want to ride and walk more, not the minority of us who already cycle regularly. And in particular not to the subset of that minority who are agitated enough to post about it online.


That would be fine if Sustrans did not threaten the activities of the minority. I've long felt they're in danger of doing so, and the report published yesterday doesn't particularly reassure me.

BIB - Yesterday I did find something of the Sustrans site which usefully pointed out that the NCN links to a vast number of non-NCN roads, many of which may also be good to cycle on. Sadly today I can't find it.


----------



## Alan O (13 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Sustrans's mapping seems to be fantasy...


And if you look at their mapping, it's clearly done with four felt-tip pens - two purple ones of different thicknesses, and two green ones.


----------



## Threevok (13 Nov 2018)

Alan O said:


> And if you look at their mapping, it's clearly done with four felt-tip pens - two purple ones of different thicknesses, and two green ones.



As opposed to the biro d'italia ? 

Sorry, couldn't resist


----------



## Cavalol (13 Nov 2018)

Some of them are ok, the Millennium
Path in/around Chester, for example which is excellent.
Others are a mixed bag, the Wirral Way (admittedly not ridden it for a couple of years at least) would be murder on a road bike.

Is there a non-Sustrans map of them all where we can enter details of the sections? Might be an idea if not, people could advise as to condition, surface type and what kind of bikes are/are not suitable.


----------



## Threevok (13 Nov 2018)

Cavalol said:


> Some of them are ok, the Millennium
> Path in/around Chester, for example which is excellent.
> Others are a mixed bag, the Wirral Way (admittedly not ridden it for a couple of years at least) would be murder on a road bike.
> 
> Is there a non-Sustrans map of them all where we can enter details of the sections? Might be an idea if not, people could advise as to condition, surface type and what kind of bikes are/are not suitable.



Excellent Idea. 

Surely the best people to map and catalogue these for cyclists would be cyclists themselves


----------



## Aravis (13 Nov 2018)

Alan O said:


> And if you look at their mapping, it's clearly done with four felt-tip pens - two purple ones of different thicknesses, and two green ones.


Yes, that's my impression too. It's good to know I'm not missing something.

If I want to ride through an unfamiliar town, as with Morecambe and Lancaster last week, I tend to find off-road cycle routes using Ordnance Survey. Alternatively, find where RwGPS wants to route me. I then look for evidence of what the surface will be like, either satellite-based or from forum discussions. Better still, last week I had a look at a bit of the path near it's end on the Ingleton road, and finding it was still decent tarmac at that point, inferred that the system was likely to be tarmac throughout. But you can't always do that.

We can infer that Sustrans has collected a mountain of data and photographic evidence covering all parts of the system. Could they actually make this available, perhaps by providing detailed mapping, with information on surface type, width, segregation details, etc? If they could include pop-up photographs to illustrate problem points, it should be possible to plan with confidence.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (13 Nov 2018)

The best info I have seen on Sustrans routes is OSM where you can at least add the surface details, width, lighting, access etc.


----------



## Richard Fairhurst (13 Nov 2018)

Exactly that. If you add factual info on surface details and width to OpenStreetMap, then the countless sites that use OSM data (cycle.travel, CycleStreets, RideWithGPS, brouter, Komoot, etc. etc.) can and do take account of it. The sites for roadies will prefer tarmac at all costs, the sites for tourers will be a bit happier on gravel, and so on.



Aravis said:


> We can infer that Sustrans has collected a mountain of data and photographic evidence covering all parts of the system. Could they actually make this available, perhaps by providing detailed mapping, with information on surface type, width, segregation details, etc?



Yes, I believe (from reading a few tweets yesterday) Sustrans' intention is to provide the factual data in an open format which mapping/route-planning sites can then use. I don't know of any intention to publish photographs - I don't think they've been collected centrally, whereas the data certainly has (I have a copy sitting here as part of some of the volunteer work I've been doing for the NCN review!).


----------



## Alan O (13 Nov 2018)

Cavalol said:


> Some of them are ok, the Millennium
> Path in/around Chester, for example which is excellent.
> Others are a mixed bag, the Wirral Way (admittedly not ridden it for a couple of years at least) would be murder on a road bike.
> 
> Is there a non-Sustrans map of them all where we can enter details of the sections? Might be an idea if not, people could advise as to condition, surface type and what kind of bikes are/are not suitable.


I tried to follow the canal route through central Chester a couple of weeks ago and it was closed at a point where my only realistic exit was to carry my bike up on to the city walls and walk. I'm not blaming Sustrans for that, but the closure barrier didn't look recent and a national map really needs to reflect path access to be useful.

But the Wirral Way - I've ridden it a lot this year and it's fine for road bikes, at least in dry-ish weather. And if the surface gets a bit slippy in the wet, tyres with some tread are all you really need.

But yes, some sort of feedback forum where people can report on the current state of routes seems like a great idea to me.


----------



## mjr (13 Nov 2018)

Richard Fairhurst said:


> Exactly that. If you add factual info on surface details and width to OpenStreetMap, then the countless sites that use OSM data (cycle.travel, CycleStreets, RideWithGPS, brouter, Komoot, etc. etc.) can and do take account of it. The sites for roadies will prefer tarmac at all costs, the sites for tourers will be a bit happier on gravel, and so on.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I believe (from reading a few tweets yesterday) Sustrans' intention is to provide the factual data in an open format which mapping/route-planning sites can then use. I don't know of any intention to publish photographs - I don't think they've been collected centrally, whereas the data certainly has (I have a copy sitting here as part of some of the volunteer work I've been doing for the NCN review!).


Photos can be uploaded to www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/

What needs to happen for cycle.travel/map to offer a link to search that and not only geograph and Google?


----------



## Threevok (13 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Photos can be uploaded to www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/
> 
> What needs to happen for cycle.travel/map to offer a link to search that and not only geograph and Google?



Great 

It looks like I have a lot of pictures to take, for near me

http://www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/#12/51.7466/-3.1915


----------



## swansonj (13 Nov 2018)

srw said:


> By conducting surveys which demonstrate that the majority of people want traffic free riding?
> 
> Like it or not (and like @swansonj I'm not entirely convinced, though if I take his words at face value unlike him I've noticed that the national cycle network is being proposed as a shared use supplement to, not an alternative to roads, bridle ways and other shared use ways to get around) the charity whose name my phone refuses to let me type is speaking to, and for, the general population who want to ride and walk more, not the minority of us who already cycle regularly. And in particular not to the subset of that minority who are agitated enough to post about it online.


For the record:

If you “take [my] words at face value”, I said that Sustrans are plugging the NCN as something “different” from roads and bridleways i.e. as a different network to the road network. I don’t see how that can possibly be disputed as a statement of fact. 

As for what we each have or have not noticed about Sustran’s intent, I think the difference on this occasion may not be in the words we have read as in the degree to which we have believed them. 

And I didn’t, and don’t, dispute the value of Sustrans in facilitating infrastructure that gets more people cycling. Like I said, short term gain, possible long term loss.


----------



## mjr (13 Nov 2018)

swansonj said:


> If you “take [my] words at face value”, I said that Sustrans are plugging the NCN as something “different” from roads and bridleways i.e. as a different network to the road network. I don’t see how that can possibly be disputed as a statement of fact. .


If so, then that's wrong. All of the cycleable NCN are roads in law. Even the bridleways are legally roads IIRC - just not carriageways. The only bits that aren't are some of the farking shoot bits which you aren't allowed to cycle on - and even some of those are roads restricted to walkers only.


----------



## Cavalol (13 Nov 2018)

Alan O said:


> I tried to follow the canal route through central Chester a couple of weeks ago and it was closed at a point where my only realistic exit was to carry my bike up on to the city walls and walk. I'm not blaming Sustrans for that, but the closure barrier didn't look recent and a national map really needs to reflect path access to be useful.
> 
> But the Wirral Way - I've ridden it a lot this year and it's fine for road bikes, at least in dry-ish weather. And if the surface gets a bit slippy in the wet, tyres with some tread are all you really need.
> 
> But yes, some sort of feedback forum where people can report on the current state of routes seems like a great idea to me.




That sounds like the bit on my commute. If you come up the canal lock 'steps' (you can ride up there) then if you look at sort of 1.00 you'll see a cobbled ramp. Take that, then turn left at the top. Left on Northgate Street (two way to cyclists, one way to vehicles) go through the lights, then take the second right, past Tesco express. Follow that road round the corner, take the left and go past the new bus station on your left. At the bottom of that road (George Street) turn right, go over Cow Lane Bridge and you can re-join the canal there. Head away from the bridge (without going under it) and you'll go towards Boughton, Vicars Cross and the A41. The canal path is paved to Waverton, after that it's not much different to riding across a field until you get to Hurleston junction, with just the odd paved bit along the way. There's a cracking pub at the side of the Shropshire Union near Beeston called The Shady Oak if you need a 'reason' for a pint or several!
Apologies if you already knew all this by the way.


----------



## Richard Fairhurst (13 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Photos can be uploaded to www.cyclestreets.net/photomap/
> 
> What needs to happen for cycle.travel/map to offer a link to search that and not only geograph and Google?



It would probably need a new API call on the CycleStreets side of things - when you look for Geograph photos, cycle.travel searches along the polyline of the currently selected route leg, whereas the CycleStreets API seems to only permit querying at a single lat/long point. I'm a bit tied up with other cycle.travel stuff at the moment but will give it some thought!


----------



## mjr (13 Nov 2018)

Richard Fairhurst said:


> It would probably need a new API call on the CycleStreets side of things - when you look for Geograph photos, cycle.travel searches along the polyline of the currently selected route leg, whereas the CycleStreets API seems to only permit querying at a single lat/long point. I'm a bit tied up with other cycle.travel stuff at the moment but will give it some thought!


Looks to me like you can search within a boundary polygon in their API version 2 https://www.cyclestreets.net/api/v2/photomap.locations/ but I guess it'll take a bit of testing to decide how much to broaden the polyline of the route leg by.


----------



## swansonj (13 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> If so, then that's wrong. All of the cycleable NCN are roads in law. Even the bridleways are legally roads IIRC - just not carriageways. The only bits that aren't are some of the farking shoot bits which you aren't allowed to cycle on - and even some of those are roads restricted to walkers only.


It’s a fair cop in terms of the legal definitions of the terms. I think that what I meant was conveyed more clearly by my everyday use of the terms than it might have been by more legally precise terms, but nonetheless, I put my hands up.


----------



## mjr (13 Nov 2018)

swansonj said:


> It’s a fair cop in terms of the legal definitions of the terms. I think that what I meant was conveyed more clearly by my everyday use of the terms than it might have been by more legally precise terms, but nonetheless, I put my hands up.


Sorry if I was harsh - as hinted earlier, I do get a bit irritated by Sustrans's abuse of the terms "off-road" and "traffic-free" to mean different things to their everyday meanings, so hearing that they may now be abusing "road" as well is a bit 

I think last I knew, something over 60% of the NCN was on quieter roads, which shouldn't be surprising because so is much of the Netherlands cycle network and even more of the Flemish, but they're mostly roads which have been dead-ended for motorists, often with low speed limits and other restrictions, or markings that make it clear they're cycle routes - by contrast, I suspect far too much of the NCN is on unadapted 60mph rural roads.


----------



## srw (13 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> by contrast, I suspect far too much of the NCN is on unadapted 60mph rural roads



Which is one of the things that Sustrans is saying ...


----------



## Richard Fairhurst (13 Nov 2018)

And if it can be pulled off it'd be genuinely exciting - not just rebalancing the minor roads used by the NCN back towards cyclists, walkers and horse-riders, but setting a template for the rest of the minor road network. There's some really interesting good practice in this area in Europe, not just in the Netherlands but Germany, France ("chaucidous") and so on.


----------



## Alan O (13 Nov 2018)

Cavalol said:


> That sounds like the bit on my commute. If you come up the canal lock 'steps' (you can ride up there) then if you look at sort of 1.00 you'll see a cobbled ramp. Take that, then turn left at the top. Left on Northgate Street (two way to cyclists, one way to vehicles) go through the lights, then take the second right, past Tesco express. Follow that road round the corner, take the left and go past the new bus station on your left. At the bottom of that road (George Street) turn right, go over Cow Lane Bridge and you can re-join the canal there. Head away from the bridge (without going under it) and you'll go towards Boughton, Vicars Cross and the A41. The canal path is paved to Waverton, after that it's not much different to riding across a field until you get to Hurleston junction, with just the odd paved bit along the way. There's a cracking pub at the side of the Shropshire Union near Beeston called The Shady Oak if you need a 'reason' for a pint or several!
> Apologies if you already knew all this by the way.


Great, thanks - I particularly like nice pubs close to canal towpaths and other cycle routes


----------



## lane (13 Nov 2018)

There is a lane aground here which is very popular with cyclists - only really wide enough for one car width, which was sort of closed to motor vehicles for a while - in that you couldn't get from one end to the other - so was only used by motor vehicles who need to access properties on the road itself. Cyclists, walkers and horse riders could travel the whole length. It seems to have been opened up again now. However maybe a model for the NCN?

I noticed in Holland that on road cycle routes often have reasonably wide cycle lanes either side of the road so effectively reducing the road to a single carriageway, where motor vehicles can find it difficult to pass each other if the cycle lane is in use by cyclists- again maybe a model for NCN.

Basically on road cycle lanes could be a lot better providing there is a willingness to seriously inconvenience motorists.


----------



## swansonj (13 Nov 2018)

lane said:


> ....
> 
> I noticed in Holland that on road cycle routes often have reasonably wide cycle lanes either side of the road so effectively reducing the road to a single carriageway, where motor vehicles can find it difficult to pass each other if the cycle lane is in use by cyclists- again maybe a model for NCN.
> 
> Basically on road cycle lanes could be a lot better providing there is a willingness to seriously inconvenience motorists.


I completely agree with you. But why a model just for the NCN? That should be a model for roads (Sorry, “highways”) in general.


----------



## classic33 (13 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> Oh, you'll get _down_. Gravity will see to that...


But how far down?


----------



## snorri (13 Nov 2018)

lane said:


> Basically on road cycle lanes could be a lot better providing there is a willingness to seriously inconvenience motorists.


Or if motorists could be educated to realise that a few seconds delay here and there is not a serious inconvenience but simply a part of sharing the road with fellow travellers.


----------



## briantrumpet (13 Nov 2018)

lane said:


> I noticed in Holland that on road cycle routes often have reasonably wide cycle lanes either side of the road so effectively reducing the road to a single carriageway, where motor vehicles can find it difficult to pass each other if the cycle lane is in use by cyclists- again maybe a model for NCN.
> 
> Basically on road cycle lanes could be a lot better providing there is a willingness to seriously inconvenience motorists.


They've recently done that on the approach to my 'other' home town, Die, in France. Unscientifically, my experience has been that is has radically altered motorists' behaviour around bikes for that (500m) stretch: it makes the road appear to be single lane (there is no longer a dotted white line in the middle), and drivers therefore seem to wait until there is nothing coming the other way before overtaking cyclists. When there re no cyclists in either direction, motorists use the 'cycle lanes' so it is two-way traffic. As intended.


----------



## classic33 (13 Nov 2018)

_"Bridleways are also footpaths, but additionally users are permitted to ride or lead a horse, and ride bicycles. Horse drawn vehicles are not allowed. This may not include other animals, although a donkey or mule is classed as a horse for these purposes. Cyclists must give way to pedestrians and horseriders. Motorcycling is not allowed. Bridleways are not necessarily surfaced, and because of this a well used bridleway can sometimes be effectively impassable for pedestrians."_


----------



## mjr (13 Nov 2018)

briantrumpet said:


> They've recently done that on the approach to my 'other' home town, Die, in France. Unscientifically, my experience has been that is has radically altered motorists' behaviour around bikes for that (500m) stretch: it makes the road appear to be single lane (there is no longer a dotted white line in the middle), and drivers therefore seem to wait until there is nothing coming the other way before overtaking cyclists. When there re no cyclists in either direction, motorists use the 'cycle lanes' so it is two-way traffic. As intended.


Let's go the whole hog:





http://bloft.lu/bicycle-streets-in-gent/


----------



## classic33 (13 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Let's go the whole hog:
> View attachment 438630
> 
> http://bloft.lu/bicycle-streets-in-gent/


Why?

Why not spend the money maintaining the roads, bringing them up to scratch. It benefits every road user, not just a few.


----------



## briantrumpet (13 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Let's go the whole hog:
> View attachment 438630
> 
> http://bloft.lu/bicycle-streets-in-gent/


The stretch of road in Die also is the only road for all traffic going along the valley: sharing, and compromise, is the only option. It's a seriously busy road in the summer. at least the new layout is a distinct improvement, for which I'm grateful.


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> Why?
> 
> Why not spend the money maintaining the roads, bringing them up to scratch. It benefits every road user, not just a few.


Because that's just peeing money into holes in the road if nothing's done to reduce new holes being worn into them by heavy motor vehicles, so it's better to discourage motoring on unsuitable roads by priotising cycling on them at the same time as repairing them.


----------



## classic33 (14 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Because that's just peeing money into holes in the road if nothing's done to reduce new holes being worn into them by heavy motor vehicles, so it's better to discourage motoring on unsuitable roads by priotising cycling on them at the same time as repairing them.


Paint the cycle lanes on the worst part of the road. Keeping heavy traffic off it and reduce the holes increasing in size then.


----------



## Andy in Germany (14 Nov 2018)

mjr said:


> Let's go the whole hog:
> View attachment 438630
> 
> http://bloft.lu/bicycle-streets-in-gent/




We've got a few of these locally, where bikes have right of way, and cars are discouraged or prevented from using the whole length of the road. Unlike the example above there's no red markings, just signs, and every few hundred metres the road is blocked to cars or there is a one way section for cars that is two way for bikes.



classic33 said:


> Why?
> 
> Why not spend the money maintaining the roads, bringing them up to scratch. It benefits every road user, not just a few.



Because it doesn't just benefit a few users. By reducing motorised traffic it benefits local residents who don't have to breathe the fumes, or drive short distances because it was unsafe/unpleasant to walk or cycle, and local businesses that can get deliveries more easily and get more customers because it is more pleasant to walk down the street. Also emergency vehicles can get to where they need to go more easily. In fact, it benefits everyone who lives on works on, or uses the street, not just road users.




classic33 said:


> Paint the cycle lanes on the worst part of the road. Keeping heavy traffic off it and reduce the holes increasing in size then.



I thought that was government policy around here: only paint a cycleway on a road that is so wrecked it's unusable for cars.


----------



## rogerzilla (14 Nov 2018)

I'm sure road damage has increased since the weight limit of HGVs was increased to 44 tonnes. i know the per-axle weight is supposed to be lower but the entire sub-base of the road is collapsing in many places - not a pothole, typically an area about 10 feet by 10 feet. Cars do very little damage as even the Wilmslow panzers are too light.


----------



## Andy in Germany (14 Nov 2018)

classic33 said:


> But how far down?



On that road, I'm guessing until you hit something solid and immovable, like the bottom of the hill.


----------



## Brains (14 Nov 2018)

When we were riding in Germany we found they graded cycle route quality 1-6.
Grade 1 was akin to a velodrome surface and 6 was a sealed flat surface akin to a newly laid London type traffic free CS route. 
One assumes ungraded 7 to 10 were typical UK road rough tarmac to cobbles.
A typical UK gravel cycle path and the similar would have been grade 11 onward and not classed as a cycle route. (As they are unsuitable for skinny smooth tyres) 

This means in the UK there would probably not be a single contiguous kilometre of cycle route at the minimum German level 6.


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2018)

Brains said:


> This means in the UK there would probably not be a single contiguous kilometre of cycle route at the minimum German level 6.


You're too harsh. The bits of former railways with recent tarmac and no flooding (part of Route 51 near Girton, say) might just scrape level 6 and be slightly more than a kilometre between junctions where it all goes to hell again


----------



## ColinJ (14 Nov 2018)

Brains said:


> When we were riding in Germany we found they graded cycle route quality 1-6.
> Grade 1 was akin to a velodrome surface and 6 was a sealed flat surface akin to a newly laid London type traffic free CS route.
> One assumes ungraded 7 to 10 were typical UK road rough tarmac to cobbles.
> A typical UK gravel cycle path and the similar would have been grade 11 onward and not classed as a cycle route. (As they are unsuitable for skinny smooth tyres)
> ...


That is not true. There are some really good routes being created all over the country, often on the routes of disused railway lines. Example, Padiham Greenway which is nearly 3 km long ...







Guest appearance from @potsy (front left) in the days when he still wanted to ride with me!


----------



## Edwardoka (14 Nov 2018)

lane said:


> I noticed in Holland that on road cycle routes often have reasonably wide cycle lanes either side of the road so effectively reducing the road to a single carriageway, where motor vehicles can find it difficult to pass each other if the cycle lane is in use by cyclists- again maybe a model for NCN.
> 
> Basically on road cycle lanes could be a lot better providing there is a willingness to seriously inconvenience motorists.


We have something similar on Eaglesham Moor up here, cycle lanes on either side and a single track lane between them.

This is what they normally look like.




I'm sure that some people must drive between the lines, only I've never seen it (except when they're overtaking)
If the extremely worn paint is anything to go by (this was taken by streetview in 2011 and it is much worse now) , no-one ever has.


----------



## Andy in Germany (14 Nov 2018)

Edwardoka said:


> We have something similar on Eaglesham Moor up here, cycle lanes on either side and a single track lane between them.
> 
> This is what they normally look like.
> View attachment 438703
> ...



Maybe because it's unusual, whereas in the Netherlands people are used to them and probably get trained how to use them as part of their drivers licence. Certainly when I rode in the NL drivers gravitated to the middle of the road between the lines.


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> Maybe because it's unusual, whereas in the Netherlands people are used to them and probably get trained how to use them as part of their drivers licence. Certainly when I rode in the NL drivers gravitated to the middle of the road between the lines.


I'm often surprised how many GB drivers hug the left verge on roads with no centre lines, but still travel at high speeds, increasing their chances of killing an animal that runs across the road, as well as damaging their vehicle. It's like there's not enough rural driving in the driving tests that are mostly delivered in urban test centres...


----------



## classic33 (14 Nov 2018)

Andy in Germany said:


> On that road, I'm guessing until you hit something solid and immovable, like the bottom of the hill.


There's two slight bends in that "straight" road, and an unsited entrance on your left(as you head down). Then the wall at the bottom which requires the 90° left-hand turn.


----------



## DCBassman (30 Nov 2018)

NCN27, between the southern NT Lydford Gorge entrance (Mucky Duck), and Burn Lane in Brentor. So far as I'm aware, the route points this way generally, rather than being an alternative. Better to keep on going past Mucky Duck.


----------



## sheddy (23 Feb 2019)

Maybe (or maybe not) a chance to fix their comms issues - Sustrans job in Bristol
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/about-u...J-iACwFC_X-5-JD_TJHL8dMNXyqcofGg9i-BdscSRdSMM


----------



## viniga (25 Feb 2019)

Edwardoka said:


> We have something similar on Eaglesham Moor up here, cycle lanes on either side and a single track lane between them.
> 
> This is what they normally look like.
> View attachment 438703
> ...



That's my local road! To be honest 80% of drivers use it like a normal road and drive with one wheel in the cycle path. I have never seen anyone wait for the painted in "passing places" to be used. I can understand the behaviour too as there are several blind summits on the road... as a driver do you stay in the middle of the road or move over to the left when approaching one... It's also very unusual and confuses the hell out of drivers who have never used it before.


----------



## Edwardoka (25 Feb 2019)

viniga said:


> That's my local road! To be honest 80% of drivers use it like a normal road and drive with one wheel in the cycle path. I have never seen anyone wait for the painted in "passing places" to be used. I can understand the behaviour too as there are several blind summits on the road... as a driver do you stay in the middle of the road or move over to the left when approaching one... It's also very unusual and confuses the hell out of drivers who have never used it before.


I've never been up there without being on a bike so can't say how drivers normally use it, only that based on some of the passes I've experienced it might as well be a standard two-lane road.


----------

