# Sustrans/cycleways- what do you want?



## equicyclist (21 Feb 2010)

This is my first post and I hope you will be kind to me! I am a horserider and leisure cyclist with a husband and child who are also leisure cyclists. My boy uses Sustrans tracks to get from A to B locally with his friends whilst my hubby does about 30 miles to keep fit. Both like tarmac but they have no other options other than raod.
I am working with the Local Authority here to bring about multi user routes but here we have a Council worker who is taking cycling forward with Sustrans and doing a good job, but he seems anti horse. We are all vulnerable road users and I think there are things we want in common and depending on what sort of riding or cycling you do depends on what tracks you want. We have footpaths that have been given permissive cycleway status and have been tarmaced as Sustrans routes.
What I want to know is does every cyclist prefer tarmac? If not what is the best surface and do you like a natural environment ie canal paths or old railway lines? Sustrans are selling tarmac as the ideal surface but I wonder what cyclists would chose and why. What type of cyclist uses cycleways and Sustrans routes in particular? With money tight for local councils it seems good value for users to share a track and perhaps improve the surface of bridleways which provide a legal route for all.


----------



## marinyork (21 Feb 2010)

On the topic of horses you might want to look at the sort of work done NCN 62 north of Sheffield near Oxspring and Penistone where one half of the past has been treated for what horse users want and the other half has been treated for what cyclists want.

If you think sustrans are selling tarmac as the perfect surface I would say they are telling porkies. A lot of their routes are deeply variable and have all sorts of surfaces from mudbath, to nasty gravely stones, to standard mud footpath with a few stones right through to the highest quality tarmac you've ever seen.


----------



## jonesy (21 Feb 2010)

As ever with these sort of things, the answer is 'it depends'! There isn't a typical Sustrans path users, not least because there isn't a typical Sustrans path. The NCN covers a very wide range of types of provision, location and types of journey served (and quality...), and accordingly attracts a great range of user types at different parts of the network. So what you are going to have to do is to consider each individual scheme and decide what is the most appropriate solution in that situation. 

To work out who the most likely users are going to be, think about what destinations and population the route will serve: is it on a route to school? Does it link housing to a major employment site? Does it provide a link from an urban area to the countryside? Does it *realistically* serve trips within the distance range that most people are willing to consider cycling for? The vast majority of cycle trips are below 5 miles, and more than half are under 2 miles, so unless you can identify a significant number of potential journeys within those sort of distances, then the route is never going to attract a large number of users for utility cycling.

Similarly, think about walking and horse riding in terms of likely journeys people might actually make on the proposed route, again thinking about distance and journey purpose. 

Once you've identified who the most likely user groups are, then you can think about what they need, what is appropriate for the location and to take account of practical constraints such as how much space and money you've got. Now I'd' agree with you that if the route is mostly going to be used for leisure cycling then the surface doesn't have to be as smooth as it does for all year round commuting. A good, well-rolled, hardcore surface can be fine for most bicycles. But there are lots of techniques for creating surfaces that look appropriate for sensitive rural locations but still have a sealed surface below. Near where I live there is a well used railway path, on which Sustrans have built a path with a sealed surface using part of the available width, leaving the rest unsurfaced for horses, or anyone else that wishes to go there. It all works well, the vast majority of people are considerate in sharing the space together. Further on there is a section with less space, and everyone has to use the same path for a bit, but that's OK as well. Anyone wanting to cycle fast can go on the road...


----------



## summerdays (22 Feb 2010)

As they have said above... depends where the route is going and being used for... 

In the Forest of Dean I've used those paths and they aren't tarmac'd, but I'm going there for a leisure day with friends or family. We will cancel the day if its going to be torrential rain.

In town I use paths like the Bristol and Bath cycle path frequently - but mostly as part of my commuting rather than recreational cycling. In which case I do want it tarmac'd - I'll be using it what ever the weather is (well apart from the Chocolate Path which is tiled and I have learnt my lesson the hard way not to go on it when its icy).


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Feb 2010)

Tarmac is probably best for getting people from place to place (i.e. commuting, utility cycling) as it can be ridden on pretty much any bike, and is quick. where it's not possible to tarmac, the surface quality should be indicated as unsuitable for road tyres & an alternative offered. I've ridden a couple of local bits of the NCN on my tourer, (42c tyres) and they're ok, but it's slow going, and I'd not do it on thinner, higher pressure tyres. (I'd not do it on 32s, if I'm honest).


----------



## dellzeqq (22 Feb 2010)

In my view tarmac is best avoided. It contains toxic petrochemicals, and causes run-off. And, without a proper roadbed, it will crack.

I've done many a mile off-road on 23Cs, and, although I'm not too clever off road, I've never felt the need of a broader tyre.


----------



## Davidc (22 Feb 2010)

As said above tarmac is often not the best option. Where it's used without road like preparation it can be lumpy, and doesn't last well.

Whatever is used it does need to be maintained. The Bridgwater and Taunton canal has sections which are a testament to what happens where no maintenance is done following the building of a path! (Sustrans NCN3, with more pot holes than the roads!) I can see no reason why off-road paths shouldn't be developed so that horses bikes and pedestrians can all use them

My own preference is for cycling on roads, but I'll use the off road paths if they're good enough and go where I want them to. The presence of horses on either doesn't concern me.


----------



## John the Monkey (22 Feb 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I've done many a mile off-road on 23Cs, and, although I'm not too clever off road, I've never felt the need of a broader tyre.


There's bits of the NCN (5, I think) near me that I'd avoid on my training 25Cs - incredibly squirrelly and insecure. 

I'd like to see an alternative route signposted where the surface degenrates like this.


----------



## equicyclist (25 Feb 2010)

Thank you all for your thoughts. I have always found cyclists very friendly and accommodating and when you live in a very remote area using paths that do not carry a lot of traffic its nice to meet someone and say hello. It brings a sense of security that if something did happen at least someone would find you. ..eventually! Particularly the off road routes in certain forestry areas!

Has anyone got an opinion on whether increased traffic will deter the use of paths by motorbikes or other antisocial behaviour? I also think that riders would be less worried at challenging illegal use of paths because they feel less vulnerable to agression like a walker may. I have often taken mobile phone pics of suspicious situations to report to police.


----------



## mangaman (25 Feb 2010)

Sustrans threads always provoke discussion equicyclist (welcome by the way)

I feel there is a problem with mixed used paths that means they should only be used very carefully by cyclists. They are great for recreational cycling with children for example.

My worry is that there will be a tenancy for some cyclists to behave recklessly around pedestrians, dogs, horses. Personally I never use shared use paths but I prefer the roads, which are safer, better maintained and more direct - but I tend to cycle from A to B for a specific reason.

I do think Sustrans' reps are often anti road, and want more shared-use paths and they have a disproportionate say in how cycling provision money is spent at local and national level (especially outside London)


----------



## equicyclist (25 Feb 2010)

In my view it depends what type of horse rider you are and what type of cyclist you are. If I was a rider who wanted to go fast over long distances to get my horse fit for an endurance event I would not be using cycle routes much like a cyclist wanting to get from A to B quickly may not either because they tend to meander! If users expect to meet other users then they tend to be respectful of each other. If a horse was scared of bikes the rider wouldnt take it on a cycle track and I would hope that walkers with dogs that hated horses would not take them off lead on a bridleway or multi user route where they may meet them. This is what I am trying to highlight to the powers that be. Not everyone wants tarmac and not all riders and cyclists will want to use multi user routes. So its nice to hear your views.


----------



## dellzeqq (26 Feb 2010)

User said:


> We have a wonderful network of over 25,000 miles of cycleways in the UK, with (on the whole) *smooth tarmac* and direct routes to the places we want to go to. Why would we want some organisation to provide additional, and often dodgy, routes?
> 
> All we have to do is get the other people using those cycleways in their motor vehicles to do so safely and properly...


you're fortunate you're not joining us on Lonesome Lane tonight. It would make you weep....


----------



## SavageHoutkop (26 Feb 2010)

I haven't had much cycling 'offroad'. My bike is essentially a 'road' bike and shouldn't really be ridden on uneven surfaces. There is a shared path near me which is tarred and which is great to ride on; and there is a part of my daily commute home which (to my joy) is being re-tarred at the moment. Tar, if smooth, is great. I'm not sure it's the only option though; I'm sure that there are things that can be done with hard packed soil etc; but the part of the TransPennine trail near me, for instance, is marked as 'offroad - good surface' on my local cycle map and it isn't at all; it's not pleasant to cycle on on my bike, so I don't. Pity though.

edit: You did ask what type of cyclists use cyclepaths - I would like to use cyclepaths to get to work and back, as they are less stressful than the street (and often less potholed as the busses haven't eaten the tar); but they would need to be direct-ish! At the moment I travel into work fully on-road, but coming home I avoid a bit of busy street by going via an off-road shared tarmac route. I hugely enjoy the shared path i've linked to but I only get to use it occasionally due to its location.


----------



## ufkacbln (26 Feb 2010)

marinyork said:


> On the topic of horses you might want to look at the sort of work done NCN 62 north of Sheffield near Oxspring and Penistone where one half of the past has been treated for what horse users want and the other half has been treated for what cyclists want.



... and both sides are covered in horse muck!


----------



## Norm (26 Feb 2010)

I had a chat with a young lady on a horse in the grot weather which we had yesterday afternoon. After a brief exchange of "the weather's a bit rough today", I complimented her awareness as both the rider and horse were wearing hi viz coats. They were very visible in the murk.

I prefer tarmac, in general, as a way to get places. I do ride off-road but, if forced to choose one or the other, I'd stick to the tarmac. I spend plenty of time on tow paths, bridleways and tracks and the harder the surface, the easier the riding. I've spent some time on different bits of NCN4, including much of the Kennet and Avon Cycle Route (from Pewsey to the eastern end in Reading) and the Thames Valley route from Reading to Kingston, and I like the idea of the Sustrans routes, although some of the sign-posting leaves a little to be desired it's made easier if you buy the map or print the PDF before you set off.

I like canal paths and railway lines... because they are both pretty flat and I'm a lazy git. 

From what I've seen (the horse-specific routes through Windsor Great Park and in Hyde Park, for example), horse riders prefer to keep away from tarmac and like to have a very sandy surface which gives good drainage and provides a stable footing for their mounts. Cycling on that stuff is pretty tiring, though. I wonder if you are trying to marry together two sets of user-requirements which are not reconcilable.


----------



## equicyclist (27 Feb 2010)

Actually I think we have misconceptions about what all the users feel is an ideal surface which is why Ive decided to come and ask. "Cunobelin" commented in the horse muck on the paths. I would reply that if the surface wasnt tarmac then it degrades quickly and washes into the soil. It does tend to hang around on tarmac and locally we do see lots of broken glass on the tarmac paths as well.
Back to the misconceptions- sand isnt the ideal for horses as its pretty tiresome for them as well but a solid stone surface with a covering of grass is what I would call ideal. Its soft so reduces concussion on the horses legs, it drains well and its natural looking and doesnt spoil the landscape. I dont expect its ideal for cyclists though. I dont perceive to know what is ideal for a cyclist but I expect, as i said that it depends what type of cyclist you are. Its certainly the case for riders.


----------



## equicyclist (27 Feb 2010)

User, if you are refering to the roads then Im afraid I disagree on behalf of riders because no matter how considerate vehicle drivers are sometimes its just lack of knowledge/awareness that causes us danger on the road. We are vulnerable road users and unfortunately once a horse has had a bad experience with a type of vehicle it will take a long time for it to be comfortable again sharing a space with it in close proximity. I dont blame drivers for driving badly I curse them for not having common sense and understanding but I think I expect too much. However there are riders walkers and cyclists that I curse similarly on occasion. I would love not to have to use the roads but there are not enough bridleways for that to happen. I know that drivers dont think I should be on the road but where else can we go.


----------



## Norm (27 Feb 2010)

equicyclist said:


> Back to the misconceptions- sand isnt the ideal for horses as its pretty tiresome for them as well but a solid stone surface with a covering of grass is what I would call ideal. Its soft so reduces concussion on the horses legs, it drains well and its natural looking and doesnt spoil the landscape. I dont expect its ideal for cyclists though. I dont perceive to know what is ideal for a cyclist but I expect, as i said that it depends what type of cyclist you are. Its certainly the case for riders.


I thought that might be the case, I was just basing my comments on the trails I know which have been laid specifically for horses.

If I'm riding an off-road bike, solid stone sounds good but there needs to be something over it for the grass to grow on. I guess that the depth of the soil determines how hard it is on the cyclists or horses when it's wet.

I'm reminded of some trials I did around Dartmoor last year. One of them, in particular, was a dismantled railway which had been left to grow over, rather than being resurfaced. That was pretty good for cycling, even when everything else was water-logged, as the ballast provided very good drainage and the soil was only a couple of inches deep, so, even if it was saturated, there was something solid fairly close to the surface.

For road-bikes, though, the clue is in the name and pretty much the only usable surface is tarmac.


----------



## ComedyPilot (28 Feb 2010)

I rode a cycle path in Bavaria from Oberstdorf to Sonthofen. It was like a very fine rolled granite? It was sort of rough, but rideable on 700c (I saw some roadies on it). The weather tended to drain well off it too, and it wasn't at all muddy.


----------



## ComedyPilot (28 Feb 2010)

equicyclist said:


> *This is my first post and I hope you will be kind to me! I am a horserider and leisure cyclist with a husband and child who are also leisure cyclists.*



And what a pleasant, articulate read it is. Welcome aboard, enjoy the ride. What's your horse called....can I stroke her/him?


----------



## wafflycat (28 Feb 2010)

User said:


> We have a wonderful network of over 25,000 miles of cycleways in the UK, with (on the whole) smooth tarmac and direct routes to the places we want to go to. Why would we want some organisation to provide additional, and often dodgy, routes?
> 
> All we have to do is get the other people using those cycleways in their motor vehicles to do so safely and properly...




+1

I find that those particular routes, combined with the ability to interpret an OS map lead me to all sorts of wonderful and interesting places too. The best way to enjoy cycling IMO.


----------



## wafflycat (28 Feb 2010)

equicyclist said:


> User, if you are refering to the roads then Im afraid *I disagree on behalf of riders* because no matter how considerate vehicle drivers are sometimes its just lack of knowledge/awareness that causes us danger on the road. We are vulnerable road users and unfortunately once a horse has had a bad experience with a type of vehicle it will take a long time for it to be comfortable again sharing a space with it in close proximity. I dont blame drivers for driving badly I curse them for not having common sense and understanding but I think I expect too much. However there are riders walkers and cyclists that I curse similarly on occasion. I would love not to have to use the roads but there are not enough bridleways for that to happen. I know that drivers dont think I should be on the road but where else can we go.




Certainly disagree on behalf of yourself, but don't assume that you speak for anyone other than yourself. It's a tad presumptious.


----------



## sadjack (28 Feb 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Certainly disagree on behalf of yourself, but don't assume that you speak for anyone other than yourself. It's a tad presumptious.



I suppose that depends if you represent yourself or sit on bodies where the views of similar riders are known.

Maybe a tad presumptuous to presume the OP represents just herself.

Just a thought as the OP's posts seem to suggest (to me anyway) some knowledge of campaigning and is seeking alternative views of cyclists as opposed to horse riders. 

The more vulnerable road users understand each other and their needs the more we are likely to club together on issues that effect us. 

But maybe I presume too much


----------



## wafflycat (28 Feb 2010)

Posting on here, each of us can only represent ourselves. This is not a body or organisation where cycling policy is decided upon.


----------



## BentMikey (28 Feb 2010)

Roads are the best cycle paths around. Sustrans can die a death as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## wafflycat (1 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Roads are the best cycle paths around. Sustrans can die a death as far as I'm concerned.



+1


----------



## sadjack (1 Mar 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Posting on here, each of us can only represent ourselves. This is not a body or organisation where cycling policy is decided upon.



Who was making decisions? Seeking information and others views to be well informed is not decision making


----------



## sadjack (1 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Roads are the best cycle paths around. Sustrans can die a death as far as I'm concerned.



I can understand your point. I ride on the road mostly. But I do think Sustrans have something to offer. 

There are plenty of cyclists, I am one, who enjoy riding on more natural surfaces. I would not do it on an expensive light and easily damaged road bike, but I do on my tourer. 

There is even something called the Rough Stuff Fellowship, riders who like to ride, erm, rough stuff 

So ALL cyclists do not want tarmac or even roads.


----------



## RedBike (1 Mar 2010)

I would be happy if the trails were just ridable. 

All too often these paths are taken over by dog walkers and start to suffer from huge litter problem. Which means that it's impossible to ride down them without risking puncturing or stopping a million times because someone can't control their dog.

In urban areas these tarmaced paths also attract anti-social groups which can make them more or less 'no-go areas' after dark.


----------



## ColinJ (1 Mar 2010)

BentMikey said:


> Roads are the best cycle paths around. Sustrans can die a death as far as I'm concerned.


I like riding on roads but not _all_ roads at _all_ times of the day. 

I live in the Calder Valley which basically has just one road going down the middle of it - the busy A646 which goes from Halifax to Todmorden and then splits in two to proceed along the valleys to Burnley or Rochdale. It is a very busy road and I certainly wouldn't want to be riding on it in rush hour traffic. I definitely wouldn't want young children to be riding on it at those times. 

The only alternative used to be to ride up the side of the valley to get on to the high level lanes. That's what I usually do, but it isn't ideal for the young, less fit or those in a hurry.

We now have an alternative - the Calder Valley Cycleway. Some parts of it are on the Rochdale canal towpath, some on quiet residential roads. There are some sections through woodland on packed soil (occasionally muddy), some on tarmac, some on gravel. I ride a road bike on it without any problems and it is a good alternative to the main road. Notably - it provides a safe route for children who want to ride to the big comprehensive school in Mytholmroyd.

I don't want anybody to legally force me off the road onto a cycle path but I do like the option to get away from the traffic sometimes. I've used the CVC to get home after doing some very gruelling Pennine rides and it is such a luxury not having to deal with homicidal drivers when I'm knackered.






*Nobody gets their flask out for a cuppa on the A646!*

To answer the OP - that's the kind of cycle path that I like!

There are less appealing cycle paths round here though. This is an example of the kind of cycle path that we could do without! 





















Impossibly hard to ride up, lethally dangerous to ride down - whoever thought of that one should be sent back to to cycle path training school!


----------



## equicyclist (2 Mar 2010)

My horse wouldnt like this either! I think as vulnerable road users we have some things in common and unfortunately those creating routes for us do not ask us what we want and provide what they think we want. This is why Im asking these questions. That said I think they do ask someone but not necessarily those from the area who would be the regular users. Unless you take the time to try and educate the policy makers and suppliers of these routes we are never going to be able to compromise. Because we are never going to please everybody. Cost is also going to be a consideration.


----------



## equicyclist (2 Mar 2010)

ComedyPilot said:


> And what a pleasant, articulate read it is. Welcome aboard, enjoy the ride. What's your horse called....can I stroke her/him?


My horse is called Albert and yes if we ever meet on the trail, you can. He is very friendly and is used to cyclists emerging from the forestry trails in Brechfa. We often provide the odd plaster to those who misjudge the bends! We are not allowed on the cycleways except the Millenium Coast Path at Pembrey. Anyone from this area?


----------



## equicyclist (2 Mar 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Posting on here, each of us can only represent ourselves. This is not a body or organisation where cycling policy is decided upon.


I am looking for views and opinions and I thank you all for giving them. As I mentioned I am working with the local council to improve access for all and have my own views on surface etc as a leisure cyclist and horse rider but not everyone is a leisure cyclist. I want to be informed to make informed observations when Im asked. Councils seem to want to keep the users separate but I think there is a saving to be made by allowing users to share a space. I expect that we would all prefer to be alone in most cases but it makes a much nicer ride to pass the time of day and be friendly with other users no matter what their mode of transport. But.... Im sure like me there is someone here that hates those very long extendable dog leads!! If users are considerate I do think we can exist together.


----------



## equicyclist (2 Mar 2010)

Do you think that if the useage is higher then the users will police illegal users or make its use safer? I dont feel as vulnerable on a route on my horse as I would on the bike and if its well populated then motorbikes tend to avoid it in my experience.


----------



## Danny (3 Mar 2010)

equicyclist said:


> I am looking for views and opinions and I thank you all for giving them. As I mentioned I am working with the local council to improve access for all and have my own views on surface etc as a leisure cyclist and horse rider but not everyone is a leisure cyclist. I want to be informed to make informed observations when Im asked. Councils seem to want to keep the users separate but I think there is a saving to be made by allowing users to share a space. I expect that we would all prefer to be alone in most cases but it makes a much nicer ride to pass the time of day and be friendly with other users no matter what their mode of transport. But.... Im sure like me there is someone here that hates those *very long extendible dog leads!!* If users are considerate I do think we can exist together.


In my experience different groups of users can and do successfully share leisure routes. Everyone just needs to show a bit of consideration for each other. 

However I do think that extendible dog leads ought to be banned on principle, and it should be an imprisonable offence to walk a dog with one on a designated cycle route.


----------



## wafflycat (3 Mar 2010)

equicyclist said:


> I am looking for views and opinions and I thank you all for giving them. As I mentioned I am working with the local council to improve access for all and have my own views on surface etc as a leisure cyclist and horse rider but not everyone is a leisure cyclist. I want to be informed to make informed observations when Im asked. Councils seem to want to keep the users separate but I think there is a saving to be made by allowing users to share a space. I expect that we would all prefer to be alone in most cases but it makes a much nicer ride to pass the time of day and be friendly with other users no matter what their mode of transport. But.... Im sure like me there is someone here that hates those very long extendable dog leads!! If users are considerate I do think we can exist together.




For getting from A to B, either direct or via X, Y, Z and anywhere inbetween I find that I don't actually require any special farcilities, ta - I make use of the excellent network of existing routes called roads. I can choose from busy ones, quiet ones, wide ones, narrow ones.. country ones.. urban ones.. I gave up cycling on the footpath (and those bits of magic white paint used to make an outline drawing of a bike do not change a footpath into anything resembling something suitable for cycling) when I was a child of about 10. Managed to make it into my fifties without having to feel it necessary to have special farcilities provided in order to cycle.


----------



## Norm (3 Mar 2010)

WC, I think that the prejudices you bring to the discussion are stopping you from seeing that equicyclist is also looking for shared facilities, but shared with other more sedate forms of locomotion. 

I agree with you, that it takes more than paint to turn a footpath into a cycle facility, it appears to me that equicyclist is looking to maximise the benefits we can get from using the many legal routes which are not roads. Maybe if you dropped your barricades, you could move on from your perception of "farcilities".

I've spent many pleasant hours cycling on roads, whether for pleasure, exercise or commuting, I don't have an issue sharing tarmac with cars. But there best times that I've had on a bike have been away from roads, with the kids or with friends, relaxing into the cycling as a form of enjoyment. Maybe that's down to the traffic levels and speeds where I live. 

I consider myself fairly lucky because I can access many hundreds of miles of car-free routes, such as those equicyclist mentions, just by crossing the main road outside my house. If it weren't for that option, I don't think that the kids would even have bikes. I've only once had to grab my daughter as she hit something and started falling to the right in front of a car, but once is enough. If I hadn't been there and hadn't grabbed her, there would only have been one conclusion to the story.

Whilst there are plenty of good reasons to use roads, there are also plenty of good reasons to have quieter paths available, with a guarantee that there is nothing motorised to share it with.


----------



## ColinJ (3 Mar 2010)

wafflycat said:


> For getting from A to B, either direct or via X, Y, Z and anywhere inbetween I find that I don't actually require any special farcilities, ta - I make use of the excellent network of existing routes called roads. I can choose from busy ones, quiet ones, wide ones, narrow ones.. country ones.. urban ones.. I gave up cycling on the footpath (and those bits of magic white paint used to make an outline drawing of a bike do not change a footpath into anything resembling something suitable for cycling) when I was a child of about 10. Managed to make it into my fifties without having to feel it necessary to have special farcilities provided in order to cycle.


It's very nice that _you_ have such a wide choice of routes available to you but some of us aren't so lucky!

We have two large slabs of rock about 1,000 feet high with a relatively small gap between them. In the valley there is a railway line, a canal and a river crammed in, only leaving room for one road and because of that it is a _very _busy one at times!







As I wrote above - I insist on keeping the right to ride on the road but I like having the choice not to.


----------



## equicyclist (3 Mar 2010)

oops, not sure how you do pictures!





This is an old mineral railway line with a drainage canal along part of its length. The surface is compressed stone but it is a bit softer in places where there is silt on top but I feel could be easily improved without tarmac. I would appreciate your views. Its currently used by cyclists and walkers but more, I think by riders. The planning application initially states shared space/footpath but with only a small section for horse riders and the path is due to be tarmaced. It is wetter at one end which will need more attention but I think this is a nice natural surface which wouldnt cost much to improve.


----------



## Danny (3 Mar 2010)

One of the cycle routes near me run along an old railway line and was originally created as a "cinder track" (though this may not be the correct technical term for the surface). 

It quickly wore down and became difficult to cycle on both because of the amount of use it had from cyclists and walkers, and because some sections were used by horse riders. I was told that the horse riding did a lot of damage to the surface and you could certainly see indents from the hoofs in places.

Eventually most of the path was resurfaced with tarmac, and where it is wide enough there is a separate path for horses running along the side.

I think you really need to get some expert advice on the most appropriate surface for your route. Sustrans do provide technical guidelines on developing cycle routes, but I could not immediately spot anything that covers the issues you are raising. I would suggest you contact them and see if they can point you to relevant materials or put you in touch with someone you can talk to.


----------



## marinyork (3 Mar 2010)

equicyclist said:


> This is an old mineral railway line with a drainage canal along part of its length. The surface is compressed stone but it is a bit softer in places where there is silt on top but I feel could be easily improved without tarmac. I would appreciate your views. Its currently used by cyclists and walkers but more, I think by riders. The planning application initially states shared space/footpath but with only a small section for horse riders and the path is due to be tarmaced. It is wetter at one end which will need more attention but I think this is a nice natural surface which wouldnt cost much to improve.



From the two photos that's a horrendous looking surface, that is not really wide enough for triple use. I can well understand why they wouldn't want horse riders all over it along side peds, dog walkers and cyclists, I think you'd have big problems. I would think whatever they do to it, it might cost quite a lot of money to sort out.


----------



## equicyclist (4 Mar 2010)

The planning application says they will scrape the surface which I think may be a good idea but from what I understand tarmac is costly and although Im not saying its fine, I think there must be a cheaper alternative. You say its not wide enough but it varies between 2m to 10 m along its length. At pinch points cyclists will be required to dismount. Should riders be excluded when they too could do this? Its currently being used as a multi user track and has been for years with no issues. I feel that its conduct of the users that is key and not width. Bridleways have been open to cyclists since 1968 and they are not a standard width, with some being used for trhe safe routes to school initiative. In my experience users will wait for each other to pass and are on the whole very courteous. I expect that if a survey was done, the users of the route would be happy to share it.


----------



## equicyclist (4 Mar 2010)

I doubt this will be a commuter route and there is a tarmaced alternative connecting the same settlements that cyclists wanting tarmac would prefer. Its predominantly a route used by the locals to have safe access off a road with no pavements to local amenities.
But Im here for your vies and I didnt expect you to say you would love it as it is! Its ideal for horses but not for cyclists unless you like the rough stuff!


----------



## SavageHoutkop (4 Mar 2010)

equicyclist said:


> At pinch points cyclists will be required to dismount. Should riders be excluded when they too could do this?


I object to the 'required to'. A cyclist who has had to get off and push is twice as wide as a cyclist on the bike surely? And what if there's nothing oncoming in any case? What are recumbents supposed to do?


----------



## wafflycat (4 Mar 2010)

equicyclist said:


> The planning application says they will scrape the surface which I think may be a good idea but from what I understand tarmac is costly and although Im not saying its fine, I think there must be a cheaper alternative. *You say its not wide enough but it varies between 2m to 10 m along its length. At pinch points cyclists will be required to dismount.* Should riders be excluded when they too could do this? Its currently being used as a multi user track and has been for years with no issues. I feel that its conduct of the users that is key and not width. Bridleways have been open to cyclists since 1968 and they are not a standard width, with some being used for trhe safe routes to school initiative. In my experience users will wait for each other to pass and are on the whole very courteous. I expect that if a survey was done, the users of the route would be happy to share it.



One of the many reasons I don't like farcilities. Would motorists be prepared to put up with having to abide by signs saying "get out and push your car"? I think not. It's this sort of mentality towards cyclists that is part of the problem.


----------



## TheDoctor (4 Mar 2010)

That's not even a farcility. I can't think of any reason why I'd ever ride there, unless I suddenly developed some kind of mud fetish.
If it's ideal for horses as is, why not just leave it that way?


----------



## wafflycat (4 Mar 2010)

TheDoctor said:


> That's not even a farcility. I can't think of any reason why I'd ever ride there, unless I suddenly developed some kind of mud fetish.
> If it's ideal for horses as is, why not just leave it that way?



Quite. It's suitable for MTBs and that's it.


----------



## summerdays (4 Mar 2010)

I'd ride there for fun/leisure but not for a commute unless summer and definitely dry... As long as it went somewhere vaguely in the direction I wanted (I don't mind going a slightly longer route if it is nice and gets me away from urban streets for a bit) or was long enough to be a trip in itself say with kids. And it would be on a hybrid bike.


----------



## TheDoctor (4 Mar 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Quite. It's suitable for MTBs ducks and that's it.



FTFY


----------



## Norm (4 Mar 2010)

equicyclist said:


> This is an old mineral railway line with a drainage canal along part of its length. The surface is compressed stone but it is a bit softer in places where there is silt on top but I feel could be easily improved without tarmac.


It already looks a pretty good surface to me, much better than some of the stuff I ride at the moment. 

Not happy with being "required to" dismount, though. That would just make it a no-go for me. There's an off-road run for me to my local town with gates at either end requiring a dismount, I just don't go that way. I'd rather cycle on the dual cabbageway for 1/2 mile than stop and fight through kissing gates which are about 2" too short for my bike and only slow down cyclists for a few feet either side of them anyway.


----------



## sadjack (4 Mar 2010)

TheDoctor said:


> That's not even a farcility. I can't think of any reason why I'd ever ride there, unless I suddenly developed some kind of mud fetish.
> If it's ideal for horses as is, why not just leave it that way?



+1. If there is already a route for bikes linking the same areas, why spend the extra money here?

Seems daft in this day and age.


----------



## Danny (5 Mar 2010)

equicyclist said:


> This is an old mineral railway line with a drainage canal along part of its length. The surface is compressed stone but it is a bit softer in places where there is silt on top but I feel could be easily improved without tarmac. I would appreciate your views. Its currently used by cyclists and walkers but more, I think by riders. The planning application initially states shared space/footpath but with only a small section for horse riders and the path is due to be tarmaced. It is wetter at one end which will need more attention but I think this is a nice natural surface which wouldnt cost much to improve.


From the pictures, this line looks similar to the route that runs from Scarborough to Whitby. It was certainly rideable when I did it in late autumn. However I did use it in the middle of a dry spell so I'm not sure what the surface would be like after prolonged wet weather.

Given that a lot of off road cycle routes run along railway lines or toe paths I'd try and find a few near you and ride on them to get a feel for what they are going to be like.


----------



## equicyclist (9 Mar 2010)

The thing is that the county council are increasing the routes available to walkers and cyclists and I dont object to this.....but if those routes have already got equestrian access I think its unfair to put up barriers to obstruct them. Im sure this would be the thought of cyclists as well if they were using a route that the council was going to "improive" for walkers. I wanted to know what a compromise in surface could be and I thank you all for your comments as they have been very useful.

If you could choose a perfect surface would it be tarmac or some other surface? By knowing what users want as Ideal we can look at creating compromise.

Interestingly I have just had a local cyclist say that the cycleroutes are not suitable for riders because at points he could be doing 20 miles an hour and it would be unsafe! At the planning application for the route I pictured the councillors were asking about safety for children amongst horses. I think perhaps they need to think again! 
Its not all...its the odd few, and that goes for riders as well.


----------



## equicyclist (9 Mar 2010)

What do you think of the barriers that are supposed to stop motorbikes? Does anyone have trouble getting a bike through and have you witnessed any problems with prams etc?


----------



## jonesy (9 Mar 2010)

equicyclist said:


> What do you think of the barriers that are supposed to stop motorbikes? Does anyone have trouble getting a bike through and have you witnessed any problems with prams etc?



They invariably make life more difficult for legitimate users, especially those with buggies, tag along child trailers etc and they make the paths inaccessible to wheelchair users,;while motorcyclists, often being of the scrambler type, often force their own route onto the path. The best deterrent against motorbikes is having plenty of legitimate users around, which is encouraged by having barrier-free access.


----------



## mangaman (9 Mar 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Quite. It's suitable for MTBs and that's it.



Absulutely. 

No-one has mentioned MTBers, but probably they're one of the commonest leisure bike.

I don't have a decent road bike. I use a cheap commuting bike with useful things like mudguards, lights, bell and a big rack for getting from A to B

I have a gratuitously expensive MTB with no lights / mudguards etc for leisure.

All cycling is done in shared spaces.

When riding to get somehere I'd rather share my space with cars as generally, in town, our speed differential is very small and I can generally predict what they'll do

When riding for fun I share bridleways with horses and walkers. I think this is more dangerous if I want to go quickly (which I often do) as the speed differential is so high. I therefore ride the roads to the quietest trails and avoid the much trumpetted mixed-use Sustrans paths which are the worst of all worlds.

I'm obviously careful of walkers and horses, but prefer a good old fashioned muddy bridleway. No need for tarmac or anything else.

My worry with Sustrans is the disproportionate amount of influence they have in policy making. They can provide a "quick fix" at often little cost to the council by providing a "shared use path" and have a phobia of roads.


----------



## Norm (9 Mar 2010)

Norm said:


> Not happy with being "required to" dismount, though. That would just make it a no-go for me. There's an off-road run for me to my local town with gates at either end requiring a dismount, I just don't go that way. I'd rather cycle on the dual cabbageway for 1/2 mile than stop and fight through kissing gates which are about 2" too short for my bike and only slow down cyclists for a few feet either side of them anyway.


Picking up this one again, with the idea of barriers to stop motorised access, I went into town with my daughter on Sunday. We went in through the park, which requires the use of the 2 barriers I mention above. My daughter said that she disliked them so much that she'd rather come home on the road than use the parkland route, just because of those gates.


----------



## Danny (10 Mar 2010)

Norm said:


> Picking up this one again, with the idea of barriers to stop motorised access, I went into town with my daughter on Sunday. We went in through the park, which requires the use of the 2 barriers I mention above. My daughter said that she disliked them so much that she'd rather come home on the road than use the parkland route, just because of those gates.


That's just poor design. 

There are plenty of barrier designs that will prevent motor bikes or cars getting onto a cycle route, but still allow bikes to pass through easily. I go through one practically every day on my way to the station.

However I do agree with jonesy's point about it making life very difficult for buggies, trailers, trikes, and wheelchairs.


----------



## Norm (10 Mar 2010)

It is indeed. My MTB's bars won't go through the gap, although my road bikes will go through, the path is almost unrideable without suspension. Whilst my daughter's bike will fit, she's not confident enough to ride through. 

Sad, really, that some thoughtless gimp who has probably not ridden since his balls dropped has decided to render the cycle path useless by putting blockages at either end.

*and breathe in.... and relax...*


----------



## summerdays (10 Mar 2010)

equicyclist said:


> What do you think of the barriers that are supposed to stop motorbikes? Does anyone have trouble getting a bike through and have you witnessed any problems with prams etc?



I hate most barriers that are meant to stop motorbikes.... they usually make cyclists have to slow to zero or get off. There are ones that your pannier catches on, your handlebars don't fit through, aren't long enough to fit a bike in without lifting the front of the bike. And that is for a normal bike - if you haven't got a standard bike the problems I assume are greater. 












Some of the barriers then create a bottleneck on the paths when groups of cyclists have to get past.



Danny said:


> That's just poor design.
> 
> There are plenty of barrier designs that will prevent motor bikes or cars getting onto a cycle route, but still allow bikes to pass through easily. I go through one practically every day on my way to the station.



Could you post a picture of that one?


----------



## Danny (10 Mar 2010)

Those barriers look like they came from the ministry of crap design. 

I'll take a picture of some less crap barriers at the weekend.


----------



## wafflycat (10 Mar 2010)

I am reminded of an organised cycle ride I was on which included bits of NCNs around King's Lynn and out towards Lincolnshire. The people on the ride were thoroughly good company. The ride was this: completely ruined by NCN routes. Too much on footpaths (a white painted bike on a standard width footpath does NOT make an acceptable shared use farcility, really, it doesn't) too many barriers that were difficult/impossible to negotiate with out dismounting and man-handling the bikes & trikes around & over the stupid, stupid barriers. The ones that were supposed to keep out motorbikes but failed miserably as could be seen from the number of kids on trail bikes zooming about having got on to the NCN from side streets... We were literally lifting bikes over gates as they were not possible to negotiate any other way. 

Don't get me started on the three punctures in under half-an-hour on the NCN that runs by King's Lynn Leisure Centre and out towards Castle Rising. More bits of pavement with white outline bikes painted on them... glass strewn everywhere...

Sustrans? Supposed to be from SUStainable TRANSport. They're having a laugh. They're taking the p*$$.


----------



## ComedyPilot (10 Mar 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Sustrans? Supposed to be from SUStainable TRANSport. They're having a laugh. *They're taking the p*$$*.



Realises WC is not a happy lady, so retreats to a safe distance.


----------



## jonesy (10 Mar 2010)

Danny said:


> Those barriers look like they came from the ministry of crap design.
> 
> I'll take a picture of some less crap barriers at the weekend.



Here's a picture of the best kind of barrier:

Top of picture.








Bottom of picture.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Mar 2010)

I just think barriers are there to satisfy the need to regulate.


----------



## equicyclist (10 Mar 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> I just think barriers are there to satisfy the need to regulate.




That could be true! Thanks for the pics they are very useful. Has anyone got a pic of a good barrier? I will take a pic of the local ones to me next time Im out. If its felt that they are not necessary then I need to say why so all comments gratefully received. Any older and less mobile/flexible cyclists out there with a comment?


----------



## marinyork (10 Mar 2010)

Barriers penalise poor road users and I can tell you that some don't block things like mini moto users more discourage. In some bad areas you get motorbikes and other things and in less bad areas you don't. It's not always a good idea kicking them off the tracks either.


----------



## summerdays (11 Mar 2010)

jonesy said:


> Here's a picture of the best kind of barrier:
> 
> Top of picture.
> 
> ...



I fell for that and sat there waiting for the piccy to download ... did I ever say I was gullible. 

(In fact so gullible that on a recent training day someone was prompted "to fall ill", I believed them even when they started denying it - when I thought they were embarrassed at stopping the training which made me believe they were definitely ill, it was only every one else laughing that made me realise )


----------



## equicyclist (14 Mar 2010)

Is there a barrier to stop motorbikes that is pram friendly?


----------



## dellzeqq (17 Mar 2010)

equicyclist said:


> Is there a barrier to stop motorbikes that is pram friendly?


what would be the point? We're going round in circles here. The paths are neither here nor there in the big scheme of things. A few motorbikes either way doesn't make a difference. The barrier thing is just an outing for control-nuts


----------



## StuartG (18 Mar 2010)

I rarely praise my local authority (Lewisham) but would like to take this opportunity to thank them for removing most of the assorted barriers 'protecting' the Sydenham to Catford shared cycle path along the Ravernsbourne.

So if you nag enough you might get them removed. Or get a council officer, mayor or leader to try and cycle past them ... you need nag no more!


----------



## BentMikey (19 Mar 2010)

That's well hazardous, that path. I no longer ride along there because of numerous pu&^%$res, wild youth, and it's just so much slower than taking the A21. Several people have mentioned muggings along there too.


----------



## dodgy (19 Mar 2010)

There are the occasional good cyclepath, anyone ridden the Dee river coastal path between Chester and Flint? In fact there's another path slightly further inshore that follows the same direction. Both of them are perfect surfaces, you can get quite a speed up on them if there's no pedestrians around 
On the whole though, most cyclepaths are avoided by me.


----------



## Norm (19 Mar 2010)

Danny said:


> Those barriers look like they came from the ministry of crap design.
> 
> I'll take a picture of some less crap barriers at the weekend.


Did these get posted and I missed them? Did Danny mention which weekend, though? 

I'm still thinking that Jonesy has come up with the best barrier design I've ever seen.


----------



## dellzeqq (20 Mar 2010)

StuartG said:


> I rarely praise my local authority (Lewisham) but would like to take this opportunity to thank them for removing most of the assorted barriers 'protecting' the Sydenham to Catford shared cycle path along the Ravernsbourne.
> 
> So if you nag enough you might get them removed. Or get a council officer, mayor or leader to try and cycle past them ... you need nag no more!


Lewisham's vision of cycling is about off-road. They brag about cycle paths that I've ridden past for forty years and never noticed....


----------



## equicyclist (26 Mar 2010)

Anyone here from Wales? Apparrently the Millenium Coast Path at Pembrey/Burry Port is a grit type surface with no barriers. The council say its held up well to the traffic except that external contractors have damaged it. Its a plastic grid infilled with gritty stuff. Its multi user at that point but has been limited to cycles and walkers at the busy bit by the visitor centre. Apparrently the bit that goes through Pembrey forest is often under water so they are looking for an alternative. Interestinly the cattle in the field you have to cycle through by the motor sport centre are man eating and you have to have a turn of speed to out run them. 
Perhaps previous cyclists have fed them!


----------



## equicyclist (26 Mar 2010)

The Pembrey cycle route got planning permission with consideration for horse access. So at least its being considered. They just have to find the money now! I will be meeting the council in April and will be mentioning things we have discussed here. Ive found the comments very useful.
I have found out that Dorset, Cornwall and Devon are granting access to many of their cycleways to horses and advertising them to tourists as multi user. Are there any other counties who are opening up such routes to riders as a matter of policy?
Anyone from those areas who can comment on whether its been a problem and attracted lots of additional traffic?


----------



## wafflycat (27 Mar 2010)

Living in rural parts, when out cycling, I encounter horses & their riders on road. The safe way to pass is to do it slowly, talk in normal tones to the horse (it identifies you as a non-threat) and to pass *wide* out of reach of hooves if the horse decides to take fright. Basically the width of a proper road...


----------



## chap (27 Mar 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> Lewisham's vision of cycling is about off-road. They brag about cycle paths that I've ridden past for forty years and never noticed....




Around Catford, it is probably best to get confident on a bike then just ride on the cars roads.


----------



## equicyclist (27 Mar 2010)

wafflycat said:


> Living in rural parts, when out cycling, I encounter horses & their riders on road. The safe way to pass is to do it slowly, talk in normal tones to the horse (it identifies you as a non-threat) and to pass *wide* out of reach of hooves if the horse decides to take fright. Basically the width of a proper road...



Riders often complain about the cyclists that sneak up on them and scare the horse. In reality the cyclist tries to be quiet so as not to scare the horse but the best tactics are to be friendly and passs the time of day or "im coming past, OK?". no bells . The horse cannot see whats coming up behind it unless it turns its head but it will hear you if you speak or if on rough ground. If it does turn its head to look then its bum moves away from the direction its looking. (physical fact and worth knowing if you pass a horse when you can see something on its other side that its interested in). Can be controlled by the rider if they know its going to happen but not so easy if they dont.


----------



## wafflycat (28 Mar 2010)

Which is why I said talk to the horse


----------

