Vote for Sustrans?

[summerdays]

It's got nada to to with sustainable transport.

What about projects such as "Safe Routes to School", that is about encouraging people out of cars, or even car-sharing, not necessarily just onto bikes. Its the next generation, and the way things are going the roads are going to be even worse by the time they grow up. And most of them have been chauffered everywhere in their private taxi's.

 

[Fnaar]

I can't see why a cyclist would loathe any organisation that promotes cycling in whatever form....OK, it's not your kind of cycling, but....

 

[Tim Bennet.]

. . . . and massive amounts of money to promote cycling?

Well if it needs massive amounts of money let's do it, but this is about building routes, not promoting cycling.

The problem with all the debates about 'cycling facilities' is that it always considers cyclists and the cycling they do, as one homogeneous category. We really need to highlight the different types of riders and have facilities marked to show who they are provided for. This would not only allow us to understand all the signage (can I follow such and such a route on my racer?) but also make other road users appreciate that shouting 'get on the f**cking cycle path' to a bunch of race club riders is no more relevant than shouting 'why don't you use the motorway' to a slow tractor.

* * * * *
The four/ five types of cyclist:
A - Happy to mix it on any roads with the rest of the traffic.
B - Generally happy to ride on the road, but would appreciate some 'facilities' to make turning right across very busy roads easier and safer.
C - Competent road cyclists who choose to deviate from the straightest route to find less busy roads and appreciates any cycle friendly options at all difficult junctions.
D/E - Those who prefer or will only use car free routes.
* * * *
The worst cycle provision has got to be the route from Windermere up towards Ambleside, which was to be part of some grand Sustrans trans Lakeland route. A perfectly good road, that was usable by Types A, B and C, was narrowed in order to build an off road route for D & Es. This off road route has you giving way to every house drive and walking for stretches that are too narrow to share with pedestrians. It is never used and all the commuters and other cyclists continue to use what is now a significantly narrower road. The only stretch that was unpleasant on a bike (the Low Wood Hotel into Ambleside) has had nothing done because it's too difficult to solve. So they have spent several million pounds of public money and have ended up with a Sustrans route that is little benefit to any cyclist and has exacerbated driver / cyclist friction. And they want more money to repeat this?

 

[John the Monkey]

Those journeys are already being made though, presumably successfully, and on the road, with the traffic, which is as it should be?

Probably my fault for the way I phrased that, but no, the vast majority of those journeys are being made by people in cars. Changing *that* needs more than the "Sunday" routes available. As I said in earlier posts, I can't see that a network of off road/segregated paths could be built (even if the space was available, the capital investment would be vast) so converting those car journeys to journeys by other means (and by bicycle in particular) needs a different approach.

As I see it, the problem with the segregated paths approach is that people don't learn the skills they need to change their car journey to a bike journey, and the education of other road users, and the presence of bikes being a commonplace, rather than exceptional occurrence doesn't happen.

I agree that the segregated path can be a first step, but support is needed after that if some of those current journeys by car are to be converted into journeys by bike.

When you say 'improve the experience away from the segregated path', what do you have in mind?

Driver education, cyclist education - bike training for people who want it at low/no charge, focussing particularly on young people, facilities to park bikes securely at schools, workplaces, shops. Enforcement of traffic law so that people who harass and intimidate cyclists are actually punished. Fostering a change in culture that sees bikes as part of the traffic on the road, and that makes passing them too close, or driving dangerously/threateningly near them as unacceptable as drink driving is (to most people) now.

 

[Brock]

Tim, presumably they wouldn't want to repeat that, no. Were the plans for that particular balls up submitted by Sustrans or was it a Council 'initiative'?
I absolutely agree that these ridiculous segregated pavement paths need to be knocked on the head, I'm not sure Sustrans promote those though do they?

Driver education, cyclist education - bike training for people who want it at low/no charge, focussing particularly on young people, facilities to park bikes securely at schools, workplaces, shops. Enforcement of traffic law so that people who harass and intimidate cyclists are actually punished. Fostering a change in culture that sees bikes as part of the traffic on the road, and that makes passing them too close, or driving dangerously/threateningly near them as unacceptable as drink driving is (to most people) now.

That all sounds perfect, where do I sign up?

 

[John the Monkey]

Well.. I've not seen any studies that suggest providing cycle facilities reduces cycling.

It'd be interesting to see one, I agree. The figures in the BBC report say cycle journeys have decreased by a fifth in a decade, I would assume that the number of facilities has increased over that time (of course, that doesn't mean the two are linked). The London experience is also interesting, where money is spent on promoting cycling (and cutting the number of motor vehicles) rather than investment in cycle facilities.

The point of view, I think stems from points made earlier - the first being whether it might foster a view that cycling is "safe" on a path designed for that purpose, therefore not safe elsewhere. Secondly, the point waffly made, that cycling becomes something you do where the bikes are transported to a place designed for the purpose of cycling by other means.

The anti arguments seem to be basically 'well it won't benefit me, I'm an excellent cyclist and I'm happy to ride on busy roads, so everyone else should be'.

I hope I'm not coming across like that - I'm not convinced that it's the best way to;
a) Promote cycling in general
Reduce the number of car journeys being made
c) Provide a sustainable transport system for the nation

I would assume that they had significantly mitigated a serious downward trend already present in those areas.

Entirely possible.

May I ask if you will make a point of voting against Sustrans in this thing, if you feel their activities are such a waste of money?

I genuinely haven't decided one way or another as yet. I think Tim makes several interesting points on the subject too.

 

[wafflycat]

Have a read of the work by John Franklin on cycle paths, injuries, Milton Keynes's redways, cycle farcilities in other countries...


http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/redway.html

http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/research.html

It becomes very clear that separate farcilities do not make cycling safer. They can and often do, increase the real level of risk. Nor do they encourage cycling to any great extent.

When I was a kid, the mindset was only little kids cycled on the footpath. Cycling on road was part of 'growing up' and being a 'proper cyclist'

What is needed is not separation of cyclists from roads, what is required is more education of motorists to make it clear that actually, no, when driving you do not actually own the road, but you are sharing it with others, be they other motorists, cyclists, horse riders or pedestrians. But hey, that actually requires a lot of effort and time. Much better to go with the 'quick fix' of getting those pesky cyclists out of the way. The roads are dangerous, don'tcha know. Actually, for the most part, the roads are not dangerous. Cycling is a remarkably safe activity and has lots of benefits to it as regards human health and also to the environment. And it's *fun*

Having cycled throughout the UK and in France, Germany and Italy, our roads are not too bad at all. Yes, there are problems now and again, but cycling assertively - not aggressively - pretty much stops problems happening most of the time.

The other thing is, nothing in life is 'safe' Life is a risk - part of life is learning how to deal with risk. The risks of cycling on road are, IMO, greatly exaggerated and Sustrans emphasis on 'safe' and 'traffic-free' routes over emphasizes the risk level of cycling. It's another reason why I do not like Sustrans.

 

[wafflycat]

What about projects such as "Safe Routes to School", that is about encouraging people out of cars, or even car-sharing, not necessarily just onto bikes. Its the next generation, and the way things are going the roads are going to be even worse by the time they grow up. And most of them have been chauffered everywhere in their private taxi's.

'Safe routes' is often seen with pics of kids cycling along footpaths that are somehow magially transformed into 'safe facilities' by the addition of an outline bike in white paint. Thus furthering the view that bikes should not be on road. The real approach is to educate motorists more that cyclists are legitimate road users. I'm teed off with the number of times I've heard 'get on the XXXXing cycle path!' from the ignorant. Indeed I will not cycle in King's Lynn due to the ever increasing number of farcilities with white outline bikes painted on footpaths which magically turns a narrow footpath into a 'shared-use' farcility.

 

[wafflycat]

Tim, presumably they wouldn't want to repeat that, no. Were the plans for that particular balls up submitted by Sustrans or was it a Council 'initiative'?
I absolutely agree that these ridiculous segregated pavement paths need to be knocked on the head, I'm not sure Sustrans promote those though do they?




That all sounds perfect, where do I sign up?

I've seen lots of them... I do, however, refuse to use them. NCN13 near me has such shared-use farcilities.

When I pointed this out to Sustrans locally that the adjacent road was a lovely wide road (which I cycle along regularly along with many others) and that in the middle of the Sustrans shared-use farcility were two big concrete bollards, I was told that this was safer than cycling on road. Which is, to use a phrase, utter bollards.

 

[Tim Bennet.]

I believe it was a Sustrans initiative, but obviously a 'cock up' of this magnitude required the whole hearted involvement of the Lake District National Park Authority.

The best was the 'public consultation' exercise before it all started. As you rode along you were stopped by 'researchers' who asked you which of the route options would you prefer? One was the existing flat road beside the Lake, the second option was the very hilly route via Troutbeck and the third was the bridleway over Jenkins Crag that is a challenge on a full sus mountainbike. I don't know how much was spent on proving that most existing cyclists preferred the route they were already using. Brilliant. So they went ahead and ruined it.

I have got absolutely nothing against building routes for D/ E cyclists. We really appreciate the old railway lines in and out of Lancaster for bike trips with the young nieces and nephew. But we would never take them to ride along the pavement beside an A road in the Lakes.

By pretending to represent the needs of all cyclists, Sustrans have encouraged / allowed local authorities to think that there is a one cap fits all facility they can provide. And like most compromises, it actually ends up being good for no one.

 

[girofan]

Grimshaw of Sustrans is like Lord Longford! A good well-meaning man who is part of the PC brigade, but unfortunately wrong!
The more we use trails and cycle only facilities in general, the more we will be marginalised. Then the great British motoring public will try to use the facilities provided to rid us from THEIR roads.

 

[simon l& and a half]

few of the comments above refer to the schemes that are set out in the bid. I'd urge any of you who haven't already done so to go to the Connect2 link and check on the schemes that are near to you - that way you'll be able to make your own mind up on the merits of them, rather than argue in a general kind of way. You'll need a map, because the maps on the link are not legible.

The London schemes are very poor - with one partial exception. But, in judging the merits of the schemes in your part of the world please remember that they are for cyclists and walkers. The partial exception to the low standard of the London schemes is that one of them is going to make a pretty diversion for walkers - and that can't be bad. As a cycling route it's ridiculous.

I was asked to comment on the Wimbledon Greenways project. For good or ill it set out plans for an area I've been cycling in on and off for the last ** years. The proposed routes were so tortuous, so misconceived, so blindly averse to the obvious fact that cyclists have claimed whole stretches of bus lane for their own, that it took a few minutes to get my breath back after I'd opened the file. But that isn't where it stops, and Sustrans are not the only cycling organisation to get so hung up on infrastructure and routes that they miss the obvious. The LCC needs to shift itself out of the old LCN+ frame of mind.

 

[Brock]

I've seen lots of them... I do, however, refuse to use them. NCN13 near me has such shared-use farcilities.

When I pointed this out to Sustrans locally that the adjacent road was a lovely wide road (which I cycle along regularly along with many others) and that in the middle of the Sustrans shared-use farcility were two big concrete bollards, I was told that this was safer than cycling on road. Which is, to use a phrase, utter bollards.

You are of course perfectly entitled to ride on that lovely wide road. The provision of shared path simply removes the illegality of cycling on the pavement, if you, or more likely a toddler with stabilisers wishes to do that. If having these shared use paths gives drivers the impression that cycles have no right to be on the road, then that's their mistake. The louts will always shout something out of their windows.

I'm not sure now whether I'm against shared use paths or not. I certainly won't use them myself, and I don't think they should be (are they?) part of Sustrans' plan, but if local councils decide to paint a funny looking bicycle picture to make sure that anyone wanting to trundle along a pavement isn't breaking the law, is it such a bad thing?

 

[Crackle]

'The 'louts' will always shout'. Too true: Road rage has gone up in general, it happens in cars, on motorbikes and even on the pavement. I don't think cyclists have the monopoly on this.

At first I watched the growth of cycle path with welcome. Sustrans I thought was an excellent idea. But, as more and more cyclepaths appeared that went from nowhere to nowhere, narrowing roads as they went, I began to see them as a bad thing and Sustrans routes were just weird. I've yet to take the bikes to a Sustrans route to deliberatley ride the route.

I don't know why we can't get it right in this country. You only have to go to places like Germany to see how integrated bike paths are made. They too have their problems but drivers are taught to at least look out and cede way to bikes where they have too. Over here we're treated more like moving bollards.

 

[BentMikey]

Urm...anything to do with congestion charging and massive amounts of money to promote cycling?

I'm led to believe that both the CC and the bombs were only blips on an already increasing trend. You of all people should know this and not perpetuate the myth.

The promotion of cycling, yes, that could have an effect. Again, nothing to do with cycle farcilities though.