Vote for Sustrans?

[wafflycat]

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?

I know I'm entitled to use the road. Problem is, by encouraging/having shared-use farcilities as part of NCN, Sustrans *is* encouraging the belief that cyclists:-

a. should not be on the road (where we have a legal right to be)
and
b. that's it's legal to cycle on the footpath, which it's not (in England & Wales). Encouraging illegal activity is not something which should be encouraged.

So, yes, a council painting a white outline of a bike on a footpath and also it forming part of a Sustrans route *is* a bad thing IMO.

 

[Brock]

Sorry Waffly, I don't believe just because some ignorants may misinterpret things, that should be a reason not to increase the rights of cyclists. Although I do admit I'm swinging back and forth on the subject of shared pavements.

Ok well.. I think I'll vote for Sustrans anyway.
My experience of their routes has been almost entirely good. The paths that link Canterbury to Whitstable, Folkstone to Dover and on round the South Coast have been useful and enjoyable for me. The regional routes through the country lanes seem very well used by all levels of cyclist.
I did complain about a section of National route 1 where it enters Sittingbourne, which was atrocious, burnt out cars, puddles of oil and rubbish etc, got an immediate and personal response from Sustrans thanking me for the information and urging me to join them in complaining to the local council, who's responsibility it was.
I do believe the provision and promotion of such routes encourages recreational cycling to a great degree, and once people start to experiment with cycling and realise it's actually a perfectly feasible form of transport they WILL start cycling more on the roads, which must be a good thing for all of us.
Like it or not, Sustrans appear to be an established and fairly powerful force. It seems to me that supporting them and getting involved, making your fears known and trying to help steer them in the right direction is a pretty sensible approach.

.... Then I remember that they're responsible for Cyclehero and the Eden project suddenly seems a bit more worthy.

Edit.. errr then I recall that 'cyclehero' was a CTC production, not sustrans

 

[KitsuneAndy]

Such as? Would this include the route out through Taverham & on to Reepham? The route that in wet weather is only suitable for MTBs? due to the cruddy surface? NCN13 is just down the road from me. It links Thetford, Dereham & Fakenham. The bit near me is the bit from Dereham to Fakenham. There's simply no way I'd use it to cycle to Fakenham (and I cycle in that direction a lot), as it's so damn convuluted and I cannot fathom why it takes the route it does. Nice for a gentle pootle from A to B going via N, Q, and K, but not about SUStainable TRANSport. It's got nada to to with sustainable transport. Sustrans should be up for misleading advertising if it thinks it's about SUStainable TRANSport. It's not, it's about getting folk to think of cycling as a little bit of leisure stuff to stick the bikes on the back of the car - drive to the starting point of their traffic-free cycle route. Norfolk is a county with a myriad of country lanes where cycling in a virtually traffic-free environment has existed long before Sustrans has existed. Sustrans maps? Don't need them, thank you - there's these things called Ordnance Survey maps which have been around a lot longer and which clearly identify many routes I can take an enjoyable bike ride along, be it a leisure ride or if I want something more direct. Cycling in Norwich on the roads is no hassle. I'm a middle-aged matron of the parish & if I can manage to cycle in Norwich traffic, pretty much anyone can I would have thought. We already have a national cycle network in the UK, they are called roads and the vast majority are fine for cycling on.

Yes, when it rains that one stretch does get very muddy. I think that part is particularly bad because of the tree-cover there. The sun can't dry the water up as well as it can. But just because one stretch of it is muddy doesn't detract from the fact that there are still some very nice stretches of it. And I've seen road bikes go through there even when it has been really wet, but then I suppose they may have got off and pushed for that part of it.

Cycling on the roads in Norwich is no hassle at all, I cycle to work every day. But, as I said before, if I want to go for a nice relaxing ride, I'd rather not cycle on the road. Not because I think a car will hit me, or that I'm not confident enough. Simply because for a nice relaxing day out, I'd rather be on a track that is traffic free. It's quieter, it's cleaner and just generally more pleasant.

It's not about saying that roads aren't good enough to cycle on, or that cyclists *shouldn't* ride on the roads. It's providing an alternative for those that either don't want to be on the roads because they're not confident enough, or just prefer the quiet little trails rather than the roads.

Or would you rather that if cyclists weren't confident enough to cycle on the roads, they sold their bike and bought a car?

 

[BentMikey]

Or would you rather that if cyclists weren't confident enough to cycle on the roads, they sold their bike and bought a car?

That sort of scenario is more likely with Sustrans than without, IMO. We desperately need more cyclists on the roads, far far more, because that's what will improve driver attitudes and overall cycling safety. Sustrans is going in the other direction, robbing us of road-going cyclists.

When you get a critical mass, such as in London, then cycling becomes part of the cultural norm. Sustrans, IMO, helps to prevent that from happening.

 

[KitsuneAndy]

That sort of scenario is more likely with Sustrans than without, IMO. We desperately need more cyclists on the roads, far far more, because that's what will improve driver attitudes and overall cycling safety. Sustrans is going in the other direction, robbing us of road-going cyclists.

When you get a critical mass, such as in London, then cycling becomes part of the cultural norm. Sustrans, IMO, helps to prevent that from happening.

Is it though?

There's one person on these threads that said they were converted to cycling on the road after becoming a Sunday cyclist on Sustrans routes.

And yet no one has said 'I used to ride to work on the road all the time, but now that I know that there's a Sustrans route my wheels never touch tarmac".

As someone said above, the entire 'anti' argument appears to be "I cycle on the road, I don't like Sustrans, therefore it shouldn't exist".

Replace 'critical mass' with 'congestion charging' and you may well be right. They've also spent a fortune promoting cycling. But you can't really compare the capital to every other place in the UK can you? And anyway, if it was possible to provide traffic free routes in London, I'm sure people would rather use those than breathe in the massive amount of exhaust fumes that are present.

 

[Brock]

I think you've inhaled too many diesel fumes Mikey. Far from 'robbing us of road going cyclists' I believe the Sustrans routes encourage people to try cycling, much increasing the chance that they will become a road going cyclist. Of the 10,000 miles of walking and cycling routes in the NCN, two thirds are ON road.
Either the off road sections are useful or they're not, in the latter case how can they be robbing you of anything?

 

[BentMikey]

Congestion charge increased cycling? No it didn't, and neither did the bombs by any significant amount. AFAIK they both simply caused blips on an already increasing trend.

 

[BentMikey]

I think of Sustrans and want to spit every time I get abused by some moton to "get on the cyclepath". That's Sustrans' fault IMO.

 

[col]

I think of Sustrans and want to spit every time I get abused by some moton to "get on the cyclepath". That's Sustrans' fault IMO.

To be fair,i dont think most car drivers have heard of sustrans.

 

[LordoftheTeapot]

Don't tell anyone, but... I have bought two Sustrans maps

 

[Brock]

Don't tell anyone, but... I have bought two Sustrans maps

AHA! It's YOUR fault frustrated chavvy cagers shout at Mikey!!

 

[wafflycat]

To be fair,i dont think most car drivers have heard of sustrans.

They probably haven't. But it's the Sustrans emphasis on 'safe' equating to 'traffic-free' that is at the root of the problem.

 

[wafflycat]

Or would you rather that if cyclists weren't confident enough to cycle on the roads, they sold their bike and bought a car?

Not at all. I'd much rather that the emphasis was put on a combination of educating motorists to understand that cyclists are a legitimate road users and that they have a legitimate place on the roads combined with facilitating cycle training for those that want it so there is more opportunity for cyclists to develop the skills to cycle assertively and as safely as possible on road, minimising the current mindset that cycling on road is 'dangerous' which, for the most part, it's not.

 

[KitsuneAndy]

Congestion charge increased cycling? No it didn't, and neither did the bombs by any significant amount. AFAIK they both simply caused blips on an already increasing trend.

Downward blips?


If they were upward blips, then they *did* increase cycling?

 

[LordoftheTeapot]

AHA! It's YOUR fault frustrated chavvy cagers shout at Mikey!!

Ssshh... I said don't tell any one. Tut!