Vote for Sustrans?

[Gary D]

Maybe the mistake that Sustrans make is that they try and present themsleves "as all things to all men" (cyclists) which they clearly aren't.

Their bias is definitely towards the leisure or recreational cyclists - but surely that is not a bad thing? As has been mentioned before, if what they offer encourages more people on bikes then great.

Another poster questioned whether Sustrans did encourage new riders. Well I think it does - children!
Todays youngsters starting cycling are surely tomorrow's commuters/roadies/MTB'ers etc??

I for one started cycling simply because when teaching my eldest daughter (now 7) to ride, I got fed up of running after her around the local park and on an NCN route, to make sure she was OK. So I went out and bought a Hybrid.

My youngest (5) has also now learnt to ride and we regularly use one of the local NCN routes for a family leisure ride. Having those facilities close by means we tend to make the effort. There is absolutely no way I would trust either of them out on the main roads at their age so the NCN serves a very useful purpose.

Following on, I subsequently got bitten by the bug and have since bought a road bike. I now go out with a friend on regular rides and join in with the local club activities.

However, my cycling has not reduced the ammount of car journeys I make one jot! My job as a Salesmen means I have to use the car as my area covers one third of the UK. I really struggle to think of any of my journeys in the car where I could use my bike as an alternative. My cycling is purely for recreation and personal fitness, and from that point of view it has been totally successful.

This issue has to be judged from all different perspectives.

They will certainly get my vote!

Gary.

 

[marinyork]

I agree strongly with Tim Bennett's point about classification. I noticed some while ago that sustrans have been changing their maps a bit. For a few years ago I tried for a different route a bridleway not marked on anything apart from OS maps. It turned out to be hilly and very poor surface, definitely a mountain bike surface and nothing else. Now all of a sudden it appears on sustrans's maps and some of it on the city's cycling map (less is on the latter so I conclude it may have been sustrans that went for this promotion)! Now it's possible it has been resurfaced but somehow I think that extremely unlikely. My point is even by sustrans's mudtrack standards it is poor so it is somewhat misleading. On the other hand sustrans are deliberately leaving other useful routes that they don't like off their maps like a reasonably high quality cycle track running from York to Tadcaster parallel to the A64 because sustrans wants to turn a popular country lane set of routes into NCN.

 

[simon l& and a half]

May we should have encouraged the CTC to put a bid in?

the cycling organisations tend to divvy things up between them. The CTC has just landed a big lottery bid which will enable it to have regional officers.

There is a bit of a difference between the CTC, the LCC and Sustrans, though. Sustrans is nothing other than a grant to project organisation. The LCC is adept at getting grants, but it's primarily a campaigning membership organisation. The CTC gets grants, but it's a campaigning membership organisation with a strong group ride heritage - and is far more in favour of the kind of soft measures like training. We (the CTC, that is) don't need grants to exist. Our members join for a variety of reasons, not least the campaigning effort that proved so successful in relation to the Highway Code (on which subject Sustrans was near silent) and the Daniel Cadden case. There's a case to be made for keeping ourselves aloof from the grant stuff, because (correct me if I'm wrong) the membership would not want our independence to be compromised.

Having said that I imagine that Cycle magazine will run a supportive piece on connect2. And I imagine people will look at the projects in their neck of the woods, and decide on the basis of that whether or not to vote for it. I won't be voting for or against, but that's because I really do detest the lottery.

 

[Danny]

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.

I'm not sure that any of this is very good evidence. Most of the studies quoted seem to be over 10 years old, and given that John Franklin clearly has a bee in his helmet about cycle routes I suspect that he has probably ignored any which paint a different picture. In any case I would assume that Sustrans and Local Authorities have actually managed to learn from them. There doesn't seem to be anything there which actually proves any given Sustrans route is actually more dangerous.

Personally I see cycle routes as complementing other forms of riding, and certainly around York they are used a lot by people who would not be confident about cycling on busy main roads.

I often take a Sustrans route out of York to avoid having to go through heavy traffic, and then move across to quieter country roads for the rest of my ride.

 

[Danny]

I've occasionally been stopped by Sustrans people, waiting on sunny days canvassing support in town at a bridge where cyclists are meant to dismount to cross the Cam...But I don't agree with what they're putting forward.

None of my regular commuting has, at any time, been made any better by the provision of off-road cycle paths. I can think of several routes that could do with off-road provision (anywhere thats dual carriageway or motorway!), but Sustrans don't seem to be providing such routes.

I assume you told the Sustrans people where you would like to see cycle routes? In any case I have to say I that I don't think many people would be that keen on cycling alongside dual carriageways or motorways!

Having said that when I recently did the Hadrian's Cycleway with my young son, I was pleased to find that Sustrans had provided several sections of off road track alongside busy main roads, as well as signposting a great route that by and large avoided main roads.

At the end of the day Sustrans is a charity that has done a fantastic amount with limited resources. No doubt not every route they have built is perfect in every respect, but at least they have got out there and built routes which are now used by thousands of cyclists every year.

And sure, there's always more that they could be doing, which is presumably why they are applying for lottery funding.

 

[marinyork]

York doesn't have busy main roads. The only one I wouldn't cycle on is the A64. It's just a matter of perception. The new morrisons development is a classic example of how it's safer on the roads than the joke facilities they trashed the old cycle path route with.

 

[Danny]

The route around the new Morrisons development weren't built by Sustrans.

I am a pretty experienced cyclist and twenty years ago I used to happily cycle on most of the main routes out of York, often in the dark. Personally I now feel that traffic volumes have increased so much that I no longer feel safe going along roads like the A19, and am pleased that Sustrans has routes which allow me to bypass it.

It may be "a matter of perception", but only the most die hard (or foolhardy?) cyclists are now prepared to go along main roads like the A19*.

*Apologies to everyone who is not from around York for the slightly parochial nature of this post.

 

[Cab]

I assume you told the Sustrans people where you would like to see cycle routes? In any case I have to say I that I don't think many people would be that keen on cycling alongside dual carriageways or motorways!

You mean I should stop and tell people from every campaign group or pressure group what I'd rather they did? No thanks. Sustrains just aren't that important.

As for cycling alongside dual carriageways or motorways, why not, in a separated off section? I'd say they're about the most useful places to put off-road facilities, as they're otherwise unrideable.

Having said that when I recently did the Hadrian's Cycleway with my young son, I was pleased to find that Sustrans had provided several sections of off road track alongside busy main roads, as well as signposting a great route that by and large avoided main roads.

At the end of the day Sustrans is a charity that has done a fantastic amount with limited resources. No doubt not every route they have built is perfect in every respect, but at least they have got out there and built routes which are now used by thousands of cyclists every year.

And sure, there's always more that they could be doing, which is presumably why they are applying for lottery funding.

I've simply never encountered a sustrans route that seemed better than using the road. Sorry.

 

[Cab]

I'm not sure that any of this is very good evidence. Most of the studies quoted seem to be over 10 years old, and given that John Franklin clearly has a bee in his helmet about cycle routes I suspect that he has probably ignored any which paint a different picture.

Go on then, which ones? If you're questioning the conclusions that Franklin has reached, what studies have you been influenced by to reach different ones?

In any case I would assume that Sustrans and Local Authorities have actually managed to learn from them. There doesn't seem to be anything there which actually proves any given Sustrans route is actually more dangerous.

So Sustrans routes are somehow different? How?

 

[marinyork]

Hmmm I thought it was. Before the road whatever it was the NCN or otherwise went past it and around York many parts of the NCN have small bits linking it up.

The NCN that goes to the south is good, one of the best bits of sustrans I've been on. Unfortunately it's let down heavily because there's about 1.5 miles of poor quality stuff between below escrick and where it runs parallel to the A19. Not only is it poor quality rocky stuff but it also narrows to dangerous widths with hedges and poor views that I'd worry about lesser experienced riders falling off or colliding with peds/dogs/illegal horses. It's a shame because otherwise they could slap a huge label on saying that it's high quality stuff for 15-20 miles (and direct).

The A19 going the other way where the NCN also goes close by though is extremely poor, a complete joke. This shows off how bad sustrans is. The council made an cyclepath parallel to the A19 to skelton there solving the problem for people who don't like cycling it, through shipton they've done a similar thing.

The York to Selby is about the best and most direct. The main problems cycling in the area comes in my opinions from the county's lack of bridge infrastructure which limits options. Sustrans I'm told had a part in the building of the millenium bridge (excellent) but have also been bad encouraging the council to squander a cool quarter of a mil on the section just outside Murton to cross the A166.

What I'm saying is that sustrans should concentrate on blanks in the road network where there's a need to cross a railway line/river/motorway/park/volcano/whatever and cease from their absurd indirect politicised cycle routes.

edited: On York to Selby I've seen on many sundays and bank holidays large numbers of families with small children on their bikes. I think this does encourage cycling and it's fantastic. Never seen the same thing on any of the other sections of NCN though, anywhere.

 

[Danny]

You mean I should stop and tell people from every campaign group or pressure group what I'd rather they did? No thanks. Sustrains just aren't that important.

Fine, you don't have to talk to them if you don't want, but please then don't complain that they are not building the kind of cycle routes you want to see.

 

[Danny]

The NCN that goes to the south is good, one of the best bits of sustrans I've been on. Unfortunately it's let down heavily because there's about 1.5 miles of poor quality stuff between below escrick and where it runs parallel to the A19. Not only is it poor quality rocky stuff but it also narrows to dangerous widths with hedges and poor views that I'd worry about lesser experienced riders falling off or colliding with peds/dogs/illegal horses. It's a shame because otherwise they could slap a huge label on saying that it's high quality stuff for 15-20 miles (and direct).

Agree that part of the NCN to Selby is cr*p - I bypass that section and go on the road. But I am sure that Sustrans would improve the surface if they had the money.

Sustrans also ask for volunteers to go out and help maintain their routes (e.g by cutting back hedges) as they don't have the funding do as much work as they like. I have to confess that I have never volunteered, so I personally don't feel I am in a position to criticise the people who do if the route isn't perfect in places.

 

[Danny]

Go on then, which ones? If you're questioning the conclusions that Franklin has reached, what studies have you been influenced by to reach different ones?

I am actually questioning the fact that most of the studies Franklin cites are over 10 years old, and were therefore written before most of the Sustrans routes were built.

Sustrans carries out a lot of research on their routes, and would not get substantial lottery grants if they could not demonstrate that they were of positive value. Their website cites four peer reviewed studies which give a different view to Franklin. I don't pretend to have read the Sustrans studies, but am just pointing out that the studies Franklin quotes are not the only ones out there.

 

[Brock]

It's interesting Franklin uses accident figures from Holland to attack the safety of cycle paths. I thought they were a nation well regarded for their prolific civilian utility cycling, aren't they a model we should be persuing?

I do understand how cycle paths might be more dangerous than cycling on the road though. I fairly regularly use the offroad seafront route through Deal and Walmer and you definitely need your wits about you, on a good day it's absolutely packed with children and pootlers as well as commuters and other faster cyclists, dawdling peds straying across the path with dogs etc. Definitely safer for me on the road, but that doesn't mean banning cycling on this beautiful stretch would be a good thing does it?.

Mikey, you keep saying cycling 'facilities' do nothing to encourage cycling, and that research proves this, well.. you still haven't referenced any of this research, but frankly I'm of the opinion that we should be much more interested in personal experience than getting hung up on whatever studies and stats you care to conjur up from the internets. My experience of cycling facilities in my locale is that they encourage people to cycle, but perhaps you wouldn't consider their style of cycling as worthwhile anyway.

Why exactly do we feel the need to promote our form of transport/hobby/exercise anyway? What might we gain from more cyclists on the road? We're already allowed to be there, and have as good rights as any roads users.

 

[BentMikey]

I suppose I ought to go dig out the links, there were two reports if I recall correctly. Both found that an increase in facilities did nothing to increase cycling.

Why exactly do we feel the need to promote our form of transport/hobby/exercise anyway? What might we gain from more cyclists on the road? We're already allowed to be there, and have as good rights as any roads users.

It's a good question! For me the benefits of more cyclists are very clear. More cyclists, of whatever quality, equal better safety for all of us. Not only that, but we'll get far less aggro from motorists. With more people cycling, both society and the NHS will be a whole lot better off too.