Vote for Sustrans?

[BentMikey]

This is a great read:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/talks/agm1999/

 

[Brock]

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.

I thought the effect of more cyclists might create a greater demand amongst motorists for cyclist segregation.

Hey, while perusing the Connect2 and 'Peoples 50 million' site, I found this exciting flash game, I got the high score, bet you losers can't beat it

 

[Brock]

This is a great read:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/talks/agm1999/

Thanks, I'll have a look after work.

 

[Cab]

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.

And many of them from overseas; do you have any reasoning why the sustrans routes don't conform to those studies?

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.

Sorry, but that just isn't true. Its like saying that cycle lanes wouldn't be built by local councils if they weren't good. Cycle paths have good political mileage, building them to encourage weekend riders (you know, motorists) is seen as a good thing by people who aren't regular cyclists.

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.

I don't believe that those studies address the impact of such routes on accident rates/safety. Do you have any studies to cite that soundly contradict Franklin?

 

[Cab]

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.

So unless I personally campaign on every single issue I should not voice any opinion? Thats silly.

 

[QuickDraw]

The routes are supposed to be for Sunday pootling, recreational sight seeing and relaxed family rides aren't they? Of course they don't take you from A to B the most direct way, because you can just follow the existing main road system if you want to do that.
I can't think of a much better way of encouraging people onto bicycles than providing them with pleasant, unstressful, scenic routes which are mapped, signed and patrolled regularly.

This is my problem with them. They're called Sustrans not SusSundaypootling. They concentrate too much on providing segregated facillities when, as we all know, the best way to make cycled a real option for sustainable transport is make the roads safer for new cyclists. This doesn't mean they should be supported though just that they could be much better then they are.

 

[Danny]

So unless I personally campaign on every single issue I should not voice any opinion? Thats silly.

I am not suggesting you campaign about anything. I'm just saying that it is unreasonable to refuse to refuse to talk to Sustrans volunteers when they are asking you for your opion about what they are doing, and then publicly slag them off for ignoring your views.

 

[Cab]

I am not suggesting you campaign about anything. I'm just saying that it is unreasonable to refuse to refuse to talk to Sustrans volunteers when they are asking you for your opion about what they are doing, and then publicly slag them off for ignoring your views.

Said sustrans volounteers were trying to persuade me to join, they've done so on the same spot several times, and on each occasion I've said no thanks I don't like the sustrans routes I've found. I'd say the same to them here too. They didn't ask me my opinion, they weren't canvassing my views, they were targetting me as a cyclist to try to raise cash from me by getting me to join.

Now I could stop and explain to everyone who asks me anything what I think about whatever topic that springs to mind, or I could be selective in doing so. Tell me, which do you do?

 

[Danny]

Said sustrans volounteers were trying to persuade me to join, they've done so on the same spot several times, and on each occasion I've said no thanks I don't like the sustrans routes I've found. I'd say the same to them here too. They didn't ask me my opinion, they weren't canvassing my views, they were targetting me as a cyclist to try to raise cash from me by getting me to join.

Now I could stop and explain to everyone who asks me anything what I think about whatever topic that springs to mind, or I could be selective in doing so. Tell me, which do you do?

OK, but I took it from your earlier post that when you said they were canvassing for support you meant support for new routes, not financial support.

When charities canvass me for support and I say "no", I generally think it is polite and helpful to briefly explain why. If the charity is any good they will appreciate the feedback, even if it is negative feedback.

 

[bonj2]

sustrans, aren't they the ones that are meant to be responsible for singposting the TPT? It's not very well signposted where I live at all. IN fact I onced tried to cycle down it and it led me down a dead end street in an industrial area which was strewn with old shopping trolleys and rubbish - it clearly didn't lead anywhere.

Come on sustrans, pull your finger out of your collective arse - a few signs can't be expensive. How much money do they need? OK, for building new cycle paths. But where are they actually building a cyclepath, rather than just painting one? I've seen the diabolical one jacomus had the misfortune to go down. But what about any more? plans for any new, better ones?

It's very rare to actually go past some roadworks and find some blokes there actually doing any work. But it's ever rarer to go past some roadworks and find some bokes working there and when you ask them what they're building, they say "a dedicated cyclepath."

 

[Brock]

This is a great read:

http://www.camcycle.org.uk/campaigning/talks/agm1999/

Ok I read that, and have to conclude that while Franklin has written an excellent comprehensive book about how to ride on the road, he is slightly bonkers.

I'm not concerned with with the minutiae of accident statistics on whatever passes for the term 'cycle path' when clumsily compared to a similar stretch of busy road. Everything carries risk, cycling anywhere carries risk, just as stepping out of your front door does. If there are statistics that cycling in a blonde wig makes me 2% less likely to be clipped by a wing mirror, it doesn't mean I'm going to wear one tomorrow.

IF our sole reason for doing anything has to be the promotion of cycling, lets have a look what the great man Franklin suggests:

1. Banish the words 'danger', 'accident' and 'safe'. 'Safe' implies danger and is just as counter-productive. 'Safe routes' are seldom better than others.

This first point just makes me giggle. 'Banish' the words from where exactly? Cycle magazines? The OED? Where will they be banished to? German? Ridiculous.

2. Take the emphasis off special facilities (except cycle parking) and stop the promotion of helmets.

Ok, well we'll be alright for cycle parking if Sustrans follow this advice then won't we? 50 million quid would buy quite a few sheffield stands. Actually come to think of it, I always manage to find somewhere to park my bike. Maybe I just live in a particularly bicycle friendly area.
I do agree with the helmet thing, although for completely different reasons. And I'm not sure how you can stop cycle clothing and accessory companies promoting their products.

3. Emphasise the positive virtues of cycling: health and fitness, speed in towns, flexibility, easy parking ... enjoyment!

Genius.

4. Put the engineering emphasis on fast, comfortable routes, especially using main roads (without segregation) and good surfaces. Remove access restrictions.

Errrm, no idea what he's waffling about here. Filling potholes I suppose? EVERYBODY moans about the state of the roads already. Access restrictions?

5. Promote cycling as a skilled activity and help people to acquire the skills for basic competence. Cycling - like driving a car - should be a skill that people aspire to acquire.

Cycling proficiency, definitely should be promoted and provided free to primary schools. Although having banished the words 'safe' 'accident' and 'danger' I'm not sure how you're going to convince anyone that it's worth doing.

6. Regulate and restrict car performance.

Anything that upsets Clarkson is fine by me, but a daft idea again I'm afraid. What speed are you going to restrict cars to? 10mph? I suppose that WOULD encourage cycling. 70mph is the most likely I suppose, but that wouldn't have any effect on cycling at all. Car performance IS regulated already of course, it's called an MOT.

The bloke is bonkers, sorry to diss the great guru of cycling and the forum idol, but is this really what you base your opinions on?

I'd rather just have more route options thanks.


Ignoring the fact that my original question was on the very specific choice of options in 50 million quid thingy, and not the more general 'are Sustrans bad?' I'm interested and slightly disappointed to find that the anti-sustrans arguments so far:

The name is misleading.
Franklin says so.
They don't build paths from my door to my work.

Is this really it?

Also I'd like to know how often cyclists are actually barred from using a road when there is a cycle path provided. Has this actually EVER happened?

 

[wafflycat]

You don't know about the Daniel Cadden case, then, Brock, where a cyclist was taken to court *successfully* after being stopped by plod for cycling on road when there was a shared use farcility nearby? The fact that it had to go to a higher court to get the original judgement overturned?

 

[jonesy]

You don't know about the Daniel Cadden case, then, Brock, where a cyclist was taken to court *successfully* after being stopped by plod for cycling on road when there was a shared use farcility nearby? The fact that it had to go to a higher court to get the original judgement overturned?

Not to mention the more everyday problem of harassment by drivers for having the cheek to remain on the road when there is a cycle path nearby. I get this regular on a newly constructed footway near my place of work- the fact that the footway in question isn't actually a cycle path at all is lost on them! Simply being a bit further down the road from a shared use pavement seems to be enough reason to blast the horn, pass too close while gesticulating at the pavement, offering helpful advice through the window instead of concentrating on the road ahead etc etc

This problem simply did not occur until the widespread appearance of shared use footways, a form of infrastructure that would more usually be avoided if providers of cycling infrastructure followed the appropriate guidance..

 

[snorri]

Anything that upsets Clarkson is fine by me, but a daft idea again I'm afraid. What speed are you going to restrict cars to? 10mph? I suppose that WOULD encourage cycling. 70mph is the most likely I suppose, but that wouldn't have any effect on cycling at all. Car performance IS regulated already of course, it's called an MOT.

I cannot understand why you should consider it "daft" to regulate or restrict car performance. Many of our roads have speed limits set at a level way above what the majority of drivers would consider to be a safe speed.
A parallel joint user path has been constructed at great expense in my locality alongside a 1 km straight on a rural road. Drivers leave a 30mph zone and see this 1Km of downhill straight ahead of them, few seem able to restrain their speed frightening the life out of pedestrians and cyclists. Local people then called for footpath/cycle route. At vast expense a joint user path has been constructed and the drivers continue to flout the law.
As a taxpayer, I would prefer to have seen some inexpensive traffic calming to 'restrict car performance'.

 

[Brock]

You don't know about the Daniel Cadden case, then, Brock, where a cyclist was taken to court *successfully* after being stopped by plod for cycling on road when there was a shared use farcility nearby? The fact that it had to go to a higher court to get the original judgement overturned?

Yes I'm well aware of it, he was *successfully* taken to court, i'll grant you that, presumably by car. I didn't read a lot about the case, but it seemed to prove nothing more than the shocking ignorance of the arresting officers and the judge.
What's your point? We should spend 50 million educating judges?