A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » Regional Cycling » UK
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A Sustrans dilemma



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 5th 05, 09:42 PM
Mike Causer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

This coming weekend Sustrans celebrates "opening" 10,000 miles of cycle
routes in the first 10 years of their existence. As part of the
celebrations there are four rides organised to Cambridge and subsequently
a ride from Cambridge to Preston (Lancs). One of these rides passes
within 100 metres of my house so it would seem churlish not to join them.

However the Sustrans route is carefully chosen to include the nastiest
junction and the most horrible road in the village in which I live
(which is easily bypassed on a quiet road). It then progresses through
four "Cyclists Dismount" signs in exactly one kilometre (5 in 2.5 km).
And they haven't even reached Cambridge yet, where more horrors await.

So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it worth
highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and sticking to the
road?


Mike
  #2  
Old September 5th 05, 10:00 PM
Tony Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

Mike Causer wrote:
This coming weekend Sustrans celebrates "opening" 10,000 miles of cycle
routes in the first 10 years of their existence. As part of the
celebrations there are four rides organised to Cambridge and subsequently
a ride from Cambridge to Preston (Lancs). One of these rides passes
within 100 metres of my house so it would seem churlish not to join them.

However the Sustrans route is carefully chosen to include the nastiest
junction and the most horrible road in the village in which I live
(which is easily bypassed on a quiet road). It then progresses through
four "Cyclists Dismount" signs in exactly one kilometre (5 in 2.5 km).
And they haven't even reached Cambridge yet, where more horrors await.

So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it worth
highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and sticking to the
road?


Funny, I was pondering the exact same thought myself for this weekend.
I've decided that since I believe Sustrans routes are generally crap and
misguided it would be hypocritical for me to turn out for the PR
exercise they are running at the weekend as much as it would be fun to
join all the cyclists who will be there.


--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon
  #3  
Old September 6th 05, 09:40 AM
Ian Hughson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma


In article , Tony Raven writes:

Mike Causer wrote:


So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it worth
highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and sticking to the
road?


I've decided that since I believe Sustrans routes are generally crap and
misguided it would be hypocritical for me to turn out for the PR
exercise they are running at the weekend as much as it would be fun to
join all the cyclists who will be there.


So, get together and ride an alternative, sensible route at the same time.
Tell the local press why you're doing it.

--

Ian

To e-mail me, restore my initials to their proper place.
Ian is my middle name.
  #4  
Old September 5th 05, 11:06 PM
Sandy Morton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

In article
pan.2005.09.05.20.42.21.123202@firstnamelastname. com.invalid, Mike
Causer wrote:
So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it
worth highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and
sticking to the road?


IMVHO Sustrans are a group of people without married parents.

--
A T (Sandy) Morton
on the Bicycle Island
In the Global Village
http://www.millport.net
  #5  
Old September 6th 05, 12:05 AM
tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:06:23 +0100, Sandy Morton wrote:

In article
pan.2005.09.05.20.42.21.123202@firstnamelastname. com.invalid, Mike
Causer wrote:
So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it
worth highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and sticking
to the road?


IMVHO Sustrans are a group of people without married parents.


Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.

Perhaps what might make a better debate is whether this country should
ever have been in such a state that it required a charity, staffed with
many volunteers, to maintain a public transport infrastructure.
  #6  
Old September 6th 05, 09:05 AM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

in message , tom
') wrote:

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:06:23 +0100, Sandy Morton wrote:

In article
pan.2005.09.05.20.42.21.123202@firstnamelastname. com.invalid, Mike
Causer wrote:
So, by joining in the ride am I endorsing the stupidities, or is it
worth highlighting the really daft parts by not using them and
sticking to the road?


IMVHO Sustrans are a group of people without married parents.


Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.


They aren't a cycling oriented sustainable transport charity. They may
have been that twenty years ago, but they aren't now. A lot of what
they're doing is very anti-cyclist and the majority of what they're
doing has nothing whatever to do with sustainability or transport. In my
part of the world, where Sustrans routes are on the roads they're mostly
OK, although not necessarily the road a cyclist would have chosen. But
where the route diverts off the road onto special cycle paths, they are
often actively dangerous, far more dangerous than the road. I hold up as
a special example of this the hill just west of Creetown, where the (two
way) cycle path is precipitous, very twisty through a wood with poor
sight-lines, and the tarmac is covered with moss, mud and slime. Someone
is going to get killed on there.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Friends don't send friends HTML formatted emails.
  #7  
Old September 6th 05, 09:25 AM
tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma


Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.


They aren't a cycling oriented sustainable transport charity. They may
have been that twenty years ago, but they aren't now.


We can either make jokes, or state facts. Mine is a fact. I think 20 years
ago, Sustrans were more of a pressure group, which is what you might be
confused about.

I hold up as a
special example of this the hill just west of Creetown, where the (two
way) cycle path is precipitous, very twisty through a wood with poor
sight-lines, and the tarmac is covered with moss, mud and slime. Someone
is going to get killed on there.


Perhaps you should take the responsibility to determine who the land owner
and manager of the specific path is and take the issue up with them.
Sustrans suffers from serious under-funding for the task they are trying
to achieve. Given their resources, they do an incredible job. It is very
easy to criticise their work on a local level, because Sustrans rely very
heavily on volunteers to do the vital work, that say - the Highways Agency
or local councils - are responsible for on the roads. These organisations
have vast amounts of money, and stil frequently get things wrong.
  #8  
Old September 6th 05, 02:01 PM
Simon Brooke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

in message , tom
') wrote:


Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.


They aren't a cycling oriented sustainable transport charity. They may
have been that twenty years ago, but they aren't now.


We can either make jokes, or state facts. Mine is a fact. I think 20
years ago, Sustrans were more of a pressure group, which is what you
might be confused about.


I was not joking, merely stating the facts as I see them.

I hold up as a
special example of this the hill just west of Creetown, where the (two
way) cycle path is precipitous, very twisty through a wood with poor
sight-lines, and the tarmac is covered with moss, mud and slime.
Someone is going to get killed on there.


Perhaps you should take the responsibility to determine who the land
owner and manager of the specific path is and take the issue up with
them.


I've already raised it both with Sustrans and with the council. Nothing's
been /done/, of course, because the problem is in the design of the
route.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/


... a mild, inoffensive sadist...

  #9  
Old September 6th 05, 09:15 AM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

tom wrote:

Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling
oriented sustainable transport charity.


I am very happy that such a remit has general support from the UK
public. I am a lot less happy that they have routes where my ability to
cycle is reduced compared to taking the roads. Rather destroys a lot of
the point.

Perhaps what might make a better debate is whether this country should
ever have been in such a state that it required a charity, staffed with
many volunteers, to maintain a public transport infrastructure.


It might make a better debate, but compared to actually resolving the
problems of Sustrans paths it's a lot less likely to get anywhere
productive. Removing "Cyclists Dismount" signs and their associated
access gates with an encore of realising that paranoid road avoidance
isn't /always/ either helpful or even a safety improvement is a bit
easier than turning back time and changing the country's entire
transport culture.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

  #10  
Old September 6th 05, 09:32 AM
tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

Removing "Cyclists Dismount" signs and their associated
access gates


Or realising why they were there in the first place for those who moan. I
could be wrong, but I am under the impression that dismount signs are
often placed by local councils, rather than Sustrans - I don't think they
are particularly in favour of these nasty little things.

Access gates are a difficult one. I agree entirely that they are a pain
with panniers, and in some cases may prevent a specific type of bicycle
from getting on to a path. However, they are there for a reason. I'd far
rather spend an extra 10 seconds getting onto and off a path than have to
contend with kids on motorbikes or other similar vehicles, racing up and
down the track.

than turning back time and changing the country's entire transport
culture.


Not asking for that, what I was suggesting that it was time it was
recognised and something done in the future.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sustrans White Rose Route George Sproat UK 0 August 14th 05 08:27 PM
Guardian article on Sustrans John Hearns UK 2 June 10th 05 01:28 PM
Sustrans website offline? Mike Causer UK 2 January 3rd 05 05:42 PM
Sustrans Rangers. Simon Mason UK 9 October 23rd 03 11:48 PM
Sustrans routes Zog The Undeniable UK 51 September 26th 03 11:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.