|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |