#51
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
In article , tom wrote:
Well it's great to see such massive support for a primarily cycling oriented sustainable transport charity. Sustrans has very little to do with transport and as such, its title is a misnomer. It's a bit like argueing that the BBC isn't an organisation involved in broadcasting because you don't like their output. I quote "Sustrans is a charity that works on practical projects to encourage people to walk, cycle and use public transport". Can I interest you in some land in Louisiana? Or this splendid bridge? |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
Peter Clinch wrote:
dangerous I think that is why the off-road tracks are being made nice and cuddly and in safety terms relatively foolproof. Problem with I wouldn't call the ones I've ridden foolproof. Blind bends and poor visibility abound. When combined with kids on bikes, dogs etc, it can be tricky. -- Arthur Clune |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
Simon Brooke wrote:
http://www.jasmine.org.ukdogfood/story/article_8.html For some reason, I never see the images that you place at the top left of each story. Ah, in fact... http://www.jasmine.org.uk:8180/dogfo...res/w-o-f1.jpg connection refused...... As an aside, why have the pics on a non-standard port? Arthur -- Arthur Clune |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
tom wrote:
Removing "Cyclists Dismount" signs and their associated access gates 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. I'd suggest that if the tracks were fully used, then the motorbikes would not be on them anyway. The canal path whose access barriers I regularly go around (laden only with panniers on a diamond framed bike) fairly often has motorcyclists on (approximately as frequently as airgun users), and to be honest, it scares/worries me as much as the kids with the airguns (more than I'd like, but not too much to bear), but inconveniences me a whole lot less than the access gates. Seeing as I'm not talking in hypotheticals here, I guess that my experience would count more, but maybe not. -- Ambrose |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
JohnB wrote:
audrey wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 09:09:50 GMT, tom wrote: But that doesn't help the "now", in which we have a major initiative giving Joe and Jane public the idea that cycles don't belong on roads. I strongly disagree with this. I felt much more comfortable cycling on roads after starting on off-road paths and it didn't give me the impression that cycles don't belong on roads. How are Joe and Jane public different from me? Putting so much of the emphasis on off-road gentle scenic tracks, which many people will arrive at by brining their bikes in their cars, does absolutely 0 to encourage people to take up utility cycling around town in place of car journeys. A Road Safety officer once said to me - he was happy to see more bikes on the back of cars as a) it means more use of Leisure Routes, by more cyclists; ergo 'cycling' is increasing, thus local cycling targets may be met; b) less cyclists on the road will mean less cycling accidents, thus helping his casualty reduction targets. And one he didn't say, but I suspect... c) the cyclists are no longer in his way. Of course bikes on the back of cars dramatically increases the chance of getting bikes in my way when driving down the motorway, IME. On the bright side, having to hit the brakes hard on the motorway an hour into a week of driving people (from various countries with dire road safety records) around the UK was a good way to make sure I didn't have to nag them about wearing the seatbelts again. -- Ambrose |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
Al C-F wrote: audrey wrote: Putting so much of the emphasis on off-road gentle scenic tracks, which many people will arrive at by brining their bikes in their cars, does absolutely 0 to encourage people to take up utility cycling around town in place of car journeys. Quite so. It reinforces the view that cycling should take place away from cars. This is a bad thing as it encourages those (motorists) who seem keen to tell me not to cycle on the roads. I don't think most Sustrans users are interested in cycling on the roads one way or the other. The two Sustrans routes serving my town are excellent(unlike the awful road route that connects them), and the road alternatives are not somewhere most people would take their kids for a pleasant ride. These leisure cyclists have just as much right to be on their bikes as anyone else. They certainly generate less car mileage than some riders (myself included). If you don't like Sustrans routes don't pay Sustrans any money or play the lottery. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
MartinM wrote:
I don't think most Sustrans users are interested in cycling on the roads one way or the other. The two Sustrans routes serving my town are excellent(unlike the awful road route that connects them), and the road alternatives are not somewhere most people would take their kids for a pleasant ride. These leisure cyclists have just as much right to be on their bikes as anyone else. Indeed, but the public perception may well be that since there are cycle routes for cyclists (we are, of course, all the same) provided by those Nice Sustrans People there is no good reason for anyone on a bike to be using the road. It's the National Cycle Network, not the National Cycle Leisure Network. If you're not going to make the political distinction then you shouldn't make a practical one either. If you don't like Sustrans routes don't pay Sustrans any money or play the lottery. Or have a moan and make your feelings known (I wrote them a note of constructive criticism after a touring holiday up NCN1, for example). As well as moaning diretly to them, moaning places like this highlights the issues amongst other cyclists, which is IMHO worth doing. 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/ |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
MartinM wrote:
Al C-F wrote: audrey wrote: Putting so much of the emphasis on off-road gentle scenic tracks, which many people will arrive at by brining their bikes in their cars, does absolutely 0 to encourage people to take up utility cycling around town in place of car journeys. Quite so. It reinforces the view that cycling should take place away from cars. This is a bad thing as it encourages those (motorists) who seem keen to tell me not to cycle on the roads. I don't think most Sustrans users are interested in cycling on the roads one way or the other. and, as Audrey said, are unlikely to be encouraged to try by SusTrans The two Sustrans routes serving my town are excellent(unlike the awful road route that connects them), and the road alternatives are not somewhere most people would take their kids for a pleasant ride. A rare event, given the complaints about the NCNs These leisure cyclists have just as much right to be on their bikes as anyone else. Never said they hadn't. They certainly generate less car mileage than some riders (myself included). If you don't like Sustrans routes don't pay Sustrans any money or play the lottery. And that will stop them leading the rush to create cycle ghettoes will it? It's not just the paths created by SusTrans but the paths put in by Local Authorities who are following their lead. So much separation leads to abuse from motorists who complain when one chooses not to stay in the lane / use the path. |
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 |