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
  #51  
Old September 6th 05, 02:45 PM
Alan Braggins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 6th 05, 03:01 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 6th 05, 03:39 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 6th 05, 03:56 PM
Ambrose Nankivell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 6th 05, 04:00 PM
Ambrose Nankivell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 6th 05, 04:16 PM
MartinM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 6th 05, 04:26 PM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 6th 05, 04:27 PM
Simon Bennett
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

wrote:

connection refused......


It's not to do with the non-standard port (no filtering here or at home),
but I haven't been able to see Simon's links for a while now.


  #60  
Old September 6th 05, 04:28 PM
Al C-F
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

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 02:08 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.