#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
"tom" wrote in message news I don't like the way the thing is carried out in practice on many an occasion. The usual paint a bike on a path and it's a 'facility' If only it were that easy, it could have saved Sustrans a whole lot of money. Fair bit of money saved round here then ;-) and how the routes between towns are often very convoluted and not the best route from A to B by bike. but your favourite route from A to B may differ from mine. Example - NCN 13 is a stone's throw from me. It goes between Dereham & Fakenham. I frequently cycle up to Fakenham & my son does it foru times a week during term time. We simply would not use the Sustrans route - it goes all over the place. Fine for a convoluted pootle on a Sunday afternoon, but as a transport network to get from A to B. Not round here. Plus it takes people off perfectly fine roads and puts them on narrow footpaths - with bikes painted on them, and with bollard in the middle of the bike lane... And it seems from many other posters - not in many other places. If you look at the "Cycle Facility of the Month" by the Warrington Cycle Campaign, an awful lot of the pics are from Sustrans routes. http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co....-of-the-month/ Indeed http://www.17beechroad.freeserve.co....anuary2005.htm Is the sort of thing I refer to. It also fosters the idea that bikes do not belong on roads In what sense? The National Cycle Network takes in a lot of roads, and mainly quiet ones - which is nice. My first touring ride was on a Sustrans path (Bristol to Bath), I had an awful mountain bike and all my gear in a rucksack to camp overnight. I had an excellent time and I was hooked, didn't look back. I doubt I'd have had such an excellent time if I'd gone for a ride down the A4., wobbling all over the road. It fosters the idea the bikes do not belong on roads by preferring 'traffic-free' and by having cycle routes on what are effectively footpaths. While many Sustrans paths may not be suitable for racing, I don't think that is entirely surprising, given that road cyclists like umm roads. As far as I can see, Sustrans is about creating a movement, helping people to make their first steps into cycling and then supporting them (I've cycled a number of National Cycle Network routes, and will continue to). While some of the network isn't suitable for commuting, it does provide the original incentive to start riding which gives you the confidence to take it one step further, which is exactly what I did. That said, in many places their network is used for commuting, I can't comment for other parts of the country but down here, the Bristol - Bath path is a very busy one, with traffic flowing in both directions. As far as I understand it, the Bristol-Bath route is one of the few *good* Sustrans routes. I do not believe it harbours the idea that cyclists have no place on the road. When learning to drive a car, who doesn't search for an off-road place to begin, to have those introductory lessons where you are working out how to change gear, to brake etc? Well, we can differ in opinion. I honestly beleive Sustrans, as is, promotes the idea that cars and bikes do not mix - intentionally or unintentionally. There appears to be 2 schools of thought, those who think it is wrong to remove cyclists from the 'street scene' by building paths away from roads, and those that believe that a path away from a road is bliss. Personally, if the quality of the path is good, I'd far rather be away from the road, for reasons of safety and enjoyment. I agree that some of the National Cycle Network has problems, I've cycled on some awful tracks, and it frustrates me. On the whole, I am a big fan of Sustrans though. If you don't want to cycle on their network, don't, but certainly don't complain that they are inadequate, unskilled, not interested in their jobs or otherwise, because that is clearly disrespectful to an organisation which is trying to encourage the use of the bicycle, and are very alone in this quest. Tom I think the CTC does excellent work in encouraging people on bikes, as does many a cycling group. Sustrans isn't the only group doing this. But I do not like the approach of Sustrans to get bikes off the road. YMMV. Cheers, helen s |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
tom wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:06:23 +0100, Sandy Morton wrote: In article pan.2005.09.05.20.42.21.123202@firstnamelastnam e.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. Sustrans has very little to do with transport and as such, its title is a misnomer. Sustrans can be credited with providing a few leisure routes, but few of its routes are any use for a utility cyclist. Further, Sustrans, by their actions, promote segregation of cyclists into substandard ghettoes and undermine the cause of those of us who prefer to use the extensive network of cycle facilities that are shared with motor traffic. They do, therefore, more harm than good I share Sandy's opinion, but do not feel obliged to be very humble about it. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
I think the CTC does excellent work in encouraging people on bikes, Well I don't. I'm a CTC member, and I think their work is vital, but I don't think they are aimed at the new cyclist. My perspective of the CTC is that they are an organisation for supporting cyclists who are already cycling, the very same people such as yourself who have the ability to judge which path is a good one or not to use, and how to cycle safely on a road. Tom |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:32:34 GMT, tom wrote:
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. IME they don't stop the kids on motorbikes. I have hauled our trailer bike (and earlier, bike with baby seat and baby on back) over many of these things, often several within a short distance of one another, and still come accross kids on motorbikes zooming about. And the presence of the barriers puts me off using the routes, particularly with trailer bike in tow. ISTM that what is needed is not more barriers but more enforcement, perhaps nice cycling police officers seen in the area from time to time might have some effect? |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
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". The extent to which they are effective or interested in your views on what it is you think they do is another matter. That IS their remit. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 08:36:16 GMT, tom wrote:
Well I don't. I'm a CTC member, and I think their work is vital, but I don't think they are aimed at the new cyclist. My perspective of the CTC is that they are an organisation for supporting cyclists who are already cycling, the very same people such as yourself who have the ability to judge which path is a good one or not to use, and how to cycle safely on a road. This time last year I was a new cyclist. I didn't much enjoy riding off road canal side paths with endless barriers then, either. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
A Sustrans dilemma
IME they don't stop the kids on motorbikes. No, but they discourage them. If you are a kid on a motorbike and you see a nice looking track coming straight off a road with nothing to stop you getting on it, you're going to get on it - right? Where you can zoom around to your hearts content without getting into trouble. You are absolutely right about the police officers, and that is something for you to take up with your local authority or police force. |
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 |