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
  #31  
Old September 6th 05, 10:59 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

tom wrote:

[ handcycles]
Agreed, this is the only argument against barriers which actually holds
any weight.


I was symphatic to your arguement until this. If Sustrans wants to promote
utility cycling, then access with trailers (kiddie trailers? shopping? big
panniers with shopping?) is vital.

In York the barriers have been mostly either removed or had one side removed
making them far easier to get through. Police on bikes patrol the paths.

I can say for certain that the barriers didn't keep kids on motorbikes and
mopeds off befo they just rode round to a stop where they could get on
via woods etc.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune
Ads
  #32  
Old September 6th 05, 11:01 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

iakobski wrote:

lighting). After many emails one section has been resurfaced (I had a
long argument with the NCN officer, who seemed to think I was
unreasonable expecting to cycle at aver 12 mph. Lots of people use the


This is lots of peoples experience with Sustrans though. That the people
there don't ride bikes. 12mph is slow. Expecting to do a fast 25mph chaingang
on a sustrans path would obviously be wrong, but a design speeed of 18-20mph
would make them a lot safer.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune
  #33  
Old September 6th 05, 11:06 AM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

tom wrote:

Agreed, this is the only argument against barriers which actually holds
any weight.


But it holds so /much/ weight the fact that it's the only one is a moot
point.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-barrier because I would much rather they
weren't there, I don't like them at all. But I understand why they are
there.


So do I, but that doesn't make it a good decision. By stopping people
who shouldn't be there you discriminate against people who should be.
Allowing people who should be there should have greater priority in the
matter, IMHO.

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?


Because most of them don't cycle very much at all, taking their overview
of cycling from looking at other people doing it, and from flagship
media projects like Sustrans and political parties saying they're pro
cycling and will make it safe by building cycle paths. Which is why so
many people in the UK have the false impression that cycling is terribly
dangerous, when the DfT's statistics show it is clearly not so.

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/

  #34  
Old September 6th 05, 11:50 AM
audrey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

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.
  #35  
Old September 6th 05, 11:51 AM
Peter Clinch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

wrote:

This is lots of peoples experience with Sustrans though. That the people
there don't ride bikes. 12mph is slow.


I think the problem is possibly that someone took a figure for an
average speed and assumed that's what everyone always goes at. ICBW but
I've heard 11 or 12 as a CTC (or similar) measure of average speed, but
of course that is something that includes stops for all sorts of faffing
and is meant as something to plan how long 50 miles will take you taking
everything into account, not something to say you'll be typically doing
11 or 12 mph at any point you're moving on the bike.

on a sustrans path would obviously be wrong, but a design speeed of 18-20mph
would make them a lot safer.


Agreed. With a tailwind and a helpful slope it's very easy to get to
that without trying to race at all, and having spurious chicanes etc.
thrown in just really doesn't endear me to the designers at those speeds
with 4 panniers of camping gear and someone coming the other way.

Another factor in the design, as with the extensive Tour de Scheme you
get in the torturous attempts to avoid anything resembling a major road
in towns, is it's often lowest common denominator stuff for the
Cannonical Sustrans User, which judging by the pictures you see of Nice
People Having A Nice Time are occasional cyclists doing leisure rides on
a bonny day with a young family. I'm all for them getting out there,
but I don't see why their presence has to make life a PITA for the likes
of me. I can negotiate other users safely and politely, I don't need
traffic engineering to force my hand.

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/

  #36  
Old September 6th 05, 12:02 PM
tom
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 10:59:16 +0000, ajc22 wrote:

tom wrote:

[ handcycles]
Agreed, this is the only argument against barriers which actually holds
any weight.


I was symphatic to your arguement until this. If Sustrans wants to promote
utility cycling, then access with trailers (kiddie trailers? shopping? big
panniers with shopping?) is vital.


Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear. I'm not pro-barriers per se, but I can see
the reasoning for them being there. Personally I'd like to see (and I'd be
interested to see more info in this subject..) barriers which do work, ie
which could allow more utility accessories you mention, as well as other
path users (tandem, trike etc.).

The ideal situation is more policing, which would be excellent. I'm not
sure if it is realistic on a national scale though. I believe there is
also research to suggest that greater use of a cycle track makes it safer,
safety in numbers style. But that is a very chicken-and-egg situation, ie
if the track were busier then it could be justified that the barriers are
removed, but then the argument is the path won't be busy while the
barriers are there for the reasons stated.


  #37  
Old September 6th 05, 12:27 PM
Al C-F
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

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.

It also causes a whole load more traffic around the access to the track.
  #38  
Old September 6th 05, 12:32 PM
JohnB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

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.

John B
  #39  
Old September 6th 05, 12:39 PM
Anthony Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

On 2005-09-06, Peter Clinch wrote:
wrote:

This is lots of peoples experience with Sustrans though. That the people
there don't ride bikes. 12mph is slow.


I think the problem is possibly that someone took a figure for an
average speed and assumed that's what everyone always goes at. ICBW but
I've heard 11 or 12 as a CTC (or similar) measure of average speed, but
of course that is something that includes stops for all sorts of faffing
and is meant as something to plan how long 50 miles will take you taking
everything into account, not something to say you'll be typically doing
11 or 12 mph at any point you're moving on the bike.

on a sustrans path would obviously be wrong, but a design speeed of 18-20mph
would make them a lot safer.


Agreed. With a tailwind and a helpful slope it's very easy to get to
that without trying to race at all, and having spurious chicanes etc.
thrown in just really doesn't endear me to the designers at those speeds
with 4 panniers of camping gear and someone coming the other way.

[snip]

Interesting discussion. I've never been on a Sustrans route (don't
think there are any round here) but I don't feel much encouraged to look
for any now.

I agree that 11-12 mph is ridiculously slow. I *average* 16.5 over 31
miles and, as I'm 72, I don't think that this can regarded as
exceptional.

Anthony



--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (blog, book reviews,
Assassins, homeopathy, and skeptical articles).
Email: acatacampbell.org.uk



  #40  
Old September 6th 05, 12:49 PM
iakobski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Sustrans dilemma

I think the problem is possibly that someone took a figure for an
average speed and assumed that's what everyone always goes at. ICBW but
I've heard 11 or 12 as a CTC (or similar) measure of average speed,


I think that's the speed quoted as an average for a cyclist in London,
often compared to the average speed for other modes. Outside London I'd
expect it to be higher.

Where the 12mph came from in this thread, is when I was in an exchange
with an NCN officer over a path which had come to resemble the North
Sea in January because of tree roots pushing the tarmac up. In one
email I wrote "I don't ride a full suspension mountain bike (as there
are very few mountains in the Fens), so riding along that path even as
slowly as 12mph would be enough to cause me discomfort or even injury."
His reply was "I wouldn't dream of cycling as fast as 12 mph along
there".

So he claims to be a cyclist. He also thinks 12 mph is fast. My grandad
used to cycle faster than that (on a flat straight road) when he was 92
and had two replacement hips, but the NCN officer thinks reasonable
progress on a commuting journey will be made when the top speed is
12mph (ie the bit on the straight path, not the junctions or bends).
It's no wonder the paths are so poorly designed when the self-professed
cyclist officers clearly are not cyclists.

 




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 04:09 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.