#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 04:42 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 |