Sustrans needs our vote

bryanm

glharper wrote:

toontra wrote:

spen666 wrote:

What gives Sustrans the right to speak for cyclists and spend another £50M of our money on themselves and some more useless cycle lanes and signposts?

Can I vote against them getting this money?

Are you being serious here? Sustrans are not trying to speak for cyclists, rather provide facilities that encourage less confident bikers to choose a sustainable form of transport. The concept of the connect2 scheme is not to provide more bike lanes, but to provide links between communities that are separated by barriers such as roads, rivers or railways.

In terms of forcing cyclists off the road, it's ridiculous to suggest that by providing an alternative to the road, cyclists are being forced off them (that point has just been battled out by the CTC with the highway code). Indeed, personally I choose to ride on the road, rather than use a cycle lane that has to give priority to cars crossing it, but many people don't enjoy fighting with cars on the roads. And sure, it's not perfect yet, but an cycle friendly infrastructure has to start somewhere, and judging by where I live, a great many people cycle to work on the Sustrans routes that would probably otherwise be in their cars! So come on people, see the bigger picture here?

It isn't providing sustainable transport because much of the routes are no use in the dark when many people need to travel to and from work.

It's providing leisure cycling facilities which people will use in addition to commuting by car rather than instead of.

homercles

geocycle wrote:

My main concern is that 50m of lottery money (not even core gov funding) should be allocated by tv vote to support infrastructure and heritage projects. Great tv and good for the advertisers but how is this a rationale and equitable way of allocating 'public' resources to worthy concerns?

I absolutely agree with you here.

toontra

bryanm wrote:

It isn't providing sustainable transport because much of the routes are no use in the dark when many people need to travel to and from work.

Exactly. Sustainable transport should mean providing people with a way of replacing journies they would otherwise make by car. For most that will mean commuting, shopping, etc.

Providing families, tourists, etc with cycle-friendly routes essentially for leisure may be a worthy goal in its own right, but in my experience these people will often load up a 4x4 to get to these routes, kind of totally defeating the whole sustainable ethos.

Mystery Shopper

Sustrans are promoting any and all alternatives to motor transport; that is their agenda. It is not the same agenda as most of us, which is for bikes and cars being able to share roads designed to be used safely by all means of transport.
Sustrans operates subject to enormous constraints, such as the existing car-weighted infrastructure and lack of significant funding. This money will help them overcome some of those constraints.
Having said that, I'm not voting for them.

toontra

I'm sure Sustrans do some worthwhile work, but I have serious concerns that they may become the "voice" of cyclists whom official bodies deal with on our behalf, when in fact (as we can see in this thread) there is real disagreement amongst cyclists about the work they do.

If they were to win this grant it would undoubtedly heighten their status with the government, councils, etc (all keen to be seen to be doing something for the environment), and they could well end up dictating the agenda for cyclists for many years to come.

Oddballcp

The CTC,not Sustrans, is the voice of cyclists.

spen666

Oddballcp wrote:

The CTC,not Sustrans, is the voice of cyclists.

The CTC is the voice of TOURING cyclists. It is not the voice of for example racing cyclists or mountain bikers

johnnyesox

Love them or hate them,Sustrans have done a great job [well here anyway,West of Scotland],wish they would do something about they dog walking BA%T@RDS and the horsey brigade , they think they own the planet never mind a few miles of cycle path! ]since they tarred all the surfaces here the paths are definately getting more use,more families out at the weekend,got to be good for the fatty weans [kids] and the L B S's getting a turn with bike sales and repairs :shock:

simon_e

I'll be voting for Sustrans.

I ride on the road a lot, despite the effort the tin-box driving b&st@rds put into persuading me not to, but I'm well aware that many people don't want the worry. My wife and two young kids, for a start. Better provision for the likes of them would be great. Car/van/bus/lorry drivers aren't going to be less selfish overnight and there aren't enough cyclists on the town's roads to force a change of attitude so we'll continue to be in the minority.

Also, Connect2 has a project planned for the centre of Shrewsbury that I'd like to see realised. Smithfield Road is one of the least enjoyable stretches of road in the area for anyone on two wheels.

guisto

I agree.

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this but last week a new website was launched:
http://www.thepeoples50million.org.uk/p ... ct-summary

On the 26 Nov the voting opens. Each of the 4 bids requires the public to vote on the most worthwhile project.

For me that has to be the sustrans connect2 project. I know some cyclists are against this as they feel it marginalizes cyclists, but this is also about giving youngsters and others the opportunity to cycle in relative safety and thus get them into the sport, to maybe even just lose an few pounds and reduce their carbon footprint a little.

Come on if we all stick together we can make a difference

simon_e

if we all stick together we can make a difference

It didn't help the miners in 1985!

Seriously, even if people are ambivalent about or not interested in riding Sustrans routes themselves, it would be nice if you take a minute to think of other cyclists who would use them.

I'm sure the alternatives are all 'worthy' but IIMHO unlikely to have the same potential impact for so many people on such a practical level. If you don't vote for it then what alternative means do you propose we use to encourage more people to take up regular cycling? £50 million is a LOT of money, I don't see why it should be spent on one visitor attraction in either Cornwall or a corner of the Midlands.

pedalpower

BentMikey wrote:

Cycle facilities don't promote cycling. There was a study or two which found that no increase in cycling resulted from an increase in cycle facilities, in the Netherlands. All of the big increase in cycling in London has been on road, and in spite of the cycling facilities.

That's interesting. I was going to mention the Netherlands because I was under the impression that the very large percentage of journeys made by bike there was partly due to the many segregated cycle lanes they have. But maybe its purely because its flat.

It does seem a bit hard to blame them for discouraging cycling on road. Suppose there's a road between two A and B but also a bridleway and someone clears the bridleway and makes it reasonably rideable for fat tyres and that leads to a reduction in people cycling on the road. Would that person be so bad?

spen666

Simon E wrote:

if we all stick together we can make a difference

It didn't help the miners in 1985!

Seriously, even if people are ambivalent about or not interested in riding Sustrans routes themselves, it would be nice if you take a minute to think of other cyclists who would use them.

Yes please think of those cyclists who do not want to be even more marginalised by sustrans provided facilities which do nothing in the minds of motorists than reinforce the view that cyclists are not supposed to be on the road and that they should be riding only on these sustrans cycle paths.

Think of your fellow cyclists and vote against sustrans

I'm sure the alternatives are all 'worthy' but IIMHO unlikely to have the same potential impact for so many people on such a practical level. If you don't vote for it then what alternative means do you propose we use to encourage more people to take up regular cycling? £50 million is a LOT of money, I don't see why it should be spent on one visitor attraction in either Cornwall or a corner of the Midlands.

bryanm

pedalpower wrote:

It does seem a bit hard to blame them for discouraging cycling on road. Suppose there's a road between two A and B but also a bridleway and someone clears the bridleway and makes it reasonably rideable for fat tyres and that leads to a reduction in people cycling on the road. Would that person be so bad?

I presume this bridleway is going to be illuminated and rideable after dark? 'Sustainable Transport' should be what it says. Not a leisure route for Sunday afternoons.

jam1ec

the roads i ride on are not all illuminated after dark, my light means i can ride on them or any other route in the dark.

I have a vaired route to work, some city riding, cycle path, sustrans route, rural back road and main road. I think the away from road alternative is excellent for less confident cyclists and slower cycling. it is safer in my opinion to allow people who would prefer not to ride on the road the option to do so. It also makes it better for me when i am on the road because i do not have to overtake as many other bikes.

We have to remember the view that a seperate cycling infrastructure is not good is coming from a group of people who have a lifestyle (and possibly views) that are not in the majority.

pedalpower

BentMikey wrote:

All of the big increase in cycling in London has been on road, and in spite of the cycling facilities.

And is that entirely true? Is there not also a possibility that increase cycleways and signs get more people cycling but many of these quickly progress to cycling on the normal roads.
There must be people in London who see all the new cycle lanes and signs think "maybe I'll have a go, it looks quite safe on those green tarmacced lanes". And only later do they realise the cycle lanes and signs are hopeless and switch to the roads, or they use the lanes but also the roads for much of their journey, thereby increasing not diminishing the number of cyclists on the roads. I think I may even have been one of them, although i can't really remember now...

I think the worry that cyclists could be forced off the roads is a real concern but I don't think its a necessary consequence of off-road cycle lanes. I feel the two should be able to work together.

As for the lighting, plenty of roads aren't illuminated, so why should cycle lanes. Just adds to light pollution and increased co2 emissions. Although I realise not everyone will feel the same.

bracestower

I think a lot of it is the issue of perception. I understand why people use cycle lanes, but for most part, they are impractical for fast commuters.

There is a cycle lane that runs from Roehampton Gate down to Barnes (past The Priory) that is awful. On the rare occasions that I have attempted to use it, I've had at least two punctures and come off once.

Last week, I was told by a passenger in a van to use the cycle lane. When I replied "It's not mandatory, mate", the van swerved to the left, forcing me to slow down dramatically to avoid a collision. There was no traffic coming the other way, so they weren't even held up behind me.

Now, I'm aware that they were obviously idiots, but this wouldn't have happened unless they believed that I should not have been on the road when the cycle lane was there.

Totalnewbie

So that pavement cycle lane is still there then (it used to be on my way to uni about five years ago). Worse than useless. Even as a real totalnewbie (I bought my first adult bike back then to cycle to uni) I never used to use it because I would have had to come off halfway up Priory lane to turn right and that would have been more dangerous.

alfablue

I think we need to be aware that Sustrans are not responsible for cycle lanes, whilst they may often be involved in setting up routes and developing paths the roadside or pavement lanes themselves are generally the responsibility of local authorities, and there will often be deviation from Sustrans and Cycling England design principles - indeed Cycling England talk about the priority of "Invisible Infrastructure" where they state that general, non-cycling specific, measures can be more effective in promoting safe cycling. Local authorities may often develop ill-conceived or poorly planned cycle paths to respond to perceived pressure to do so; these may be improved by active involvement and collaboration with local cycling groups. I do not think it is appropriate to lay all the blame for poor paths at Sustrans' door, however as soon as an NCN sign is applied to any path then they naturally assume the blame, despite the fact that they may be aware of shortcomings, maybe that is fair enough.

NB: The Sustrans design guidelines are derived from the Dutch "Sign upfor the bike" CROW manual.

In respect of the NCN, I have cycled many long distance routes and have found them to be predominantly fantastic for fast and safe cycling, though I accept things occasionally get a bit complex in urban areas.

another jacko

I really don't understand why there is such strong anti-sustrans feeling from so many people.

There is no claim that I can find made by sustrans to be the voice of cycling - they are merely a provider of signposts and maps for cycle routes that avoid busy roads. I would be suspicious of anyone who made that claim - CTC does not represent me either.

Sustrans routes are a mixture of on road and off road and on some routes they offer off and on road alternatives - so where does any suggestion of a policy to promote segregation come from? It isn't in any of their information that I can find.

Sustrans are not responsible for all cycle routes, only the NCN ones. Most of the useless ones are not part of the NCN - perhaps if sustrans could take them over they would improve!

Many people will only cycle, at least to begin with, if they can do it away from traffic - so what's wrong with providing them with the opportunity to do so. It doesn't stop anyone who wants to ride in traffic from doing so.

I was in Berlin recently and did a cycle tour of the city - 95% of it was off road and we went all over the city. It was safe, relaxed and fun. I can't think of a UK city where you could say that. Bikes are everywhere in Berlin and seem to get right of way at road crossings and junctions, often by sheer weight of numbers - so perhaps off road can be a good thing for all cyclists.

My summer holiday this year was cycling from Newcasle to Berwick on the NCN 'Coast and Castles' route. It was all good fun, but the best bits were definitely the off road sections, sometimes riding through the sand dunes where the road had gone off several miles inland and several hundred feet upwards (my wife doesn't do hills!). Where is the sin in providing cyclists with this wonderful access to some of Britains most beautiful and isolated coastline? Do the anti-sustrans lobby want us excluded, or a full scale tarmac road built through it on the principle that we shouldn't be segregated?

simon_e

spen666 wrote:

please think of those cyclists who do not want to be even more marginalised by sustrans provided facilities which do nothing in the minds of motorists than reinforce the view that cyclists are not supposed to be on the road and that they should be riding only on these sustrans cycle paths.

People drove like that before Sustrans even existed, believe you me! It's just there weren't as many of them, and they weren't generally as impatient or inconsiderate.

Please don't blame Sustrans for the ill manners of road users, and not for Local Authority offroad provision, however inadequte it may be. I am arguing in favour of Sustrans as part of a strategy to get people cycling more, not so car/van/lorry/bus drivers have an excuse to bully you, me or A.N.Other cyclist.

Lôn Cambria (NCN 81) iis a Sustrans route near me that is on-road. Is that a bad thing (because Sustrans created it) or a good thing (because it's on-road)? The county has Routes 31, 45, 75 too, a mixture of on- and off-road rides. Perhaps you would elect to use one of the arterial A-roads like the A5 dual carriageway instead. Mmm, lovely.

How old does my son have to be before I take him down either the busy A-road past on one side of our estate or the probably worse B-road the other side? My thought: a lot older than the age that I want him to be able to cycle freqently and over some distance. So how do we get from our house to the Quarry Park in town without running this gauntlet? We put his bike in the car :-(

Alternatively, if we elect to go along the pavement and get to the offroad cyclepath we can ride on that and quiet estate streets all the way there. I know which we both will prefer. Do you want him to cycle by using the path or would you rather wait (IME) 4 or 5 years until he has the survival skills required for busy road riding? At which point, if he still wants to ride by then, he discovers his Dad has a serious attitude problem and picks fights with any vehicle he takes a dislike to.

This whole 'blame Sustrans' thing is IMHO terribly short-sighted. I'm not saying the organisation i's a cureall but it's definitely NOT the cause of the problem.

alfablue

Got to agree, Jacko and Simon!