SUSTRANS BID FOR LOTTERY FUNDING

dannygcp

I can't see that what happens in Australia is any guide to what will happen in this country. The recent proposal to alter the highway code was easily thrown out after lobbying by cyclists, even though the proposed changes didn't go nearly as far as the Aussie regulations.

Cyclists are not second-class users on Sustrans routes. The off road routes are all joint cycling and walking facilities, and most of the ones I have been on work very well in this respect.

And as I have previously pointed out, most of the Sustrans network is actually on roads, so it is hard to see why they are seen as being part of some conspiracy to get cyclists off the road network.

Spare Tyre

"The recent proposal to alter the highway code was easily thrown out after lobbying by cyclists"

If you are referring to the proposal that cyclists use so-called facilities "where provided", there was nothing easy about getting the wording changed. Even after 11,000 cyclists protested against the proposed wording, the CTC had to work hard to substitute an acceptable alternative. I found it scary that civil servants and politicians were so keen to undermine cyclists' right to choose most suitable route from A to B.

rodk

"And as I have previously pointed out, most of the Sustrans network is actually on roads, so it is hard to see why they are seen as being part of some conspiracy to get cyclists off the road network.
"

Consider this :-

What is the Sustrans position on "unsustainable transport"?

What is their postion on campaigning for 20 mph in residential roads and "no fault liability"?

Both of these would make a huge change in the way roads are shared and which they are so keen to move cyclists away from.

I believe that Sustrans' promotion of cycle routes is creating "spatial segragation" of cyclists. Unfortunately it also seems to be the government's favourite cycling charity. I wonder why?

Rod

Rockhopper69

Phone voting for Sustrans’ Connect2 has begun

Call 0870 24 24 602 now to vote for Sustrans' Connect2

Tthis is not a premium rate phone line, and calls from a BT landline will cost no more than 10p. Calls from mobiles and other operators may be higher.
All voting closes at 12 noon on Monday 10th December, so if you haven’t already voted online please do before Monday. The winner of the £50 million will be announced on 12th December.

This has to be good for cycling and walking

spen666

Rockhopper69 wrote:

Phone voting for Sustrans’ Connect2 has begun
...

This has to be good for cycling and walking

It may be good for walking. It may be good for some types of cycling, but it certainly is not good for those who want road cycling to remain on the road.

biframe

It's only not good if we lose the right to ride on the road. The first battle for that has been won by the CTC and Cycling Campaign groups.

However why should we not demand better cycling and walking routes, especially crossings? I use Valentine bridge to access Bristol Temple Meads, it's not very well designed for cyclists (in fact they are advised to dismount), and has badly designed barriers at either end. Why do I use it? because it makes my journey quicker.

I think the issue of keeping the right to ride on roads and improving the lot for walkers and cyclists not wishing to mix it busy routes can be fought side by side and not against each other.... just a thought.

mangaman

I'll be voting for one of the other proposals which I think makes more sense

None of the proposals involves anything in my area, so none will affect me directly

We do have a Sustrans path here though which is a converted railway. It is pretty hard not to go more than a few hundred yards before meeting pedestrians / dogs on or off leads.

There is a lovely wide road that gets you to the same place more directly

Sustran's response when i asked them why the path was advertised as a cycle facility was full of walkers was that if I saw a ped I should be "cycling at walking pace" around them

I'd rather cycle at a cycling pace in a safer environment ie the road

The problem is - as Spen alluded- if you talk to the council (which I often do in meetings with my job) is that the area has fantastic facilities and mention the mixed use pedestrian walkways

spen666

biframe wrote:

It's only not good if we lose the right to ride on the road. The first battle for that has been won by the CTC and Cycling Campaign groups.
....

Its not good if it makes it more dangerous/ more risky, more confrontational etc from motorists who see you are slowing them down by using the road when there are cycling farcilities nearby


Biframe- your view is sadly not bourne out by reality

petejuk

The Congestion Charge (imo) has been to date the single most successful way of getting more people to ride a bike and the reason for this is because it forced people to question their economics in relation to their method of transport. I think that, although Sustrans cycle facilities have their uses in some areas, I agree with Spen in that there are many that are rubbish. If there was a way to make them viewed more as leisure facilities than routes from A to B, we may go some way to ensuring we don't encourage motorists and polititians into thinking we shouldn't be on the road. After all, we know they don't need more encoragement.Things like the cycle to work schemes, I think, help a great deal and I think the government should be looking at making motor travel round congested towns and cities much more of an issue than it does presently.

grayo59

Well, for better or for worse I voted for it.

homercles

Looks like it won - I guess a load of people here are gutted :twisted:

Anonymous

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/s ... cash-13594

spen666

That is democracy for you. I didn't want it to win, but it was clearly the popular choice and well done to sustrans


On a slightly different note, does anyone know how many votes were cast? I know Sustrans got 42% of the vote, but am interested in how many people voted.

The reason being that before the "competition" began it was to have been peak time TV programmes about each project, but at a late stage it was switched (by ITV I think) to a series of short programmes late at night. I understand a number of the competitors had raised concerns about this and also the fact there was only to be one prize of 50m whereas initially there were also to have been smaller prize funds to apply for.

natrix

Some underhand tactics by Sustrans do you think Spen??? Get real, it was by far the most popular scheme and shows what the majority want.

spen666

barnesr wrote:

Some underhand tactics by Sustrans do you think Spen??? Get real, it was by far the most popular scheme and shows what the majority want.

Grow up you and you could start by learning to read.


My first paragrpah makes it very clear that
a) it was the popular choice
b) I pass on my congratulations to sustrans


Now where is there any suggestion of anything underhand by sustrans in that?


Is it wrong to ask how many people voted? How is that suggesting there was anything underhand by sustrans?
Is there any suggestion of anything underhand by anyone in my post?

I simply ask how many voted as I am curious why ITV ( and note I stated in my original post it was my understanding ITV were to blame for the scheduling change) made the changes to scheduling


Try to stop being so paranoid and grow up.

Crapaud

barnesr wrote:

Some underhand tactics by Sustrans do you think Spen??? Get real, it was by far the most popular scheme and shows what the majority want.

Popular by whom? Could motorists have skewed the vote? Do they want it to get us off of their roads? Many already seem to think that we are legally bound to use cycle paths.
I would like to see a breakdown of the type of people who voted for it (I know that this isn't going to happen).

P-Jay

Hi,

I don't usually stray into the scary "Roadie" bit of the forum. But I think it's fantastic news! From a personal point of view it means that the Ely River Bridge from Penarth (my home town) to Cardiff Bay will be finally built. Means cutting huge amounts of time off my commute into work (when I get to ride in). But most of all mean my mates and I can zip down to the bay for a pint in the summer without "having" to deal with traffic.

I know what it's like to ride on the road and what drivers can be like. But if you look at the positive, means more of us can choose to ride on the road, or choose to ride on a cycle walking path. Best of both worlds if you ask me.

homercles

Spen - FYI, from The Guardian...

"286,000 people who voted by phone or online"

£175 a head!

another jacko

The voting numbers were very good if you take into account that (a) ITV first tried to kill it when Michael Grade took over and then only gave it a death slot in the schedules with no publicity and (b) there has been all the bad publicity over TV phone-in scandals. (These 2 facts are not unrelated).

As this was a large sum of public money at stake, not just a celebrity karaoke or cat naming competition, it meant that there had to be such tight security on the lottery vote to prevent e.g. automated mutiple web or phone voting, that it was actually quite difficult to vote once let alone multiple times. This does, however, mean that the voting was as reliable as is technically possible and much closer to a true level of participation than the votes in e.g. X Factor where they will happily take 100s of votes from one phone number and keep taking your money even after the lines have closed.

spen666

homercles wrote:

Spen - FYI, from The Guardian...

"286,000 people who voted by phone or online"

£175 a head!

cheers

magicroundabout

Picked up this thread a bit late.

I voted and am happy with the result. I've been both a "beginner" and a "roadie" of late and so see both sides of the argument.

When I first started cycling I thought that the Cycle Networks were the bees knees. They got me safe, quiet ways of getting out, starting to enjoy cycling, and enjoying my first few milestones (5 miles, 10 miles, 13 miles, 26 miles).

As an experienced rider I now prefer the open road and the NCN frustrates me because of all the gravelly paths, gates, pedestrians, etc. I would hate the thought of being relagated to a cycle path.

I think improving the NCN is a great idea because it will encourage more people to LEARN to cycle, to take up cycling, and to conquor their first few longer rides in relative safety. Perhaps this will then lead to more people starting to get onto the roads for longer, faster rides, boosting our numbers, and strengthening the cause.

I wonder what those who are against the scheme think should be done instead to encourage more people to take up cycling? (And perhaps we can lobby for those things AS WELL!!!)

dannygcp

Thank's for your post MAGICROUNDABOUT. I think this illustrates how the work that Sustrans is doing will get more people cycling off and on the road

Unfortunately I suspect that the small minority of cyclists who are opposed to Sustrans are basically purists who would rather not see people cycling at all if they are not going to cycle in the prescribed manner - i,.e. on busy main roads.

iainment

dannygcp wrote:

Thank's for your post MAGICROUNDABOUT. I think this illustrates how the work that Sustrans is doing will get more people cycling off and on the road

Unfortunately I suspect that the small minority of cyclists who are opposed to Sustrans are basically purists who would rather not see people cycling at all if they are not going to cycle in the prescribed manner - i,.e. on busy main roads.

Absolutely, these cycling puritans put more people off cycling than they encourage. Any initiative that raises the profile of cycling is good in my book.

spen666

iainment wrote:

dannygcp wrote:

Thank's for your post MAGICROUNDABOUT. I think this illustrates how the work that Sustrans is doing will get more people cycling off and on the road

Unfortunately I suspect that the small minority of cyclists who are opposed to Sustrans are basically purists who would rather not see people cycling at all if they are not going to cycle in the prescribed manner - i,.e. on busy main roads.

Absolutely, these cycling puritans put more people off cycling than they encourage. Any initiative that raises the profile of cycling is good in my book.

Not sure who cycling puritans are, but I object, not because sustrans activities are not for me, but because they will cause my cycling to be made less pleasant as a result of the effect it has on other road users ie motorists.

I am quite happy for people to do what they like, but I will have no hesitation in saying that I object to something when it is to my detriment. Sadly, I perceive that sustrans activites will have a negative effect for me and therefore I object.

enjoy_the_ride

I think our opinion on this has everything to do with our personal experience. For sure there are some ridiculous cycle lanes out there and some abusive car drivers, as there are good cycle lanes and idiot cyclists who jump lights and ride pavements etc.

But I can say with absolute certainty that three years ago if I didn’t have the option of first trying my cycle commute off road along the canal towpath, which is part of the National Route 4. I would not now be:

1) Cycling to work each day
2) Riding as a paid up member of one of my local cycling clubs
3) Looking forward to entering all 3 days of the Tour of Wessex (having done one day last year)
4) About to purchase bike number four (1-Old banger for railway station, 2-Commuting hybrid, 3-Highish end road bike, 4-Dedicated winter road bike)
5) Lost about 3 stone in weight and be a lot fitter approaching my 4th century than I was approaching my 3rd

Three years ago there was no way I would have tried my commute on the road. Now, most of my cycling (including my commute) is done on the roads.

I for one am very pleased Sustrans won the vote.

spen666

enjoy_the_ride wrote:

I think our opinion on this has everything to do with our personal experience. For sure there are some ridiculous cycle lanes out there and some abusive car drivers, as there are good cycle lanes and idiot cyclists who jump lights and ride pavements etc.

But I can say with absolute certainty that three years ago if I didn’t have the option of first trying my cycle commute off road along the canal towpath, which is part of the National Route 4. I would not now be:

1) Cycling to work each day
2) Riding as a paid up member of one of my local cycling clubs
3) Looking forward to entering all 3 days of the Tour of Wessex (having done one day last year)
4) About to purchase bike number four (1-Old banger for railway station, 2-Commuting hybrid, 3-Highish end road bike, 4-Dedicated winter road bike)
5) Lost about 3 stone in weight and be a lot fitter approaching my 4th century than I was approaching my 3rd

Three years ago there was no way I would have tried my commute on the road. Now, most of my cycling (including my commute) is done on the roads.

I for one am very pleased Sustrans won the vote.

blimey cycling has got you approaching 400 years of age?

Should make it compulsory if thats the case

enjoy_the_ride

:oops:

well at least you read my comment!

spen666

enjoy_the_ride wrote:

:oops:

well at least you read my comment!

so is it the cycling that is the secret of your longevity, or is it the beer fags and wild women?

enjoy_the_ride

More to do with the cost of this cycling game and the time I need to save the money. :shock:

Mrs e_t_r is under the impression the 4th bike is it. Bike 5 (TT bike), 6 (fixed wheel), 7 (mountain bike full sus) and 8 (mountain bike hard tail) is already on the list. Working on 9 and 10 to make it a round millennium! Does a turbo trainer and roller count?

Who knows, by then I may have covered all 10,000 (miles or km?) of Sustrans beautiful network and be able to offer a full and complete review.