The Peoples' 50 Million - Lottery Funding for Cycle Paths?

robbarker

This is a popular vote to allocate £50M of lottery money.

It will either go to Sustrans to fund cycle paths, or to either
Sherwood forest conservation, an urban park in the Black Country or to
the Eden project.

It's a no-brainer for us in here, surely.

Please make the effort!

http://www.thepeoples50million.org.uk/home

One of the projects is here in Tintern, part of a scheme to put a
flattish cycle path from Chepstow to Brockweir via a new suspesion
bridge over the Wye. Apart from anything else it will eliminate that
horrible grinding climb for the last 5 miles of the Bryan Chapman 600 Audax -
worth it for that alone!

spen666

as said elsewhere- i'll be voting forone of the other two projects .

i do not under any circumstances want the money to go to an organisation that is making it less pleasant and making it more dangerous for my to cycle on the roads.


Read the numerous threads on here already for the details

robbarker

Spen, we are all well aware of your regularly spouted view that the nation should retrain drivers to treat cyclists decently, rather than build cycle paths. Most of us also realise that this isn't going to happen.

The Sustrans Connect2 project is about connecting communities with sustainable transport links that aren't available now.

The project local to me is typical - it is proposing a path along an old disused and overgrown railway track to provide a traffic-free alternative to cycling on the A466 between Tintern and Chepstow. I'm very confident in traffic but will not cycle this narrow, twisty A-road in the rush hour. The new route would allow me to cycle-commute, where I can't now.

The picture is different again if you consider more vulnerable cycling groups - parents taking kids out to teach them to ride for example.

Traffic free routes most certainly have their place, will encourage cycling and ultimately get motorists more used to seeing cyclists about (most of Sustrans mileage is. in fact, on-road.) Also, of course, the more adults that cycle, the more drivers that cycle, so it's spreading the word that way too.

I would guess you're beyond persuasion and you seem like the sort of guy who needs to have the last word, so please feel free and I won't reply to you again. I am confident that the vast majority in here will see the sense in getting this £50 million into cycling, rather than into other non-cycling related attractions.

Salsiccia

I'll be voting for the Sustrans project. There is a new Sports development in Cardiff Bay that I can see from my house, but it would take me at least 3/4 of an hour to walk there (and probably not much less on my bike!) because the only exisiting roadlink is not open to cyclists and pedestrians. The Sustrans plan will give a footbridge with cycle path over the river and I will be able to be there in 5 minutes.

The Sustrans plan is not just about people like us. It is also for families to cycle and walk together without risk of being mown down on a busy road that it would be totally unsuitable for them to be on, amongst others.

spen666

robbarker wrote:

Spen, we are all well aware of your regularly spouted view that the nation should retrain drivers to treat cyclists decently, rather than build cycle paths. Most of us also realise that this isn't going to happen.

The Sustrans Connect2 project is about connecting communities with sustainable transport links that aren't available now.

The project local to me is typical - it is proposing a path along an old disused and overgrown railway track to provide a traffic-free alternative to cycling on the A466 between Tintern and Chepstow. I'm very confident in traffic but will not cycle this narrow, twisty A-road in the rush hour. The new route would allow me to cycle-commute, where I can't now.

The picture is different again if you consider more vulnerable cycling groups - parents taking kids out to teach them to ride for example.

Traffic free routes most certainly have their place, will encourage cycling and ultimately get motorists more used to seeing cyclists about (most of Sustrans mileage is. in fact, on-road.) Also, of course, the more adults that cycle, the more drivers that cycle, so it's spreading the word that way too.

I would guess you're beyond persuasion and you seem like the sort of guy who needs to have the last word, so please feel free and I won't reply to you again. I am confident that the vast majority in here will see the sense in getting this £50 million into cycling, rather than into other non-cycling related attractions.

I am totally beyond persuasion that by giving motorists the impression that there are adequate ( in their view) facilities for cyclists off the road it is going to do other than increase their anger at us using our right to be on the road.


If this is solely about having the last word- why feel the need to reply to my expressing my view about what I will be doing and why.

The more adults that cycle- the more drivers that cycle- maybe true- but it is encouraging them to think of bikes as things for pootling along abandoned railway lines etc. This reinforces in their minds that cycles have no place on "their" roads and makes it far more dangerous for those of us who do use the roads.

most of Sustrans mileage is. in fact, on-road.

I think you will find this is completely and wholly untrue. sustrans ado not maintain the roads and have no right to the roads which are the responsibility of the Highways Agency or local/copunty councils. Sustrans may use these to link its off road facilities- but that is a different matter.

Sustrans is an organisation that has an aim of providing segregated cycling farcilities. This is completely at odds with my aim which is to use the already adequate network we have called the highways.

ivancarlos

I am with Spen on this one. Not many cycle routes round where I live but where there is one (a sustrans national route BTW) I have had drivers gesticulate and toot at me to get on it even though the road is pretty much traffic free. I might even consider using it if it wasn't strewn with litter and debris.

robbarker

I'd generally rather be on the road than on an afterthought segregated section of "cyclepath" next to the road - too much debris and detritus as you say - but these sort of half-cocked paths are quite often the result of compromise due to underfunding. That's why it's really important to bring this £50 million into cycling.

In any case, the Connect2 project is more about linking split communities - a lot of the schemes are for what Sustrans does best, which is the likes of the Bristol/Bath path or the new Peregrine Path from Monmouth - Symonds Yat - building links where there are none at the moment.

pneumatic

Never mind all that: vote for this

Bikeworks: 08702436701

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12551213

These guys will save bikes from destruction, make them good again, put them back into circulation (on or off-road), provide skills and employment for people with disabilities and offer worthwhile volunteering opportunities.

All they need is a van and a storage unit for the bikes. To get that they need your call. 10 calls (max) for a pound.

Make it happen.

peanut

well I disagree

I think it is just too unsafe on the roads to cycle for the majority of cyclists. Cars are way too fast now and there are too many idiots without licenses, insurance etc . Drivers don't just have a complete disregard for cyclists its everybody.

Its a culture thing. We now have about 10 decades of people who have been brought up with a complete disregard for others period. Whether on the road or off of it.
no amount of training or legislation is going to alter 50 years of bad parenting.

what we need is a lot more safe and convenient cycle paths where we can enjoy cycling in safety

meenaghman

1. the sustrans development will aid cycling. If people start seeing the bike as something they can do everyday, whether on road or off road, then I think its a good idea. Also this is not just about cycling but walking, and in many cases will take cars off the roads as people use the new links to walk or cycle instead of take the car.
2. As a taxpayer (and the lottery fund is really a voluntary tax.) then Sustrans is the only UK wide or at least most UK wide of the schemes. Also all the other schemes will generate extra car and bus journeys. The M5 M1 and M6 were busy enough whenever I travelled on them, these other schemes will only make them worse in my opinion.

spen666

meenaghman wrote:

1. the sustrans development will aid cycling. I....

No- the sustrans scheme may assist those who want to pootle along abandoned railway lines etc- it will positively harm road cycling

oldwelshman

spen666 wrote:

meenaghman wrote:

1. the sustrans development will aid cycling. I....

No- the sustrans scheme may assist those who want to pootle along abandoned railway lines etc- it will positively harm road cycling

That might be your view but not everybodies.
Geraint Thomas and Nicole Cooke are supporting it.
anyway what is wrong with pootling along old railway lines?
I think it is great idea for getting people cycling especially for the less confident.
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion it will "positively harm" road cycling.
By the way, what does "positive" harming mean?

gkerr4

I agree with Spen - it should go elsewhere. I don't want investment in cycle paths - just roads which cyclists can use in safety.

Mind you - the proposal contains nothing for my part of the country anyway - they are all down south with some token gesture scottish plans - i'll be voting elsewhere or not at all.

spen666

oldwelshman wrote:

spen666 wrote:

meenaghman wrote:

1. the sustrans development will aid cycling. I....

No- the sustrans scheme may assist those who want to pootle along abandoned railway lines etc- it will positively harm road cycling

That might be your view but not everybodies.
Geraint Thomas and Nicole Cooke are supporting it.

and how often do they cycle on the English roads in rush hour to/from work getting abuse from motorists because they are not on the censored cycle path on the pavement?

Their views on this mean little to me. It means nothing more than the view of any other foreign based person

anyway what is wrong with pootling along old railway lines?

nothing at all for those who want to do that - the problem comes when it is at the expense of those of us who cycle on the road who will find ourselves facing more intimidation and danger to encourage someone to cycle perhaps once every year on a railway line.

I think it is great idea for getting people cycling especially for the less confident.
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion it will "positively harm" road cycling.
By the way, what does "positive" harming mean?

robbarker

And Sustrans won the £50 milion!

Many thanks to all who took the trouble to vote.

grayo59

robbarker wrote:

And Sustrans won the £50 milion!

Many thanks to all who took the trouble to vote.

Good!

feel

I hope that this will encourage more and more people to cycle, for example my wife has very little confidence and might gain the confidence to ride on roads by first riding on separate paths. Hopefully this will lead to :- more people wanting to cycle on roads and a stronger lobby leading to some joined up thinking (literally) about better and wider cycle lanes in our cities and towns; a greater awareness of cyclists and laws making it an offence to park on a cycling lane and a law to say all new roads, except motorways, have to have a decent width cycle lane on both sides. Also where present cycle paths are separate from the roads that local councils have to sweep them. Plus more secure parking for bicycles in towns and schools. All employers with more than say 10? employers to have to provide lockers, secure parking and showers for people wanting to commute by bike. Sustrans winning will give cycling more publicity and we should see this as only the start.

heavymental

Well, hopefully it will turn out for the best but I thought cycle paths were a great idea until I saw a few. Squeezed onto the edge of an existing pavement, running for only a few hundred yards before spitting you back out onto the road, littered with gravel and mud or obscured my bollards and pedestrians. Some paths are excellent but those that run alongside the road are often awful and frustrating for any regular cyclist to use. So if you're out for a long fast ride you get beeped out for not being on the path which is plagued with the problems above.