Winnah!

misterben

Looks like Sustrans won the people's £50m \o/

http://www.thepeoples50million.org.uk/n ... -winner-is

john holiday

Excellent! This should encourage an enormous number of people to give cycling a try, which must be good news.
Many of the proposals are designed to make school access by cycle more attractive for children & their parents.

spen666

john holiday wrote:

Excellent! This should encourage an enormous number of people to give cycling a try, which must be good news.
Many of the proposals are designed to make school access by cycle more attractive for children & their parents.

Design and the actual results are sadly often two different things.

Sadly I can imagine cycle paths etc near schools becoming extra parking spaces for parents to park on whilst waiting for thie children to waddle the 10 yards from the school gates to their parents vehicles for their well earned crisps, pop and sweets

I hope I am imagining a scenario that doesn't happen :evil:

john holiday

And I thought I was a cynical old ......!

spen666

john holiday wrote:

And I thought I was a cynical old ......!

less of the "old" please....

misterben

I'd at least like to see Sustrans have the chance to make a difference. Plus, I felt it was the only project that actually had a nationwide benefit.

Hell - even if they screw it up completely, there's a certain amount of "no publicity is bad publicity".

spen666

misterben wrote:

...

Hell - even if they screw it up completely, there's a certain amount of "no publicity is bad publicity".

I'm not always sure this is true- sometimes its better not to have tried
for example
I'm sure Gerald Ratner wishes he hadn't tried to be funny

dondare

This could all go horribly wrong.
But lets wait and see.

iainment

There aren't half a load of curmudgeonly old wallies on here.

They moan that cycling is marginalised, they moan that there aren't enough cyclists, then they moan that the new cyclists are not very deferential to them, calll them derogatory names, sneer at what people wear while riding, get really pompous about road etiquette, denigrate any attempts at road design that doesn't fit 100% with what they want, dis organisatiions like Sustrans etc , etc.

Chill out guys, welcome anything that raises the cycling profile, let non cyclists know we appreciate efforts at making cycling more universal (even if this might be misguided) and then guess what we might get more appropriate support and money spent in future.

:twisted:

spen666

iainment wrote:

There aren't half a load of curmudgeonly old wallies on here.

They moan that cycling is marginalised, they moan that there aren't enough cyclists, then they moan that the new cyclists are not very deferential to them, calll them derogatory names, sneer at what people wear while riding, get really pompous about road etiquette, denigrate any attempts at road design that doesn't fit 100% with what they want, dis organisatiions like Sustrans etc , etc.

Chill out guys, welcome anything that raises the cycling profile, let non cyclists know we appreciate efforts at making cycling more universal (even if this might be misguided) and then guess what we might get more appropriate support and money spent in future.

:twisted:

you may be right, but that more support and money will be to provide more farcilities that encourage motorists to think cyclists shouldn't be on the road and thus make things worse for those of us who like to cycle on the road.

That may not be the intention of sustrans activities, but it is one of the consequences. The more we provide farcilities like these the more we are trweating symptoms of the problems not the causes

iainment

spen666 wrote:

iainment wrote:

There aren't half a load of curmudgeonly old wallies on here.

They moan that cycling is marginalised, they moan that there aren't enough cyclists, then they moan that the new cyclists are not very deferential to them, calll them derogatory names, sneer at what people wear while riding, get really pompous about road etiquette, denigrate any attempts at road design that doesn't fit 100% with what they want, dis organisatiions like Sustrans etc , etc.

Chill out guys, welcome anything that raises the cycling profile, let non cyclists know we appreciate efforts at making cycling more universal (even if this might be misguided) and then guess what we might get more appropriate support and money spent in future.

:twisted:

you may be right, but that more support and money will be to provide more farcilities that encourage motorists to think cyclists shouldn't be on the road and thus make things worse for those of us who like to cycle on the road.

That may not be the intention of sustrans activities, but it is one of the consequences. The more we provide farcilities like these the more we are trweating symptoms of the problems not the causes

See.

8)

tardington

Do you think I could apply for 1/50th of the money to get my self a new bike then?

spen666

tardie wrote:

Do you think I could apply for 1/50th of the money to get my self a new bike then?

be a nice bike!

Solid gold with diamonds?

spen666

iainment wrote:

...
See.

8)

If you ignore the negatives, then this is a positive thing.


If you are someone who likes to pootle along old railway lines and sharing them with dogs that can sh*t 6 times their body weight then it is good news.

If you are someone who likes to ride on the road, then this award of money brings with it significant negatives. As I do not ride on old railwaylines etc but only on the road, then this award brings only negatives for me

misterben

spen666 wrote:

iainment wrote:

...
See.

8)

If you ignore the negatives, then this is a positive thing.


If you are someone who likes to pootle along old railway lines and sharing them with dogs that can sh*t 6 times their body weight then it is good news.

If you are someone who likes to ride on the road, then this award of money brings with it significant negatives. As I do not ride on old railwaylines etc but only on the road, then this award brings only negatives for me

See, I don't think you're right about that. Because I think a move like this will get more people onto bikes in general, and the more people there are on bikes, the more people will be on the road on bikes, because not everyone who starts riding a bike regularly will want to "pootle along old railway lines" - some of them will migrate to the roads.

Instead of moaning about it, what we need to be thinking is "how can I encourage 'leisure' cyclists, and any other new cyclists, to use the roads as well as the cycle paths?"

mrchrispy

I can see both sides of the argument but utimatly the more people on bike the better off we will all be. I think its a good thing.

El Capitano

This is indeed excellent news. The proposed bridge from Penarth to Cardiff Bay would shave a couple of miles off of my daily commute.

Belv

I support the idea of cycle paths and raising the profile of cycling is good.

Personally i am sceptical, but maybe a large injection of money like this will result in completed and/or logically designed facilities.

DavidTQ

Theres talk in our local paper about some of this money going towards building a bridge for cyclists on part of my commute, I will reserve judgement on how well spent the money is until I see the result.

At the moment I suspect its going to be a long way round in order to get a quiet ride, if its a nice scenic small diversion that actually comes out somewhere convenient I might even use it.

spen666

misterben wrote:

...
See, I don't think you're right about that. Because I think a move like this will get more people onto bikes in general, and the more people there are on bikes, the more people will be on the road on bikes, because not everyone who starts riding a bike regularly will want to "pootle along old railway lines" - some of them will migrate to the roads.

Instead of moaning about it, what we need to be thinking is "how can I encourage 'leisure' cyclists, and any other new cyclists, to use the roads as well as the cycle paths?"

There is no real evidence to support the statement I have highlighted, AFAIAW

The reality is the use of old railway lines is a form of cycling that appeals to a different sort of person to the sort that want to ride 100 miles on the road. Its a bit like saying that somemoped riders will become formula one drivers because both use motorised transport. The two types of cycling are very different and have very different appeals

john holiday

I am convinced that 'traffic free ' & 'on road' are not mutaually exclusive.
If there is a NCN route going where I want to be then I'll use it, but equally am happy to use the normal roads & take my place in 'traffic' as any other road user.

misterben

spen666 wrote:

misterben wrote:

...
See, I don't think you're right about that. Because I think a move like this will get more people onto bikes in general, and the more people there are on bikes, the more people will be on the road on bikes, because not everyone who starts riding a bike regularly will want to "pootle along old railway lines" - some of them will migrate to the roads.

Instead of moaning about it, what we need to be thinking is "how can I encourage 'leisure' cyclists, and any other new cyclists, to use the roads as well as the cycle paths?"

There is no real evidence to support the statement I have highlighted, AFAIAW

The reality is the use of old railway lines is a form of cycling that appeals to a different sort of person to the sort that want to ride 100 miles on the road. Its a bit like saying that somemoped riders will become formula one drivers because both use motorised transport. The two types of cycling are very different and have very different appeals

OK - let me clarify a little bit with a hypothetical story:

Bob hears about a new cycle path near where he lives, and thinks to himself "Hmmm - it might be nice to do a bit of cycling again". So he does. He discovers that he quite likes it. So he decides that maybe he should save some money, and cycle into work. But the cycle path doesn't go near his place of work, so he needs to use the road aswell.

QED.

I think you're assuming that the people who ride on cycle paths and the people who ride on roads are completely different in their nature and type of cycling. But I think you're wrong.

Your 2 examples are flawed too - many riders don't ride 100 miles on the road, but wouldn't necessarily be classed as "cycle path" riders. Even if they only cycle a couple of miles on the road, the extra presence could well be beneficial for those of us who do ride more frequently on the road.

And comparing the situation to mopeds/F1 is completely different. They're different vehicles, different motivations and different areas of expertise. The difference between cycling on a path and cycling on the road is not nearly that big. It's essentially the same thing, but with a small addition required to the skillset. Think maybe of moped riders who go on to ride motorbikes, which I suspect does happen.

dirk_van_gently

If it encourages more folk to cycle then it can only be good news. They will get used to riding, and maybe start to enjoy it, lose weight, get fitter etc Then, maybe those new cyclists will want to venture and little further afield, adding the number of cyclists on the road, raising public awareness that there is an alternative to the monster that is the Car.

It will take a long time, and they will be small steps along the way, we can't expect everyone out there to suddenly become cycling enthusiasts, but given a little encouragement, you could be surprised at what happens.

I'm all for it, even if the nearest project to me is 40miles away.

I read on the Sustrans Rangers site, that only 0.5% of the population voted.
Hopefully the lottery fund will now drop this dubious method of allocating money.

dirk_van_gently

This is going a bit off track, but I think it's relevant, and no doubt someone will flame me if it isn't.

When I was kid, there was a natural progression in transport, first you had a bicycle, and learnt valuable roadcraft, then you had a motorcycle, and learnt more road,craft, and then you got a car,where all the roadcraft you had learnt came in very useful. Road users had progressed through the system and learnt, sometimes the hard way, but they understood what it was like to ride a bike. These days most folk go straight for the car option, the motorcycle, and bicycle being pretty much used as a toy. I know this sounds a bit "Good old Days", OMG I sound like my Dad :-D

spen666

john holiday wrote:

I am convinced that 'traffic free ' & 'on road' are not mutaually exclusive.
....

I don't think anyone is saying they are exclusive

spen666

misterben wrote:

spen666 wrote:

misterben wrote:

...
See, I don't think you're right about that. Because I think a move like this will get more people onto bikes in general, and the more people there are on bikes, the more people will be on the road on bikes, because not everyone who starts riding a bike regularly will want to "pootle along old railway lines" - some of them will migrate to the roads.

Instead of moaning about it, what we need to be thinking is "how can I encourage 'leisure' cyclists, and any other new cyclists, to use the roads as well as the cycle paths?"

There is no real evidence to support the statement I have highlighted, AFAIAW

The reality is the use of old railway lines is a form of cycling that appeals to a different sort of person to the sort that want to ride 100 miles on the road. Its a bit like saying that somemoped riders will become formula one drivers because both use motorised transport. The two types of cycling are very different and have very different appeals

OK - let me clarify a little bit with a hypothetical story:

Bob hears about a new cycle path near where he lives, and thinks to himself "Hmmm - it might be nice to do a bit of cycling again". So he does. He discovers that he quite likes it. So he decides that maybe he should save some money, and cycle into work. But the cycle path doesn't go near his place of work, so he needs to use the road aswell.

QED.

Thanks Hans Christian Anderson


So now we are inventing fairytails to support arguments?

I think you're assuming that the people who ride on cycle paths and the people who ride on roads are completely different in their nature and type of cycling. But I think you're wrong.

Your 2 examples are flawed too - many riders don't ride 100 miles on the road, but wouldn't necessarily be classed as "cycle path" riders.

Again you seem to be inventing things. I have not said those who cycle less than 100 miles are cycle path riders.

Please stop inventing things that I have not said

Even if they only cycle a couple of miles on the road, the extra presence could well be beneficial for those of us who do ride more frequently on the road.

And comparing the situation to mopeds/F1 is completely different. They're different vehicles, different motivations and different areas of expertise.

Just like a mountain bike costing £99 is different from a road bike costing £1k or more.Yoou can't argue motor vehicvles are different, but bikes aren't. Each bike serves different purposes.

You would not do a 24 hour time trial on a £69 supermarket bike and similarily you wouldn't cycle on off road routes on a £3k time trial bike

The difference between cycling on a path and cycling on the road is not nearly that big. It's essentially the same thing, but with a small addition required to the skillset. Think maybe of moped riders who go on to ride motorbikes, which I suspect does happen.

spen666

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

If it encourages more folk to cycle then it can only be good news. They will get used to riding, and maybe start to enjoy it, lose weight, get fitter etc Then, maybe those new cyclists will want to venture and little further afield, adding the number of cyclists on the road, raising public awareness that there is an alternative to the monster that is the Car.
....

The reality is totaly different from this utopia you paint.

People will drive to the traffic free cycling facility as they see cycling as something that is not a road activity and the traffic free facilities reinforce this view.

spen666

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

I read on the Sustrans Rangers site, that only 0.5% of the population voted.
Hopefully the lottery fund will now drop this dubious method of allocating money.

0.5% is say 300,000 people assuming a population of 60million. And we know sustrans got 42% of the votes so 126,000 people voted for it. ie each vote was worth nearly £400 - well worth the cost of a call

misterben

spen666 wrote:

mrben wrote:

many riders don't ride 100 miles on the road, but wouldn't necessarily be classed as "cycle path" riders.

Again you seem to be inventing things. I have not said those who cycle less than 100 miles are cycle path riders.

Please stop inventing things that I have not said

I apologise. Can you clarify what you meant by:

"The reality is the use of old railway lines is a form of cycling that appeals to a different sort of person to the sort that want to ride 100 miles on the road."

Just like a mountain bike costing £99 is different from a road bike costing £1k or more.Yoou can't argue motor vehicvles are different, but bikes aren't. Each bike serves different purposes.

You would not do a 24 hour time trial on a £69 supermarket bike and similarily you wouldn't cycle on off road routes on a £3k time trial bike

I'm sorry - I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought? We've gone from discussing progression between 2 forms of similar transport, to a discussion about the relative costs and merits of different bikes?

If that's what the moped/F1 thing was about, are you saying that, in order for people to move from cyclepath-type riding to road-riding they will need to purchase a more expensive bike?

(I'm guessing that's not what you meant - please clarify as I have obviously misunderstood)

Bikedevil

Riding on a cycle path back from uni the other day one the "10-yards from car to front door is too much for me crisp munching sugar addicts" turns round to me and starts bambling about pavements being for pedestrians only etc...

I was only too happy to point out that he was standing on the picture of a bicycle showing it to be a cycle path and also the big blue cycle path sign post next to him, he looked very sheepish as I continued on my way...laughing loudly...

spen666

misterben wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mrben wrote:

many riders don't ride 100 miles on the road, but wouldn't necessarily be classed as "cycle path" riders.

Again you seem to be inventing things. I have not said those who cycle less than 100 miles are cycle path riders.

Please stop inventing things that I have not said

I apologise. Can you clarify what you meant by:

"The reality is the use of old railway lines is a form of cycling that appeals to a different sort of person to the sort that want to ride 100 miles on the road."

...

I mean
"The reality is the use of old railway lines is a form of cycling that appeals to a different sort of person to the sort that want to ride 100 miles on the road."

Very clear really - read carefully what is written- and not what you imagine is written