Winnah!

spen666

misterben wrote:

[...

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?

you are lumping different forms of 2 wheeled bikes together to create one ie bicycles.

I have done similar in lumping together 2 forms of motor vehicles.

You can't have it that your lumping them together is ok, but then disapply that to other forms of transport.

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've not said that at all. I think you are inventing things again

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

misterben

spen666 wrote:

"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."

OK, so what about the people that don't want to ride 100 miles on the road, but aren't cycling on cycle paths either? Where do they fit in to your equation? And what about the numerous people on this forum alone who use a combination of road and cyclepath? :?

you are lumping different forms of 2 wheeled bikes together to create one ie bicycles.

Did I? I don't remember doing that... Surely bicycles on a cycle path and bicycles on a road are the same thing? (Or at least, there could be a load of different types, but any type of bicycle is equally valid on the road or on a cyclepath)

AidanR

I'm totally with misterben on this one.

I can't cite scientific studies and my personal experience certainly doesn't necessarily extrapolate well, but I'm guessing the same can be said of everyone else on this forum.

So, disclaimer over, my 2 cents:

There are lots of different types of cyclists - recreational, commuters, club racers, professionals, mountain bikers, roadies, track riders, couriers, recumbent riders, kids, teenagers, etc. One type may become another type, though obviously this doesn't necessarily happen. As an aside, a scooter rider becoming an F1 driver is more analagous to a recreational cyclist becoming a professional road racer than simply venturing out onto the roads.

The Sustrans project will mainly benefit recreational cyclists, and kids/families in particular, as understanably parents may be wary of letting kids cycle on roads. It's unlikely to benefit roadies, but it may well benefit us as commuters if part of our route conincides with a scheme, as in El Capitano's case. Choice of routes is no bad thing. Now some of these encouraged recreational cyclists may join us out on the roads. If more kids are encouraged to ride then that's even better - sure, they may not keep it up, but I doubt anyone on this forum first got on a bike in adulthood. Either way, the net result is likely to be more cycling, benfitting people and the environment (though perhaps falling a tad short of saving the planet and wiping out obesity).

Now drivers may give us a harder time because there are other options to the roads and they may not think we belong on them, but I'd still rather have the choice. And besides, if a lot of these schemes are on disused railways etc. there's likely to be less of a problem - in my experience a driver will only get annoyed if (s)he can see you riding on the road when there's an obvious alternative (like a shared path next to the road).

OK, so maybe the schemes aren't as good as putting separate lanes in for bikes that are more than just a bit of paint on the majority of roads, Dutch style. But given this is pretty unlikely in the immediate future shouldn't we be celebrating every little win?

spen666

misterben wrote:

spen666 wrote:

"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."

OK, so what about the people that don't want to ride 100 miles on the road, but aren't cycling on cycle paths either? Where do they fit in to your equation? And what about the numerous people on this forum alone who use a combination of road and cyclepath? :?

What about them?
I never mentioned them.
You were the one who tried to lump all those who don't do 100mile rides into the category of cyclepath users. Not me. I gave 2 specific examples at different ends of the spectrum.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. I have repeatedly said that those who do not cycle 100 miles are not necessarily cyclepath type cyclists

you are lumping different forms of 2 wheeled bikes together to create one ie bicycles.

Did I? I don't remember doing that... Surely bicycles on a cycle path and bicycles on a road are the same thing? (Or at least, there could be a load of different types, but any type of bicycle is equally valid on the road or on a cyclepath)

A smilar arguments can be made re 2 types of motor vehicles. You are simply trying to split categories of motor vehicles and distinguish them but are trying to say its wrong if I do the same to types of bicycles

spen666

AidanR wrote:

... shouldn't we be celebrating every little win?

I would celebrate a win, but this I see this as an own goal and what is being called for is a celebration of a victory for those opposed to roads being used by cyclists.

dirk_van_gently

Well as usual cycling shows itself to be a disparate activity.

We should be celebrating this win, and not aguing amongst ourselves as to it's benefits.

It's all Bloody Biking at the end of the day.

spen666

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

Well as usual cycling shows itself to be a disparate activity.

We should be celebrating this win, and not aguing amongst ourselves as to it's benefits.

It's all Bloody Biking at the end of the day.

your first sentence explains why there is the arguing

no amount of pressure from those who cycle off road will cause me to celebrate that which I do not regard as a victory or a win

Each to their own

flattythehurdler

Spen,
I am a so called 100 mile roadie. 4 miles each way of my daily commute however is on a sustrans built old railway line with dogs that can sh@t six times their own bodyweight and owners who are too feckless/uncouth/rude to care. I do the remaining miles on the road in the traffic. Whilst i may still have commuted the whole way by road, I am not at all sure that this is a certainty, and I enjoy the 4 miles along the track in the early mornings where I can chinwag and cycle side by side as I usually share this stretch of the commute with my neighbour.
I think the sustrans vote is a good thing. I am not saying the money mightn't have been better spent eradicating the owners who encourage their dogs to sh't on the paths and pavements, as well as the scrotes who find it amusing to carpet the path with glass, but it is a good thing for cycling nonetheless. I do take all of your points as valid, but if convenient, the off road paths are much nicer to commute on.

spen666

flattythehurdler wrote:

Spen,
I am a so called 100 mile roadie. 4 miles each way of my daily commute however is on a sustrans built old railway line with dogs that can sh@t six times their own bodyweight and owners who are too feckless/uncouth/rude to care. I do the remaining miles on the road in the traffic. Whilst i may still have commuted the whole way by road, I am not at all sure that this is a certainty, and I enjoy the 4 miles along the track in the early mornings where I can chinwag and cycle side by side as I usually share this stretch of the commute with my neighbour.
I think the sustrans vote is a good thing. I am not saying the money mightn't have been better spent eradicating the owners who encourage their dogs to sh't on the paths and pavements, as well as the scrotes who find it amusing to carpet the path with glass, but it is a good thing for cycling nonetheless. I do take all of your points as valid, but if convenient, the off road paths are much nicer to commute on.

i disagree that it is good for cycling

It may be good for particular cyclists or groups of cyclists- of that I have no doubt.

It is not good for me and asa cyclist I will not celebrate it.

Those of you who think it is good- go ahead and celebrate it, but stop exhorting me to celebrate it

AidanR

Oh go on, just let out a little woop. It'll feel good, I promise!

Mayhemwmb

I cycle to work occassionally, I have 4 bikes, a road bike, a commuter, a hard tail & a full suspension bike. I enjoy all the different types of cycling and enjoy each with different people. I am also lucky in that I have several choices of route to work, the one I use is predominantly along cycle paths adjacent to a busy road used by artic wagons etc. I'm scared of them!!!!!!
On one section of the route I have to use the road, this is where I have nearly been wiped out on many occasions, by crap/rude/impatient drivers.

Regarding the arguments in this thread.
Think about what this funding truelly means, if your route was made safer/easier by the creation of a cycle lane/shared path etc and encouraged more people to cycle, then surely that has to be good news

Gambatte

Am I right in thinking that due to them going into partnerships with local authorities etc to get the grants, local byelaws being made are part of the deal? Byelaws stating that all other users apart from walkers will have to have 3rd party insurance?

Nothing in the plans that will benefit me, around here. If there were, it might be an interesting diversion in the summer, but outside then ..... early morning routes, ungritted, covered in leaves...... I'll stick to the roads

spen666

Mayhemwmb wrote:

...

Regarding the arguments in this thread.
Think about what this funding truelly means, if your route was made safer/easier by the creation of a cycle lane/shared path etc and encouraged more people to cycle, then surely that has to be good news

alternatively
"Think about what this funding truelly (even "truly"?) means, if your route was made more dangerous/ scary by the creation of a cycle lane/shared path etc and encouraged motorists to think cycles shouldn't be on their road, then surely that has to be bad news"

dirk_van_gently

To me it doesn't matter what you ride, so long as you do.
we all have different wants and needs from what we do, let's just enjoy it.
I thought this would be a happy thread for a change, aweful lot of negative ones, but alas.

spen666

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

To me it doesn't matter what you ride, so long as you do.
we all have different wants and needs from what we do, let's just enjoy it.

agreed

I thought this would be a happy thread for a change, aweful lot of negative ones, but alas.

However one man's meat is another man's murder.

As one group perceive a benefit, another group perceive a loss. As is the nature of life

DavidTQ

spen666 wrote:

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

To me it doesn't matter what you ride, so long as you do.
we all have different wants and needs from what we do, let's just enjoy it.

agreed

I thought this would be a happy thread for a change, aweful lot of negative ones, but alas.

However one man's meat is another man's murder.

As one group perceive a benefit, another group perceive a loss. As is the nature of life

Well this will directly affect me and my commute as one of the projects covers the most dangerous half of my commute. I will wait to see the results before determining whether or not this was a good thing. I dont see as it can possibly be all that negative though, if its not a better alternative to my current route I can still opt to run my journey as normal, I will be as assertive of my rights to road space as I am now.

I have no problem with the idea of seperate facilities being available as long as I still have the right to choose which to use. Ive seen some awful example of dangerous badly planned facilities, and I have a strategy for them, I dont use them. If the project is well done and seems to add to my commute then I will be all for it. If its a headline and grant grab then I wont no big deal.

Oddballcp

We don't want the public to see cycling as something that cannot be done safely in traffic, but can be done safely on footpaths.

misterben

Oddballcp wrote:

We don't want the public to see cycling as something that cannot be done safely in traffic, but can be done safely on footpaths.

It's probably too late for that.

I'm not yet convinced that there is a direct correlation between the number and quality of seperate cycle facilities and the general public's view

BentMikey

One thing that is quite promising is how many of the general public know about the crap quality of cycle lanes, and that they are an utter joke.

iainment

spen666 wrote:

Mayhemwmb wrote:

...

Regarding the arguments in this thread.
Think about what this funding truelly means, if your route was made safer/easier by the creation of a cycle lane/shared path etc and encouraged more people to cycle, then surely that has to be good news

alternatively
"Think about what this funding truelly (even "truly"?) means, if your route was made more dangerous/ scary by the creation of a cycle lane/shared path etc and encouraged motorists to think cycles shouldn't be on their road, then surely that has to be bad news"

Is there any possibility of you allowing even a scintilla of doubt into your life? You come across as completely closed to any position but your own. Let's hope that at some point you see the light and realise that this is good news for cycling. Even if you can't/won't see it as such.

Underscore

OK, I was going to stay out of this topic but it's Friday afternoon and I can't help myself...

Even if spen666 is right and the none of the people that ride on these new cycle paths will ever transfer onto the road, I still think that this is good news for all cyclists. Permit me to explain.

Firstly, I disagree that these paths will perpetuate the myth that bikes should not be on the road. Stupid 2 foot wide cycle paths along the edge of roads, like we see in many places, support this myth; cycle paths that offer alternative routes for some journeys are just that - alternatives for some journeys - and I believe will be viewed as such, not as something that cyclists should detour to use rather than using the road. More importantly, if they get more drivers cycling - just for leisure and never on the road - I believe that those drivers, when in their cages, will have greater awareness on average for those cyclists sharing the roads with them.

Secondly, there is a cycle path near my home that I use as part of my commute and, at weekends, I see loads (in the summer) of parents out cycling with their children. Now I'm sure that the parents are too set in their ways to start cycling on the roads if they don't already but they are at least getting their children cycling... and if more children start cycling, there are more of the next generation that are equipped with a skill that they may, in the future, choose to expand into cycling on the road.

All-in-all, the only way I see that this could be negative is if it makes people believe that cycling is not for the road. While I do believe that many local authority cycle paths do encourage this belief, I'm not convinced that SusTrans does. Apart from that, anything that gets more people cycling - whether on-road, off-road, leisure, competitive and/or commute - can only benefit cycling and cyclists of any type.

_

spen666

Underscore wrote:

...

Firstly, I disagree that these paths will perpetuate the myth that bikes should not be on the road. Stupid 2 foot wide cycle paths along the edge of roads, like we see in many places, support this myth; cycle paths that offer alternative routes for some journeys are just that - alternatives for some journeys - and I believe will be viewed as such, not as something that cyclists should detour to use rather than using the road. More importantly, if they get more drivers cycling - just for leisure and never on the road - I believe that those drivers, when in their cages, will have greater awareness on average for those cyclists sharing the roads with them.

that accounts for 6 motorists, but what about the other 30 million who see new facilities that should keep cyclists off the road- as they already do?

...

All-in-all, the only way I see that this could be negative is if it makes people believe that cycling is not for the road. While I do believe that many local authority cycle paths do encourage this belief, I'm not convinced that SusTrans does. Apart from that, anything that gets more people cycling - whether on-road, off-road, leisure, competitive and/or commute - can only benefit cycling and cyclists of any type.

_

So what about sustrans calling for SEGREGATED cycling facilities- seems to me this supports the motorists view we should not be on the road

misterben

spen666 wrote:

So what about sustrans calling for SEGREGATED cycling facilities- seems to me this supports the motorists view we should not be on the road

Isn't that usually what they mean by paths used by walkers and cyclists?

Underscore

spen666 wrote:

Underscore wrote:

...
More importantly, if they get more drivers cycling - just for leisure and never on the road - I believe that those drivers, when in their cages, will have greater awareness on average for those cyclists sharing the roads with them.

that accounts for 6 motorists, but what about the other 30 million who see new facilities that should keep cyclists off the road- as they already do?

Well, we're both speculating here, so I guess that we'll have to agree to disagree. However, I will say that where I commute, drivers generally seem pretty accepting of cyclists sharing the road with them. From your viewpoint, I guess your commute is subject to a different type of driver... Ironically, it seems to me that drivers in more rural areas are more accepting of cyclists whereas, in urban areas where cycling is a more realistic option for more of the commuters, the drivers seem more aggressive towards cyclists. But I digress...

spen666 wrote:

Underscore wrote:

...

All-in-all, the only way I see that this could be negative is if it makes people believe that cycling is not for the road. While I do believe that many local authority cycle paths do encourage this belief, I'm not convinced that SusTrans does. Apart from that, anything that gets more people cycling - whether on-road, off-road, leisure, competitive and/or commute - can only benefit cycling and cyclists of any type.

_

So what about sustrans calling for SEGREGATED cycling facilities- seems to me this supports the motorists view we should not be on the road

I've looked at the SusTrans web-site and see no such call (though it was only a quick look). They state that a third of the NCN is traffic-free, so suitable for all levels of cyclists, including children and beginners. However, two thirds of the NCN is on thoroughfares shared with other traffic, so it seems that SusTrans is more than happy with the concept of bikes and cars sharing the roads...

_

spen666

Underscore wrote:

...However, I will say that where I commute, drivers generally seem pretty accepting of cyclists sharing the road with them. From your viewpoint, I guess your commute is subject to a different type of driver... Ironically, it seems to me that drivers in more rural areas are more accepting of cyclists whereas, in urban areas where cycling is a more realistic option for more of the commuters, the drivers seem more aggressive towards cyclists. But I digress...

I suspect you are right- people in urban areas seem more stressed and seem to feel more under pressure and hence express this by being more rude/ impatient with anyone who gets in their way [ this applies everywhere- not just on the road]

It is also the case that more cycling facilities seem to be in urban areas ( more people there?).

The two things are linked IMHO