Sustrans and that £50m...

Robspedding

Here at Cycling Plus most of us think the £50m is a good thing...but...but...it's not unanimous. So what do you reckon...

spen666

Try readng the other threads for a good sense of how people feel.

There are threads in several sections- with a range of views

your poll options are biased, as they are slanted to get votes for cycling being a winner as very few people will say the latter will definitely happen

Robspedding

Spen666

That's the trouble with polls - it's hard to get the questions right! Actually I'm not trying to achieve the result you think - I'm genuinely interested in whether all cyclists are 100 per cent behind the idea. Certainly, we've just had a very heated debate on it here in the office.
Maybe I'll rephrase....

And feel free to leave comments!

ChrisLS

...I think generally it will be good for cycling...but more for leisure cycling than actually getting from A to B by the most direct route possibe.

spen666

Robspedding wrote:

Spen666

That's the trouble with polls - it's hard to get the questions right! Actually I'm not trying to achieve the result you think - I'm genuinely interested in whether all cyclists are 100 per cent behind the idea. Certainly, we've just had a very heated debate on it here in the office.
Maybe I'll rephrase....

And feel free to leave comments!

Absolutely Rob,


I was not trying to suggest you were deliberately being biased, but all polls are slanted and that is something that must be taken into consideration when looking at results.

In the revised version- option 2 is almost an answer to a seperate question to options 1 & 3


You can answer 1 or3and still agree with 2

GraemeT

I just can't see how it's a bad thing.

I've read some posts with people bleating that they'll never use cycle paths and their rightful place is on the road.

Here in Switzerland we have a fantastic network of cycle paths. My 10km commute is mainly on cyclepaths/shared cycle-walking and residential streets, but it is all signed for cyclists. The one small part on a main road has a painted cycle lane and the road is plenty wide for it. Tthe cycle lane even has its own set of traffic lights at the junction.

I have seen some cycle lanes in the UK that are really not well thought out but I would think that Sustrans will be a bit above that.

Rather than bleating about everything being crap why not get involved and be constructive about what is required.

The other really good thing over here is that as most people cycle at some time, they are much more considerate to cyclists when driving.

Cunobelin

This is a diverse package of routes and projects.

Of the ones I know wel or hve experienced it would appear that there are significant improvements to routes and the removal of severe obstacles.

I personally think that where these cross railways, canals, main roads etc that have previously required long detours there will be an increase in use, and in many cases a commuting route (even if only the link section is used) created.

Royston where the railway effectively cuts the town in two, and Southampton where a riverside path has great potential for leisure and commuting use.

Not all will be perfect, but I think as a whole we will all benefit.

spen666

GraemeT wrote:

....

Rather than bleating about everything being crap why not get involved and be constructive about what is required.

....

I am constructive about what I require- its called a road - we have lots of them here in England- already built and go where people want to go.

I do not want something to marginalise cycling and to encourage motorists to see cycling as something done off the road on old railway lines etc.

From this viewpoint I see the award as bad for me.


I however can see how it can benefit other who want to ride on old railway lines etc

robbie the roadie

I am in agreement that the £50m probably won't make any difference at all to 'proper' road cyclists and only a slight improvement to a handful of seasoned commuters. But I think that biggest gains will be had at a 'grass roots' level.

Hopefully the proposed improvements to the sustrans network will encourage more people to get out on their bikes, even if only occassionally, and who knows might even encourage a few people to take it to a higher level. As a country that is getting more obese every day surely anything that can encourage people to get out and do a bit of exercise in a safer environment, no matter how leisurely, is a good thing??

natrix

As with most others, i see this as great for cycling. I voted 4 times, 3 times for cycling and once because I knew it would be bad for Spen...........

APIII

In the grand scheme of things, £50m isn't an awful lot of money. The list of projects to be funded is fairly long and spread out across the country. As far as I can see, there will be a number of communities that will benefit from certain improvements like bridges, making their commutes/lesiure rides a bit more convenient, or safer. That has to be a good thing in my book. The idea of it having a major influence on drivers attitudes towards cyclists on the roads in general, seems unrealistic.

Crapaud

I've voted for...

3) The more cycle paths there are, the more motorists will expect us to use them and not the roads.

There is a growing perception among the general public, not just motorists, that we should already be off the roads and on the paths. How many posts have there been, over the years, of motorists telling a cyclist that they should be on a path / pavement / lane? In the Daniel Cadden case did the magistrate not state that he should have crossed a busy road to use a path? Then there was the re-draft of the highway codethat cyclists should “use cycle facilities...where provided”. OK, it was amended, and Danial's conviction overturned, but my feeling is that as more public money (through taxation / lottery) is put into building more cycle paths, there will be more pressure to legally compel us to use them.

daniel_b

Is there a list/map anywhere of what projects are being carried out, and where they will be?

I am undecided as yet.

grayo59

Cycling is the winner.

spen666

barnesr wrote:

As with most others, i see this as great for cycling. I voted 4 times, 3 times for cycling and once because I knew it would be bad for Spen...........

Piece in the Times today from the losers bleating re cycling suporters voting 3 times each - supported by email from sustrans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


Was it you? :oops: :oops: :oops:

Rob Sallnow

The BBC were reporting yesterday that the people that organised the vote did as much as they could to make only one vote count person though anyone with a couple of phones in the household could obviously vote a couple of times.

I think it's fairly obviuos that a nationwide project will get more votes than the enlargement of a forest or a attraction in Cornwall as it will benefit people nationwide.

As for this poll....I like cycle paths made out of disused railways....I cycle to them ride along them and then cycle home again....bike hire places sprout up beside them and get people out on them for the day...which is a good thing. What I'm not interested in is schemes to make pavements 'suitable' for bikes that spring up from nowhere and then disappear again 100yds up the road unless it's something that for example links a housing area to a school.

feel

Posted this on another thread that quickly disappeared of the front page, but it's my view for what it's worth-
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.

richardjallen

I have only ever used roads for my commute and when I ride for pleasure I use roads again. I'm not convinced the cycle path improvements will have a direct effect on me. If more people start to cycle then that potentially means less cars on the road. Those people who are also car drivers may be more considerate once they have been on a bike. There must be longer term benefits however I can also see people expecting us to only use cycle paths. Drivers already complain (wrongly) about cyclists not paying 'road tax', this is more ammunition.

If I had know about this vote sooner I would have chosen Sherwood and certainly not hippies growing pot in a greenhouse :P. Its not all that surprising though that Sustrans won as its has a national effect.

Mike Healey

Sustrans have already built about 10k miles of cyle routes/paths. Has there been an increae in the number of motorists wanting us to use them?

I rather doubt it, especially as they are a drop in the ocean compared with the existing road network. I've ridden down the Spen (no relation) Valley on roads parallel to the Spen Valley Greenway on umpteen occasions and not once did any driver tell me to go and ride on the cyclepath. Ditto ridden to York on roads that roughly parallel the York Selby path.

As for the Daniel Cadden case, the judge's decision was overthrown, thereby giving some case law support to the rights of the cyclist to be on the road.

On the other hand, the best way of getting the kids in our club (4 - 14) used to riding some distance and with others is on the Greenway. Then take them (no, not the 4-6es) on short family rides when we know that they're experienced enought to ride with us

spen666

Mike Healey wrote:

.... I've ridden down the Spen (no relation) Valley on roads parallel to the Spen Valley Greenway on umpteen occasions and not once did any driver tell me to go and ride on the cyclepath. Ditto ridden to York on roads that roughly parallel the York Selby path.
...

This is a rather surious form of logic to suggest that motorists don't tell cyclists to use cycle farcilities.

I could use the same logic to say that murders don't happen in East London as I live in East London and have regualrly walked /drive/drunk ( not all at the same time officer) and not been shot stabbed or kicked to death there. Its a nonsens form of logic to deny something happens just because you have not experienced it

Mike Healey

spen666 wrote:

Mike Healey wrote:

.... I've ridden down the Spen (no relation) Valley on roads parallel to the Spen Valley Greenway on umpteen occasions and not once did any driver tell me to go and ride on the cyclepath. Ditto ridden to York on roads that roughly parallel the York Selby path.
...

This is a rather surious form of logic to suggest that motorists don't tell cyclists to use cycle farcilities.

I could use the same logic to say that murders don't happen in East London as I live in East London and have regualrly walked /drive/drunk ( not all at the same time officer) and not been shot stabbed or kicked to death there. Its a nonsens form of logic to deny something happens just because you have not experienced it

I didn't say that motorists don't tell riders to use cycling facilities, just that they haven't told me to use the Greenway. I've had the (very) occasional driver to tell me I shouldn't be on the road and, on one occasion, tell me to get on the adjacent cycle path (not lane) on the A64.

If, as some of you complain, the sustrans routes don't go where cyclists would normally wish to go, i.e. on the road, it seems unlikely that drivers will tell someone to get on a route, at some distance from the road, whose existence they may well be completely unaware of.

The main thrust of my argument is still that, as Sustrans have created about 10k miles of cycle routes, there should have been a sizeable increase in the numbers of motorists telling us to get on the cycle route. I don't know of any evidence which shows that.

And, since those 10k miles is a drop in the ocean of road mileage, even if ignorant people like those in the Driving Standards Agency try to get the Highway Code amended to force us to use so-called "cycling facilities", they have, and will fail, in part because there are virtually none in existence and in part, because the cycing lobby, i.e. us, reacts so strongly and effectively when they do try.

My experience strongly suggests that we can use those paths which are off-road to give people the experience to transfer to road riding. If I can get a bunch of kids and their parents do do up to 13 miles on the Greenway and give them practice in riding together and use road group riding techniques as part of that practice, they are much more likely to come on a family on-road ride.

To ask them to do it "cold" as it were, is a much harder proposition.

In conclusion, we can use these separate, off-road routes to develop a new generation who can become more comfortable and confident on-road. And as someone who has had club members as young as 8 doing the 70-mile Weatherby-Filey Great Yorkshire Bike Ride with their parents and covering as much as 120 miles on a YHA weekend before riding and winning regional schools c-x championships, I believe that I have good, evidential reasons for my views.

Note, however, that I do not say that we don't have to take potential problems lightly, only that we can make use of Sustrans to increase the numbers riding on-road. Of course, we need to do a fair bit of work ourselves

Cunobelin

Daniel B wrote:

Is there a list/map anywhere of what projects are being carried out, and where they will be?

I am undecided as yet.

Full listings are at:
http://www.sustransconnect2.org.uk/schemes/

spen666

Mike Healey wrote:

....If, as some of you complain, the sustrans routes don't go where cyclists would normally wish to go, i.e. on the road, it seems unlikely that drivers will tell someone to get on a route, at some distance from the road, whose existence they may well be completely unaware of.

...

Sadly Mike you appear to be completely unaware of the problem and are talking about something different.


I do not want a cycling farcility near where I want to go. I do not want it even if it goes from my front door to my destination.

i have a RIGHT to ride on the road and I ride on the road because I want to ride on the road- not as you seem to imply because there is no cycling farcility nearby.

I am not wanting to give up my right to ride on the road in favour of riding on a cycling farcility

feel

Spen, i don't think Mike is favouring denying you or me, or his right to use the road. Gaining extra facilities for cyclists does not have to reduce their rights to use the roads. It is a starting point that should encourage greater use of bicycles. Increasing fuel costs and congestion charging will inevitably mean that people with cycling experience will want to use their skills on the road which in turn will increase the demand and need for better conditions for cyclists on roads. With more cyclists about the political lobby for cycling will strengthen and the rate of change in favour of cycling will increase. I very much doubt that if there had been a £50 million type give away 15/20 years ago that cycling would have got anywhere near it.

spen666

feel wrote:

Spen, i don't think Mike is favouring denying you or me, or his right to use the road.

Why who is suggesting Mike is saying that?

That thought never crossed my mind.

Gaining extra facilities for cyclists does not have to reduce their rights to use the roads. It is a starting point that should encourage greater use of bicycles. Increasing fuel costs and congestion charging will inevitably mean that people with cycling experience will want to use their skills on the road which in turn will increase the demand and need for better conditions for cyclists on roads.

I don't share that view. I suspect other fuel types will be developed. Cycling as a means of transport is seen as outdated by most people. ie a step backwards. I do not share your view of the future- but hope I am wrong

With more cyclists about the political lobby for cycling will strengthen and the rate of change in favour of cycling will increase. I very much doubt that if there had been a £50 million type give away 15/20 years ago that cycling would have got anywhere near it.

Mike Healey

spen666 wrote:

Mike Healey wrote:

....If, as some of you complain, the sustrans routes don't go where cyclists would normally wish to go, i.e. on the road, it seems unlikely that drivers will tell someone to get on a route, at some distance from the road, whose existence they may well be completely unaware of.

...

Sadly Mike you appear to be completely unaware of the problem and are talking about something different.


I do not want a cycling farcility near where I want to go. I do not want it even if it goes from my front door to my destination.

i have a RIGHT to ride on the road and I ride on the road because I want to ride on the road- not as you seem to imply because there is no cycling farcility nearby.

I am not wanting to give up my right to ride on the road in favour of riding on a cycling farcility

Sorry Spen, but I see no evidence that Sustrans routes have increased the pressure on cyclists to get off the road. There are always idiots who will yell " Get on the cycle path", but, as far as I know, no-one, apart from numpties in the Driving Standards Agency, has tried to get us off the road and onto the miniscule number of Sustrans routes.

I've used cycle lanes or paths or not according to my priorities and no-one has ever insisted that I don't ride on the road. This is not to say that I wouldn't fight like hell to prevent any such move.

Crapaud

Mike Healey wrote:

Sorry Spen, but I see no evidence that Sustrans routes have increased the pressure on cyclists to get off the road. There are always idiots who will yell " Get on the cycle path", but, as far as I know, no-one, apart from numpties in the Driving Standards Agency, has tried to get us off the road and onto the miniscule number of Sustrans routes.

I've used cycle lanes or paths or not according to my priorities and no-one has ever insisted that I don't ride on the road. This is not to say that I wouldn't fight like hell to prevent any such move.

Have you not just contradicted yourself, Mike? The attempt's been made once.

Mike Healey

Crapaud wrote:

Mike Healey wrote:

Sorry Spen, but I see no evidence that Sustrans routes have increased the pressure on cyclists to get off the road. There are always idiots who will yell " Get on the cycle path", but, as far as I know, no-one, apart from numpties in the Driving Standards Agency, has tried to get us off the road and onto the miniscule number of Sustrans routes.

I've used cycle lanes or paths or not according to my priorities and no-one has ever insisted that I don't ride on the road. This is not to say that I wouldn't fight like hell to prevent any such move.

Have you not just contradicted yourself, Mike? The attempt's been made once.

I said "insisted", Crapaud. I don't put someone yelling "get of the road" in the same light. Sorry if the teminology was confusing.

I come back to my main point, which is that I don't think there will be major pressure (DSA and Judge Moran excepted), to use Sustrans routes as an excuse to get us off the road. the only way I can see that occurring is if there is, eventually, a Sustrans-type route alongside virtually every road and street in the country.

A bit unlikely

spen666

Mike Healey wrote:

...

I said "insisted", Crapaud. I don't put someone yelling "get of the road" in the same light. Sorry if the teminology was confusing.

I come back to my main point, which is that I don't think there will be major pressure (DSA and Judge Moran excepted), to use Sustrans routes as an excuse to get us off the road. the only way I can see that occurring is if there is, eventually, a Sustrans-type route alongside virtually every road and street in the country.

A bit unlikely

You except the main government agency dealing with road traffic- interesting




The pressure is a gradual increase that is increasing all the time- this is harder to reple than when there is a concerted effort. Creeping change/ pressure is always more difficult to deal with as too many people don't realise until too late. As is happening now and witnessed through the various threads re this money

Mike Healey

spen666 wrote:

Mike Healey wrote:

...

I said "insisted", Crapaud. I don't put someone yelling "get of the road" in the same light. Sorry if the teminology was confusing.

I come back to my main point, which is that I don't think there will be major pressure (DSA and Judge Moran excepted), to use Sustrans routes as an excuse to get us off the road. the only way I can see that occurring is if there is, eventually, a Sustrans-type route alongside virtually every road and street in the country.

A bit unlikely

You except the main government agency dealing with road traffic- interesting

The pressure is a gradual increase that is increasing all the time- this is harder to reple than when there is a concerted effort. Creeping change/ pressure is always more difficult to deal with as too many people don't realise until too late. As is happening now and witnessed through the various threads re this money

I ask again Spen, what evidence is there that the 1000s of miles of Sustrans routes already built has created any additional pressure for us to get off the road? The DSA idiocy was a repetition of previous efforts to legally require us to use cycling facilities where they exist and it failed again. I don't deny that it may happen again and that we will have to hammer the govt. of the day thro' emails, letters, faxes and phone calls.

But such total misunderstanding of, and prejudice against, cyclists long pre-dated the existence of Sustrans and would continue, even if Sustrans went out of existence tomorrow.

Crapaud

Mike Healey wrote:

I said "insisted", Crapaud. I don't put someone yelling "get of the road" in the same light. Sorry if the teminology was confusing….

I was referring to the part of your post that I’d highlighted in bold, not the last paragraph.

Maybe it’s not “in the same light” – they certainly don’t have the power to ‘insist’. Judge Moran did, and, by convicting Daniel Cadden, he used it. It doesn’t matter that he was wrong in law and the conviction overturned - he believed that the cyclepath should have been used. This, to me, is powerful evidence of just how far this insideous idea has gone.

More from the CTC,who seem to share my fears:

CTC press release wrote:

CTC continues to fight a re-draft of the Highway Code, which says cyclists ‘should use cycle paths where provided’, in order to tackle the attitude, held by many people in the judiciary, police and public alike, that cyclists should be out of the way of motorists.”

...and further down the same article:

CTC press release wrote:

CTC fears that the re-drafted Highway Code, which states that cyclists should “use cycle facilities…where provided” can only increase this kind of hostile prosecution of cyclists by reinforcing the perception that cyclists should keep out of the way of motorised traffic.

Mike Healey wrote:

…I come back to my main point, which is that I don't think there will be major pressure (DSA and Judge Moran excepted), to use Sustrans routes as an excuse to get us off the road.

I don't see how you an dismiss the DSA so lightly; it's an organisation of considerable power, influence and authority.

Mike Healey wrote:

the only way I can see that occurring is if there is, eventually, a Sustrans-type route alongside virtually every road and street in the country.

A bit unlikely

No, that wouldn't be neccessary! See the second quote, from the CTC, above. It would only require that cyclists “use cycle facilities…where provided”’.