Sustrans straight in at number 14.
View Full Version : Sustrans straight in at number 14.
For what it is worth a panel of "experts" have come up with the top 100 most useful websites for the
Uk. Sustrans seems to rank at number 14.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-774119,00.html
Colin
Colin Blackburn notes:
> For what it is worth a panel of "experts" have come up with the top 100 most useful websites for
> the Uk. Sustrans seems to rank at number 14.
>
And no other cycling site was mentioned at all. What is the Sustrans site useful *for*?
Jeremy Parker
Jeremy Parker wrote:
> Colin Blackburn notes:
>
>
>>For what it is worth a panel of "experts" have come up with the top 100 most useful websites for
>>the Uk. Sustrans seems to rank at number 14.
>>
>
>
> And no other cycling site was mentioned at all. What is the Sustrans site useful *for*?
>
> Jeremy Parker
I's like to know people's opinion about Sustrans. I have to say, I'm a bit ambivalent about it.
On one hand, I can see than in promoting cycling as an activity they are doing a good thing.
But in advocating the use of routes that can only be described as a joke at best, and the consequent
ghettoising of cycling they may be doing some damage. First off, cyclists need to learn to cycle on
roads if they are going to use the bicycle as a proper means of transport. And when I say roads, I
mean proper, fast, straight, direct roads. The message Sustrans seems to be saying is - cyclist
shouldn't be on the roads, unless they're completely tamed. And in doing so I feel they may be
jeopardising the wider acceptance of cycling.
Their use of the term 'safe cycle routes' almost implies that roads without dedicated cycle lanes
are inherently dangerous and should be avoided. It's almost scaremongering.
Mind you, the woman on the front cover of the latest guide looks sufficiently wholesome and NOT
WEARING A HELMET. She doesn't look like she's been pulled out of a modelling catalogue either, thank
goodness.So it can't be all bad. And the baby on the back is adorable. I'm not too impressed with
the lock over the handlebars though.
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 18:33:38 UTC, Michael Calwell <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
>
> I's like to know people's opinion about Sustrans. I have to say, I'm a bit ambivalent about it.
>
> On one hand, I can see than in promoting cycling as an activity they are doing a good thing.
>
> But in advocating the use of routes that can only be described as a joke at best, and the
> consequent ghettoising of cycling they may be doing some damage. First off, cyclists need to learn
> to cycle on roads if they are going to use the bicycle as a proper means of transport. And when I
> say roads, I mean proper, fast, straight, direct roads. The message Sustrans seems to be saying is
> - cyclist shouldn't be on the roads, unless they're completely tamed. And in doing so I feel they
> may be jeopardising the wider acceptance of cycling.
>
As it happens I have been looking at the Sustrans web site quite a bit recently in search of "safe"
places where I can take my 9 year old son on his first bike where he's not going to get
splatted/terrified by the first car that comes past a bit close. Can't say I was impressed
particularly. If they really wanted to promote cycling they'd make the maps free and downloadable
for a start.
> Their use of the term 'safe cycle routes' almost implies that roads without dedicated cycle lanes
> are inherently dangerous and should be avoided. It's almost scaremongering.
Well any road that has traffic on it isn't safe for a small kid who is only just learning to cycle.
Maybe it's where we live (east Kent) but there are no easily reachable off-road places we can ride
legally round here and there's a limit to the number of times I want to ride round Homebase cap park
on a Sunday morning before they open or the Station car park other times at the weekend.
I'm a bit out of practice as well, to be honest, though doing a daily 17 mile round trip commute for
3 years at least means I don't worry too much about on-road.
We are unlikely to use our bikes as a means of transport in the sense of using it as a vehicle to
get to school/work at least not for a few years (I have a 70 mile round trip commute now and there's
no way I'm cycling that!) but we do want to be able to go out as a family for "recreational"
purposes, off-road but nothing extreme.
I won't let my son ride on the road (apart from one very quiet one near here which is wide and
straight) until I am happy that he has full control of his machine - which he hasn't yet.
It seems to me that Sustrans doesn't really know what it's trying to achieve. Encourage cycling as a
means of transport? In which case the routes they offer don't seem to go from or to anywhere people
would actually want to go. In which case on road is fine. Or are they promoting the idea of cycling
as a recreational pastime. In which case they need to get their act together, produce decent, free,
maps, and do a lot more in terms of publicising cycle routes of all sorts.
They could also do something along the lines of cycling proficiency assessment. Apparently if you
live round here you have to be 10 before you can do that stuff. A whole year to wait or I sort my
son out myself. What ever happened to the old cycling proficiency test? That's a whole other
gripe though.
--
Tina Eager
On 12 Aug 2003 19:29:29 GMT, Tina Eager wrote:
> If they really wanted to promote cycling they'd make the maps free and downloadable for a start.
Selling maps is a normal way of paying to keep building routes. Sustrans is a charity, it doesn't
have a limitless pot of cash.
Anyway, the maps only supplement OS maps, and the new OS ones have the routes shown.
Steve
Every Sustrans NCN route I've tried has been bad to impassable. Last winter, after a few near-death experiences on the dark country roads, I decided to try commuting along the local NCN route. Mud, massive potholes, rough surfaces - it would have been uncomfortable on a full-suspension MTB, and anything less sturdy would have been wrecked after a mile. I used to arrive at work spattered from head to foot in mud.
Oh, and most of the route was along unlit country roads - precisely the sort of lethal environment I was trying to get away from.
I suppose Sustrans' heart is in the right place, but they do seem to spend a lot of (taxpayers') money on a token cycle network. This allows central and local government to boast that they encourage cycling while doing very little.
As far as I can see Sustrans routes are inadequately engineered when they're built and no arrangements are made to maintain them.
Chris Walker
Originally posted by Michael Calwell
I's like to know people's opinion about Sustrans. I have to say, I'm a bit ambivalent about it.
On one hand, I can see than in promoting cycling as an activity they are doing a good thing.
But in advocating the use of routes that can only be described as a joke at best, and the consequent
ghettoising of cycling they may be doing some damage. First off, cyclists need to learn to cycle on
roads if they are going to use the bicycle as a proper means of transport. And when I say roads, I
mean proper, fast, straight, direct roads. The message Sustrans seems to be saying is - cyclist
shouldn't be on the roads, unless they're completely tamed. And in doing so I feel they may be
jeopardising the wider acceptance of cycling.
Their use of the term 'safe cycle routes' almost implies that roads without dedicated cycle lanes
are inherently dangerous and should be avoided. It's almost scaremongering.
Mind you, the woman on the front cover of the latest guide looks sufficiently wholesome and NOT
WEARING A HELMET. She doesn't look like she's been pulled out of a modelling catalogue either, thank
goodness.So it can't be all bad. And the baby on the back is adorable. I'm not too impressed with
the lock over the handlebars though. [/B]
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 06:58:50 UTC, Steve Peake <spam@puppet-head.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2003 19:29:29 GMT, Tina Eager wrote:
>
> > If they really wanted to promote cycling they'd make the maps free and downloadable for a start.
>
> Selling maps is a normal way of paying to keep building routes. Sustrans is a charity, it doesn't
> have a limitless pot of cash.
>
> Anyway, the maps only supplement OS maps, and the new OS ones have the routes shown.
>
I just resent payingn twice for something. Via Lottery fund and govt in the case of Sustrans, and
then they want me to pay more to get hold of something I've already paid for! I don't suppose
Sustrans had to pay for the maps anyway, bet that came from govt. funding.
I have a set of the old OS maps and they ain't going to be replaced any time soon.
--
Tina Eager
Steve Peake wrote:
> On 12 Aug 2003 19:29:29 GMT, Tina Eager wrote:
> > If they really wanted to promote cycling they'd make the maps free and downloadable for a start.
>
> Selling maps is a normal way of paying to keep building routes. Sustrans is a charity, it doesn't
> have a limitless pot of cash.
>
I suppose, but it's frustrating that I still don't know where I went when I happened on NCN 5 last
week (after 9pm) and tried to follow it southwards into Reading. The sharp left into a wood halfway
down a hill was my main mistake, I feel, but the sign definitely pointed that way.
Perhaps they could let you download (or look at) short map segments, in a way that would make it
prohibitively tedious to put together a complete route map, but let you see where you went wrong.
Colin McKenzie
Colin McKenzie <colin@proof-read.co.uk> wrote in message
> Steve Peake wrote:
> > On 12 Aug 2003 19:29:29 GMT, Tina Eager wrote:
> > > If they really wanted to promote cycling they'd make the maps free and downloadable for a
> > > start.
<snip>
> Perhaps they could let you download (or look at) short map segments, in a way that would make it
> prohibitively tedious to put together a complete route map, but let you see where you went wrong.
>
> Colin McKenzie
Forgive me if I have misunderstood what everyone means, but I think you will find Sustrans DO
provide the sort of downloadable maps you are looking for.
If you go to their home page and select "route mapping" from the yellow menu bar, and then "route
mapping" again from the blue sub-menu that appears, you are taken to a zoomable map of the U.K.
showing all the N.C.N. routes and what appears to be a fair proportion of other cycle routes.
At the close in zoom settings (4miles square or closer) the mapping is O.S.
1:50 000 landranger (online, for free..... :-) ), with cycle routes overlaid. The pages can be saved
to disk or printed out, they even have a printer friendly page option. For shorter trips it is
certainly feasible to print out maps for your whole route, I know cos' I've done it lots. For
longer journeys this can get a bit much, but you can still print out the "awkward bits".
All in all I'd say this site deserves its "useful" status.
All the best, Will.
Will wrote:
>
> Colin McKenzie <colin@proof-read.co.uk> wrote in message
> > Perhaps they could let you download (or look at) short map segments, in a way that would make it
> > prohibitively tedious to put together a complete route map, but let you see where you went
> > wrong.
> >
> > Colin McKenzie
>
> Forgive me if I have misunderstood what everyone means, but I think you will find Sustrans DO
> provide the sort of downloadable maps you are looking for.
>
> If you go to their home page and select "route mapping" from the yellow menu bar, and then "route
> mapping" again from the blue sub-menu that appears, you are taken to a zoomable map of the U.K.
> showing all the N.C.N. routes and what appears to be a fair proportion of other cycle routes.
>
> At the close in zoom settings (4miles square or closer) the mapping is O.S.
> 1:50 000 landranger (online, for free..... :-) ), with cycle routes...
Hmm. You're right. When I tried before I couldn't get it to zoom, because it doesn't work like
Streetmap.
1:50000 is enough to suggest where I went wrong, but not enough to be certain. But wanting it to
zoom closer is a relatively minor gripe.
Colin McKenzie
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:3F39333C.5010101@btopenworld.com...
> Jeremy Parker wrote:
> > Colin Blackburn notes:
> >
> >
> >>For what it is worth a panel of "experts" have come up with the top 100 most useful websites for
> >>the Uk. Sustrans seems to rank at number 14.
> >>
> >
> >
> > And no other cycling site was mentioned at all. What is the Sustrans site useful *for*?
> >
> > Jeremy Parker
>
> I's like to know people's opinion about Sustrans. I have to say, I'm a bit ambivalent about it.
>
While cycling in Britain this summer I came across quite a few Sustrans signs (blue with a route
number, that's them isn't it?). I was in no rush so would have been tempted on occasion.
Unfortunately the signs gave no indication of where the routes led. I remember reading a piece in
Cycling + a while back (possibly entitled "Road to nowhere") and I now appreciate how annoying these
signs are. By chance I followed a fair bit of one route along the Solway Firth and into Galloway. It
was a great ride - quiet country roads and pretty direct. But I chose the roads from an ordinary map
not by looking for meaningless signs. tony R.
tony R wrote:
> Michael Calwell wrote
>
>> I's like to know people's opinion about Sustrans. I have to say, I'm a bit ambivalent about it.
Same here. They come across as somewhat fanatical, without really knowing what they are doing. They
say one thing, and do another.
They are on about cycling being used as sustainable transport - hence the name - but the majority of
routes that I have seen are primarily - if not solely - leisure routes that would be totally
impractical to use for any "real journey". They promise that they will not stand in the way of
railway lines reopening where they have used the trackbed for a cycle path, and then when the time
comes, they raise every possible obstacle to prevent the tracks being re-laid.
And don't get me started on their website! Next to no information, badly set out and very difficult
to find what you want, horrendously overengineered (so in fact it doesn't work properly at all) and
dramatically out of date.
> While cycling in Britain this summer I came across quite a few Sustrans signs (blue with a route
> number, that's them isn't it?). I was in no rush so would have been tempted on occasion.
> Unfortunately the signs gave no indication of where the routes led. I remember reading a piece in
> Cycling + a while back (possibly entitled "Road to nowhere") and I now appreciate how annoying
> these signs are. By chance I followed a fair bit of one route along the Solway Firth and into
> Galloway. It was a great ride - quiet country roads and pretty direct. But I chose the roads from
> an ordinary map not by looking for meaningless signs.
The cycle route signs are part of the National Cycle Network (if they have a red panel) or the
Regional Cycle Network (if they have a blue panel). Some of them do show destinations - and I think
this is becoming more common - but equally, many of them don't.
Usually, destinations are signposted at the start of the route, in towns or significant villages the
route passes through, and where it intersects with other NCN or RCN routes, or roads that are likely
to be used by cyclists. In between these places, just the numbers are used to keep you going the
right way.
--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
I'm Sustrans supporter and I don't feel the least bit fanatical. I was originally in two minds about
them but came round to the idea that anything that gets bums on saddles has to be a "good thing".
Sure, there is a risk that there may come the day that cyclists will be required to use a cyclepath
where one exists instead of the adjacent road (as, I believe, happens in Holland). Having just
shared my bike with hurrying home commuters, buses and lorries along a fast, hilly, bendy two-lane
"A" road between Bath and Radstock this evening, I also wonder if being confined to a dedicated
cycle-path is necessarily a "bad thing". A source of great controversy and discussion, no doubt.
As a parent of two youngsters and an adult helper in a local childrens cycling club I have to say
that the local bike path is a great boon to us. You try shepherding 25 youngsters aged from 6 to 15
on bikes along a busy main road on a Saturday morning - which we have to do to get to the bike path!
As one who returned to cycling about 5 years ago after a short 30 year lay-off I recall my
nervousness and lack of confidence when I first re-started; and how happy I was to get on either the
Bristol-Bath path or the Kennet and Avon Canal towpath and re-learn the art of bike-handling in
relative safety. I'm sure others have been and will be in the same position as I was. And I'm also
sure that many of the others, again like myself, will eventually get bored of the easy life on the
paths and get exploring the local roads, and beyond, again.
Nigel Shoosmith (who just lurves those Mendip Hills...)
Nigel Shoosmith wrote:
> I'm Sustrans supporter and I don't feel the least bit fanatical.
I certainly don't believe the majority of supporters are fanatical, just some of the people at the
heart of the organisation.
> Having just shared my bike with hurrying home commuters, buses and lorries along a fast, hilly,
> bendy two-lane "A" road between Bath and Radstock this evening, I also wonder if being confined to
> a dedicated cycle-path is necessarily a "bad thing". A source of great controversy and discussion,
> no doubt.
That *would* be a *very* bad thing.
Many cycle paths are not suitable for all cyclists, for a number of reasons. If they are not
tarmacced and maintained, they may be hazardous to racing bikes. Many of them are too narrow and
twisty to cycle along at any speed, which - while being fine for less able or experienced cyclists -
makes them inadequate for the more serious cyclist. By all means provide the paths along prime
cycling routes, but don't ever force cyclists to use them.
--
Stevie D \\\\\ ///// Bringing dating agencies to the \\\\\\\__X__///////
common hedgehog since 2001 - "HedgeHugs" ___\\\\\\\'/
\'///////_____________________________________________
> Having just shared my bike with hurrying home commuters, buses and lorries along a fast, hilly,
> bendy two-lane "A" road between Bath and Radstock this evening, I also wonder if being confined to
> a dedicated cycle-path is necessarily a "bad thing". A source of great controversy and discussion,
> no doubt.
>That *would* be a *very* bad thing.
>Many cycle paths are not suitable for all cyclists, for a number of reasons. If they are not
>tarmacced and maintained, they may be hazardous to racing bikes. Many of them are too narrow and
>twisty to cycle along at any speed, which - while being fine for less able or experienced cyclists
>- makes them inadequate for the more serious cyclist. By all means provide the paths along prime
>cycling routes, but don't ever force cyclists to use them.
I don't think anyone actually enjoys travelling on a road such as I have described above. Riding
down a fast downhill two-lane A-road with double white lines at 35mph with the sound of a lorry's
air-brakes just off your back wheel is not my idea of a fun ride. Now, if (just let me fantasise for
a bit..) if there was a parallel cycle path, wide enough and surfaced for 35mph would that be better
than risking all on the main road? The cyclist gets what he wants and the truck driver can get on
with earning his living. Perhaps we should be campaigning for the type of cycle routes that we want,
not what gets foisted upon us by the highways authority - for it is they, not Sustrans, who usually
end up building and maintaining a cycle path. Sustrans' role generally involves fund-raising, grant
getting, negotiating and designing. The grant money is usually paid to the highway authority, not
Sustrans, and it is they who have the final word on what gets built. Sustrans supporters give cash
to Sustrans so that Sustrans can provide the match-funding for the grant money. So, it seems to me
that if we want better provision for cycling in this country then being a Sustrans supporter is a
way to do it. Supporters are a source of funding; therefore supporters can have a better chance of
influencing what actually gets built. If we don't get what we want then we can walk away and take
our money with us. Separate cycle lanes, I believe, are needed on fast roads, especially
dual-carriageway roads - anyone who reads the cycling press will know that time-triallists are
regularly killed competing on fast roads. The motor vehicle is here to stay, at least for the
lifetimes of most people in this group, and we have to learn how to live with it and stay safe. We
need to encourage more people to ride bikes, especially for local journeys. Too many people won't
ride bikes because of the perceived danger of doing so. So we need to provide a means of reducing
that perception of danger. Providing dedicated cycle routes is a way of doing this. Not just any
route, but properly designed and constructed routes for all types of bike and travelling speeds. As
stated before, the more people who get on bikes for utility and commuting journeys the better. All
journeys cannot be done on cycle paths, so inevitably there would be more and more cyclists on
"ordinary" roads. It will come to be seen as the "normal" thing to do; and motor vehicle drivers
will become more used to seeing and coping with cyclists. As it is there are so few cyclists on the
road that motorists just see them as an occasional annoyance.
The need is for "more bums on saddles" by whatever means...
[Interleaved quoting: please read to end for all comments] Tina Eager wrote in uk.rec.cycling:
about: Re: Sustrans straight in at number 14.
> I just resent payingn twice for something. Via Lottery fund and govt in the case of Sustrans,
Sustrans' Millennium Fund grant only covered around 1/4 of the cost of the National Cycle Network,
the rest had to and still has to come from elsewhere. Next straw man argument?
> and then they want me to pay more to get hold of something I've already paid for! I don't suppose
> Sustrans had to pay for the maps anyway, bet that came from govt. funding.
The maps are produced by a commercial company who have to cover their costs, one of which is the
Ordnance Survey's mapping licencing costs, which ain't cheap, I'm sure.
> I have a set of the old OS maps and they ain't going to be replaced any time soon.
Glad you have something that Works For You, then :-)
--
David Marsh, <reply-to-email is valid at time of writing> | Edinburgh, Scotland. [en, fr, (de)] |
http://web.viewport.co.uk/ | Learn usenet and netiquette: read news:news.announce.newusers |
>Please interleave & trim quotes otherwise your posts will be ignored.<
begin Outlook is broken: see http://web.viewport.co.uk/doze/outbreak |
>.... and signs warning motorists that there might be cyclists about (I know these should be
>unnecessary)...
Are you talking about the triangular, red edged signs?
Look at the Highway Code. Those signs are not to warn of cyclists about, they are to warn of bike
facilities about. "Cycle route ahead" is what p75 of the HC says the sign means. Personally, I
thought that every road in Britain, with just a few exceptions, was a cycle route, but you can't
expect complete logic from the traffic people
Actually, the HC definition makes sense. There might be bikes on any road. You wouldn't want
motorists to deduce that a lack of signs meant a lack of bikes. Also, given the quality of the
facilities we have, some kind of warning sign about them is an all too good an idea.
Jeremy Parker
"Nigel Shoosmith" <nigel@shoosmith.org.uk> wrote in message
news:4a37968d.0308241038.6d3fa741@posting.google.com... ........ We need to encourage more people to
ride bikes, especially
> for local journeys. Too many people won't ride bikes because of the perceived danger of doing so.
> So we need to provide a means of reducing that perception of danger. Providing dedicated cycle
> routes is a way of doing this. Not just any route, but properly designed and constructed routes
> for all types of bike and travelling speeds. As stated before, the more people who get on bikes
> for utility and commuting journeys the better. All journeys cannot be done on cycle paths, so
> inevitably there would be more and more cyclists on "ordinary" roads. It will come to be seen as
> the "normal" thing to do; and motor vehicle drivers will become more used to seeing and coping
> with cyclists. As it is there are so few cyclists on the road that motorists just see them as an
> occasional annoyance.
>
> The need is for "more bums on saddles" by whatever means...
I can agree with your aim but I'm doubtful about your method. Here in Dublin I regularly ride along
a cycle-path beside a busy dual carriageway. It is mandatory. In my opinion removing me and all the
other cycle commuters from this stretch of road means car drivers are less and less used to seeing
and dealing well with cycle traffic. This soon becomes evident at those sections of the road where
the cycle path goes on-road and ceases to be mandatory. As you say, all journeys cannot be done on
cycle-paths. I'm not sure those who won't ride because of perceived danger will do so if they still
have to face that danger at some stage of their route. tony R.
Nigel Shoosmith says:
........ We need to encourage more people to ride bikes, especially
> for local journeys. Too many people won't ride bikes because of the perceived danger of doing so.
> So we need to provide a means of reducing that perception of danger. Providing dedicated cycle
> routes is a way of doing this. ....
False perceptions are a problem with people's minds, not problems with reality. The last thing we
need to do is to try to adjust reality to accord with people's delusions.
With cycle routes we spend large amounts of money to tell people that their delusions about the
dangers of cycling are accurate. That's in the interests only of people - who would that be - who
want to get cyclists off the road.
Jeremy Parker
Automatic Translations (Powered by
):
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
