So what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

[dkahn400]

MJ Ray wrote:

> Use a bell. They'll learn. I developed what was almost a nervous tick
> looking for bikes while walking on shared-use paths in Germany.

Sort of pedestrian version of the Messerschmidt twitch?

--
Dave...

 

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Tony Raven:
> IME a bell is useless anyway. I have tried
> gently ringing a bell approaching pedestrians with no response until I
> get close enough so they can hear me cough, at which point they jump out
> of their skin and make some rude comments that I ought to have a bell.
> I now just rely on a louder cough.

Squealing brakes, I tells ye! Not only do peds take notice, you can
also [if you're inclined] sieze the moral high ground by implying that
you've just had to make a sudden avoiding manouevre. I've had peds
genuinely apologise for being in the way, which I'm sure they wouldn't
have if I'd only had a bell or a cough.

--
Mark, UK
"I worry that the person who thought up Muzak may be thinking up
something else."

 

[Clive George]

"Mark McNeill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Squealing brakes, I tells ye! Not only do peds take notice, you can
> also [if you're inclined] sieze the moral high ground by implying that
> you've just had to make a sudden avoiding manouevre. I've had peds
> genuinely apologise for being in the way, which I'm sure they wouldn't
> have if I'd only had a bell or a cough.

I tend to call out 'hello' or 'allright' or some such greeting. Seems to
work quite well. The important bit is to call out early enough to cope with
the inevitable 'WTF? Help, a bike, what do I do? Oh, yes, I can change
direction - mmm, and maybe even not into the path of this other person...'
thought processes that people seem to go through. People have even thanked
me for calling out

(Have done this on roads, bridleways and sustrans paths)

cheers,
clive

 

[sothach]

Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to Tony Raven:
> > IME a bell is useless anyway. I have tried
> > their skin and I now just cough.
>
> Squealing brakes, I tells ye!

Can't always get the brakes to squeal nicely, but with a Rohloff, just
change into 7th gear, and it's like you suddenly de-cloaked.

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Paul Weaver wrote:
>
> > Not really, motorists are people too, in fact many cyclists are
> > motorists. When a person is cacooned in a metal box, they become a
> > different person. As soon as you you break through that shield you find
> > that we are, for the most part, normal.
>
> Indeed. Cyclists should carry a small hammer for just this purpose.

s/small/14 lb/

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
We had that Maurits C. Escher in to do some building work once. I
haven't been able to leave the house since.

 

[Brian G]

MJ Ray wrote:

> In reply to the obvious suggestion: non-road routes is accurate, but I think
> describing something as a non- is a bit clumsy (like much of my wording when
> writing about new things, which doesn't help on a pedant-filled Usenet).

You clearly misunderstood. You asked what Sustrans should call non-road
routes and I replied "non-road". It wasn't meant to be a helpful (or
even obvious) suggestion. It merely reflects the facts. The point is
that such things are almost always unnecessary and to my mind are
positively dangerous. This country has a very splendid network of roads
which for cyclists provide thousands of miles of routes for pleasure and
for essential journeys. These roads are generally metalled highways but
additionally include many less formal routes on old drove roads,
packhorse routes and so on. As cyclists we have rights to use all of
these roads (M routes excepted) and we should guard these rights with
extreme diligence.

The efforts of Sustrans to create alternative routes which avoid or
by-pass the roads will gradually provide ammunition for the barmy army
of ill-assorted bedfellows who will seek to drive us off the roads
because they are "dangerous". They should therefore be described as
"non-road" if they must be described as anything at all. I would
greatly prefer that they be grubbed up in almost all cases and therefore
not described as anything other than historical failures.

--
Brian G

 

[wafflycat]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MJ Ray wrote on 11/07/2006 12:46 +0100:
>>
>> The silly criticism was unhelpful and those posters should be ashamed.
>>
>
> I'm hanging my head in shame for daring to criticize. I shall atone with
> 50 hail mileys on a Sustrans route not of my choice to reconfirm it wasn't
> silly ;-)
>

I'm not ashamed at all. I think Sustrans are shite and more and more a
danger to those of us who actually deign to practice our right to cycle on
the road. Every time I've had a puncture it's been on a shite Sustrans
farcility.

Cheers, helen s

 

[Tony Raven]

wafflycat wrote on 11/07/2006 16:06 +0100:
>
> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> MJ Ray wrote on 11/07/2006 12:46 +0100:
>>>
>>> The silly criticism was unhelpful and those posters should be ashamed.
>>>
>>
>> I'm hanging my head in shame for daring to criticize. I shall atone
>> with 50 hail mileys on a Sustrans route not of my choice to reconfirm
>> it wasn't silly ;-)
>>
>
> I'm not ashamed at all. I think Sustrans are shite and more and more a
> danger to those of us who actually deign to practice our right to cycle
> on the road. Every time I've had a puncture it's been on a shite
> Sustrans farcility.
>

Helen, you've left your irony detector switched off ;-).


--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[wafflycat]

"Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> wafflycat wrote on 11/07/2006 16:06 +0100:
>>
>> "Tony Raven" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> MJ Ray wrote on 11/07/2006 12:46 +0100:
>>>>
>>>> The silly criticism was unhelpful and those posters should be ashamed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm hanging my head in shame for daring to criticize. I shall atone
>>> with 50 hail mileys on a Sustrans route not of my choice to reconfirm it
>>> wasn't silly ;-)
>>>
>>
>> I'm not ashamed at all. I think Sustrans are shite and more and more a
>> danger to those of us who actually deign to practice our right to cycle
>> on the road. Every time I've had a puncture it's been on a shite Sustrans
>> farcility.
>>
>
> Helen, you've left your irony detector switched off ;-).
>

Irony? That's why I have a tumble drier!

Cheers, helen s

 

[MJ Ray]

Tony Raven <[email protected]>
> [...] IME a bell is useless anyway. I have tried
> gently ringing a bell approaching pedestrians with no response [...]
^^^^^^
It's ever likely to be useless if you do that. Let it ring loud!

Worse, some bells sold with bikes now are so weak you probably can't
hear it if you're *riding* the bike itself. They don't help anyone.

+1 to the squealing breaks. My raincheater ones sound evil in the dry,
even when I don't hit them that hard. Anyone experiencing them
suddenly from behind will probably take more notice of bells after,
but I do worry that someone will jump in the drain in shock one day.

Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/

 

[MJ Ray]

"sothach" <[email protected]>
> The idea that Sustrans is important or useful is itself silly, and
> suggesting that cyclists should be moved off onto a poorer, less
> connected alternative is unhelpful. [...]

I don't know about your town, but Sustrans routes make some journeys
here much more direct. Also, some people thought it important enough
to criticise a Sustrans wording goof here, so I try to help fix it.

As far as I know, Sustrans doesn't particularly want to move cyclists
off-road besides shortening journeys. It's more about expanding
capacity and encouraging new cyclists, but Sustrans cycle routes
sometimes seem to get used instead of the alternative roads by
existing cyclists.

As for the comparison, you're being silly.
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/

 

[MJ Ray]

Daniel Barlow <[email protected]>
> I doubt it. Even without finding the DfT reference it doesn't take
> much intelligence to realise that a road-side shared use path that
> gives way at every side road is going to be slower than the road it
> runs next to.

Often, those seem to be flagrant breaks of construction guidelines.
Cycleways should have priority, except for a few cases, but seldom do.
I've been trying to get two here changed and most of the references
aren't readily available, which complicates matters. It's been easier
to persuade some side road owners to repaint the ends of their roads than
to persuade the council contractors to fix unsafe designs. Silly inertia.

> Quite possibly also some just don't realise that cyclists can reach
> 18mph. Many drivers seem basically unable to estimate speeds of other
> vehicles and simply make assumptions about how fast they think another
> road user "should" be going given their mode of transport.

Thankfully I avoid most of them. I'd hope most realise cyclists can
reach 10mph, though maybe not, from what I've seen :-/
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/

 

[David Nutter]

On 2006-07-11, Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>> Paul Weaver wrote:
>>
>> > Not really, motorists are people too, in fact many cyclists are
>> > motorists. When a person is cacooned in a metal box, they become a
>> > different person. As soon as you you break through that shield you find
>> > that we are, for the most part, normal.
>>
>> Indeed. Cyclists should carry a small hammer for just this purpose.
>
> s/small/14 lb/

Who had the recoilless rifle idea originally? The earliest reference I can
find is a thread in 1997
(http://groups.google.com/group/uk.r...:uk.rec.cycling&rnum=3&hl=en#2da0e8839be07168).

Anyway, I thought that was a splendid innovation and would have been ideal
for dealing with the TwatInAVectra who gave me some grief this morning.
Luckily I was going swimming and so could work off my frustration quite
swiftly.

The behaviour experienced this morning was an interesting contrast this to
the short ride I had this lunchtime out to Darlton to collect parts for my
clearing saw. Bit of a grind on the way out due to the Omnipresent
Lincolnshire Headwind, but the way back was a blast due to same. Everyone
was extremely polite except for the flies which were determined to crash
land on the surface of my eyeballs. Yuck.

Regards,

-david

 

[David Hansen]

On 11 Jul 2006 16:20:28 GMT someone who may be MJ Ray
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>Also, some people thought it important enough
>to criticise a Sustrans wording goof here, so I try to help fix it.

I have criticised the biggest Sustrans wording goof here and
directly to them. They have done nothing about it. This goof is to
call their non-road routes "traffic free".



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 11/07/2006 12:46, MJ Ray said,

> Use a bell. They'll learn. I developed what was almost a nervous tick
> looking for bikes while walking on shared-use paths in Germany.

See one of my earlier posts about bells - I have one that doubles as a
fog warning bell for off-shore vessels approaching our shores, but
people *still* don't seem to know what that funny ringing noise is :-(

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Paul Boyd]

On 11/07/2006 13:51, Tony Raven said,

> It is now a legal requirement for a bell to be fitted at the point of
> sale but not thereafter. IME a bell is useless anyway. I have tried
> gently ringing a bell approaching pedestrians with no response until I
> get close enough so they can hear me cough, at which point they jump out
> of their skin and make some rude comments that I ought to have a bell. I
> now just rely on a louder cough.

See - it isn't just me!!

Actually, I reserve the loud "OI" for oncoming "cyclists" on their right
with their head down not looking more than a yard in front of their
wheel. Why *do* so many of these people (on psyclepaths) ride on their
right, anyway? What happened to keeping left?

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

 

[Tony Raven]

Dave Larrington wrote on 11/07/2006 15:07 +0100:

>> Indeed. Cyclists should carry a small hammer for just this purpose.
>
> s/small/14 lb/
>

Nah, you want one of those wee ones that are kept in a case for breaking
toughened windows for an emergency exit. Light tap on the side window
and voila, direct communications.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

 

[David Hansen]

On 11 Jul 2006 16:20:29 GMT someone who may be MJ Ray
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> I doubt it. Even without finding the DfT reference it doesn't take
>> much intelligence to realise that a road-side shared use path that
>> gives way at every side road is going to be slower than the road it
>> runs next to.
>
>Often, those seem to be flagrant breaks of construction guidelines.
>Cycleways should have priority, except for a few cases, but seldom do.

Whose construction guidelines and does it matter?

Fife and the City of Edinburgh Councils will not mark bike
bantustans as having priority over side roads. They say it would be
"dangerous". I doubt if they are unique.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

 

[MJ Ray]

Brian G <[email protected]>
> You clearly misunderstood. [...] It wasn't meant to be a helpful (or
> even obvious) suggestion. [...]

Yep, I assumed the best, that you weren't another useless part.

> The efforts of Sustrans to create alternative routes which avoid or
> by-pass the roads will gradually provide ammunition for the barmy army
> of ill-assorted bedfellows who will seek to drive us off the roads
> because they are "dangerous". [...]

Which is part of what I try to address with them. The by-pass routes can
be useful in making cycling faster from A to B, but I think everyone
acknowledges that road use is essential: 2/3 of the NCN is on-road.
When they don't, it's a bug not policy, contrary to what's posted here.

Regards,
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/

 

[Tim Hall]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:12:59 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Dave Larrington wrote on 11/07/2006 15:07 +0100:
>
>>> Indeed. Cyclists should carry a small hammer for just this purpose.
>>
>> s/small/14 lb/
>>
>
>Nah, you want one of those wee ones that are kept in a case for breaking
> toughened windows for an emergency exit. Light tap on the side window
>and voila, direct communications.


<cough>


Spring loaded centre punch


<cough>

Tim