So what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

[Danny Colyer]

Pinky wrote:
> I have only ever ridden on one Sustrans route which I consider satisfactory
> and that is from York to Selby and is for the most part an asphalt covered,
> wide surface.

It wasn't the last time I rode it (last year, the week after York
Rally). I didn't ride all the way to Selby, turning back at the village
after Pluto, but most of what I rode was far too narrow to be considered
a practical cycle route (i.e. there wouldn't have been space for two
cyclists to pass safely without slowing to a crawl).

> Sadly even this isn't so for the whole of the distance and it
> degenerates for a distance into a track which is in need of widening in
> parts.

That must be the bit I rode, then (I rode the length of the solar system).

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Danny Colyer]

MJ Ray wrote:
> I think a bigger problem with pavement cycling is the not-widely-known
> 10-18mph/unladen top design speeds of most of them (which I can't find
> the reference for now... gah! Does DfT reshuffle its web site a lot?)
> If more people knew about that, they'd probably expect bikes on-road.

Dunno about that. I don't think most people expect cyclists to be able
to ride faster than 10mph.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[Danny Colyer]

David Hansen wrote:
> 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".

I noticed these on my way home from work this evening:
<url:http://www.colyer.plus.com/z-dscf0845.jpg>

They weren't there this morning. This is the point where I turn right
onto the Bath-Bristol cyclepath. I've sent the photo to a few council
officials and to Sustrans, asking if anyone knows what's going on and
pointing out that they make it harder to check for traffic coming from
the right when joining the cyclepath from Avon Lane.

As I sent it, I wondered whether I'd get a reply from Sustrans pointing
out that there shouldn't be any traffic on the cyclepath.

--
Danny Colyer <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/>
Subscribe to PlusNet <URL:http://www.colyer.plus.com/referral/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

 

[dkahn400]

Tim Hall wrote:

> <cough>
>
> Spring loaded centre punch
>
> <cough>

Not the same since the invention of the laminated windscreen.

--
Dave...

 

[Brian G]

MJ Ray wrote:
> 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.

Who are you calling a part? ;-)

--
Brian G

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, MJ
Ray ('[email protected]') wrote:

> I think a bigger problem with pavement cycling is the not-widely-known
> 10-18mph/unladen top design speeds of most of them (which I can't find
> the reference for now... gah!  Does DfT reshuffle its web site a lot?)
> If more people knew about that, they'd probably expect bikes on-road.

I don't think most people realise that bikes are capable of more than 18
mph.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; L'etat c'est moi -- Louis XVI
;; I... we... the Government -- Tony Blair

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>,
dkahn400 ('[email protected]') wrote:

> 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.

In our university days, a friend of mine who was then an engineering
student (he's now a lutanist) used to keep a spring loaded centre punch
clipped to his bars. The idea was that, if approached to closely by a
motorist, he would pull it out of its clip and swing his arm at the car
as if fending it off. The centre-punch would then shatter the
windscreen.

Whether this would have worked or not I don't know, because as far as I
know it was never used in anger; but I put it to the jury that a spring
loaded centre punch is substantially less weight to carry around than
even a small hammer.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another hick in the mall
-- Drink C'lloid

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, MJ
Ray ('[email protected]') wrote:

> The silly criticism was unhelpful and those posters should be ashamed.

Why? Sustrans are now doing more damage to utility cycling in the UK than
any other organisation. Is it a wonder we're hostile to them?

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another nick in the ball
-- Think Droid

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, MJ
Ray ('[email protected]') wrote:

> 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.

A person representing himself as a Sustrans spokeperson in Radio 4
interviews have stated that their goal was to 'get more cyclists off the
roads'. Whether that's Sustrans' official policy or not, the promotion
of off-road routes contributes to the increasing belief of motorists
that they have a right to bully cyclists off the road.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Windows 95:
You, you, you! You make a grown man cry...
M. Jagger/K. Richards

 

[Simon Brooke]

in message <[email protected]>, andym
('[email protected]') wrote:

> In Germany and Holland I'd feel confident that using a bell would alert
> pedestrians on a shared path.  In UK, certainly in some areas, I'd feel
> more uneasy and would expect at least a grumpy look, if not some verbal
> abuse.  Maybe the country has changed since I quit?

On an audax last year, riding on a public road, I came upon a group of
middle aged (medieval?) redsocks who were, as per normal, strung out
across the whole width of the carriageway. Approaching from behind, I
rang my bell. No response, so I rang my bell again. Still no response,
so I was forced to brake quite sharply, and said, politely, 'excuse me'.

A matron turned regally, and said, in chiding tones, 'bell! bell!'.

There really is no pleasing some people.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Diplomacy, American: see Intelligence, Military

 

[Ian Smith]

On 11 Jul 2006 11:46:37 GMT, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The silly criticism was unhelpful and those posters should be ashamed.

No, the idiots building positively detrimental facilities and getting
huffy when it's pointed out how dangerous / rubbish / damaging /
utterly **** they are should be ashamed.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

 

[POHB]

Paul Boyd wrote:
>
> Why *do* so many of these people (on psyclepaths) ride on their
> right, anyway? What happened to keeping left?
>

Maybe they never ride on the road so they've never got the habit of
"the rule of the road". Annoying though it is, on the other hand it
goes to show that most of the traffic regulations are only really
neccessary because of motor vehicles, cyclists seem to avoid crashing
into each other without the need for lane markings, traffic lights etc.

As for bells, I find a gentle "ping" usually gets the peds to move over
on my towpath commute, and a cheery thank-you often even elicits a
smile. Even better when daughter #2 is on the trail-gator as our bells
appear to be tuned a fifth apart. They should sell bells tuned to
different pitches and we could have a proper family carillon.

 

[Tony W]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <[email protected]>,
> dkahn400 ('[email protected]') wrote:
>
> In our university days, a friend of mine who was then an engineering
> student (he's now a lutanist) used to keep a spring loaded centre punch
> clipped to his bars. The idea was that, if approached to closely by a
> motorist, he would pull it out of its clip and swing his arm at the car
> as if fending it off. The centre-punch would then shatter the
> windscreen.
>
> Whether this would have worked or not I don't know, because as far as I
> know it was never used in anger; but I put it to the jury that a spring
> loaded centre punch is substantially less weight to carry around than
> even a small hammer.

It could work with old type toughened glass windscreens but not with
laminated ones where one would just get a small 'stone chip'.

However, I suspect an element of urban myth in this.

 

[MJ Ray]

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

Department for Transport (dft.gov.uk). I'd expect ignorance can be
made very embarrassing for them quite easily, similar to the short
yellow lines or daft approaches to trees.

> 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.

As far as I've figured out so far, there seems to be two approaches
to this:
1. if the side roads are state-owned (=adopted?) ask for the safety
assessments, then they'll go quiet, so do a FoIA request to get them
If they don't exist, you're up and running with the press, or if they
do exist, they'll either contradict national policy and I'd hope the
local cycling-friendly MP helps, or there's some good reason not to
do it, but I've not got that far yet and I've lost my motivation to
spend quite so much time on new ones in this area;
2. if the side roads are private owned, ask nicely for a priority
change (it's usually thoughtlessness rather than mistaken ideas of
safety), then ask for the safety assessment and watch them fold.
This worked well so far.
--
MJR/slef

 

[MJ Ray]

Ian Smith <[email protected]>
> On 11 Jul 2006 11:46:37 GMT, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The silly criticism was unhelpful and those posters should be ashamed.
>
> No, the idiots building positively detrimental facilities and getting
> huffy when it's pointed out how dangerous / rubbish / damaging /
> utterly **** they are should be ashamed.

False dichotomy. Both should be ashamed.
--
MJR/slef

 

[MJ Ray]

"POHB" <[email protected]>
> Paul Boyd wrote:
> > Why *do* so many of these people (on psyclepaths) ride on their
> > right, anyway? What happened to keeping left?
>
> Maybe they never ride on the road so they've never got the habit of
> "the rule of the road". [...]

I keep meeting cyclists riding on the right on-road too. One spot is
particularly bad (St James Road to Clough Lane, Blackfriars Street,
K.Lynn) where there's a cycle lane along only one side, because the
route in the other direction runs along parallel one-way streets.

Like it or not, the road use of some cyclists is terrible. Those
people probably ride off-road more, as I expect they wouldn't last
long if they tried that on a fast road.

> [...] tuned a fifth apart. They should sell bells tuned to
> different pitches and we could have a proper family carillon.

Now there's an idea!
--
MJR/slef

 

[MJ Ray]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
> MJ Ray ('[email protected]') wrote:
> > The silly criticism was unhelpful and those posters should be ashamed.
>
> Why? Sustrans are now doing more damage to utility cycling in the UK than
> any other organisation. Is it a wonder we're hostile to them?

As mentioned in another thread, I can't see a quick way to make Sustrans
go away, so fixing their bugs seems the simplest improvement.

Also, I think that Sustrans's bugs are dwarfed by almost any sizeable
County Council's badly-designed cycle farcilities.
--
MJR/slef

 

[MJ Ray]

Simon Brooke <[email protected]>
> A person representing himself as a Sustrans spokeperson in Radio 4
> interviews have stated that their goal was to 'get more cyclists off the
> roads'. [...]

Date and time (even rough) please, else it's going to be tricky to fix.
--
MJR/slef

 

[Peter Clinch]

MJ Ray wrote:

> Also, I think that Sustrans's bugs are dwarfed by almost any sizeable
> County Council's badly-designed cycle farcilities.

Don't forget single tier city authorities! ;-/

Ours has just put in an amazing new route from the hospital to the
University campus. The University campus is ~ 40m lower than the
hospital. With the new route, you climb more going from hospital to
campus than my usual route between them climbs going in the opposite
direction! That sort of thing takes talent, but arguably not as much as
having "END" on the cycle route against a no-cycling path away from the
road that's almost 10 minutes walk to the entrance and bike parking.

I have moaned to my councillor, who is pursuing the matter. Apparently
I'm not the only moaner. The University BUG pointed out most of the
reasons why the council's suggested route was **** some months ago, but
they went ahead with it anyway.

A lot of the problem with the new route is down to a problem Sustrans
are quite guilt of too, which is being afraid of roads to the extent
that in avoiding having cyclists use them they actually make the routes
/more/ dangerous than the roads they avoid, as well as slower and longer.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

 

[Ian Smith]

On 12 Jul 2006 10:05:01 GMT, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ian Smith <[email protected]>
> > On 11 Jul 2006 11:46:37 GMT, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > The silly criticism was unhelpful and those posters should be ashamed.
> >
> > No, the idiots building positively detrimental facilities and getting
> > huffy when it's pointed out how dangerous / rubbish / damaging /
> > utterly **** they are should be ashamed.
>
> False dichotomy. Both should be ashamed.

Possibly, but it's not entirely clear-cut. If the idiots building
farcilities were more ashamed about the damage they've done to the
cause of cycling, people may be less inclined to point out just how
**** they were, and more inclined to be helpful.

Most of the frustration with sustrans arises from the combination of
rubbish 'facilities' and smug twits trumpeting how fantastic the
facilies in question are. Since the twits in question seem incapable
of admitting that their provision is largely unwanted by utility
cyclists, and indeed that a proportion of their image and marketing is
positiovely detrimental to most utility cyclists, frustrated
'silliness' is about all that's left.

After all, you won't listen to reason, so maybe silliness gets
through?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|