So what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?



M

MJ Ray

Guest
When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

By the way, yesterday I was honked at and "directed" by the
spotty oik driver to ride on the (non-shared) pavement. First
time that's happened to me, but I don't usually ride on Sundays
and that's why: Sunday drivers! I hope that oik tries the
same stunt on Norfolk's biking bobbies (and despite PC Edney,
they wore the usual dark blue when I saw them, not hi-vis).
--
MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/proj/cyclynn/
 
> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

What do you think of 'non-road routes'?

> I hope that oik tries the
> same stunt on Norfolk's biking bobbies (and despite PC Edney,
> they wore the usual dark blue when I saw them, not hi-vis).

I've noticed the Manchester bicycling dibbles have ditched the hi-vis
recently. Too hot in the summer I guess.
 
MJ Ray wrote:

> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

Non-roads.

--
Brian G
 
MJ Ray wrote:
> When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
> posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
> because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
> don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
> of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

Car-free routes? I know it's not a complete description but any form of
words including "motorised" or "non-motorised" would be too clumsy.

"HPRs" would also be nice, for "Human Powered Routes", but I can't see
the general public taking that on board.

--
Dave...
 
On 10 Jul 2006 18:22:32 GMT someone who may be MJ Ray
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
>posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
>because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
>don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
>of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
>So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

Cyclepaths.


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

> When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
> posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
> because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
> don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
> of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

'A waste of space and money'?
'A poorly executed network of badly maintained paths from nowhere to
nowhere'?
'Our meal ticket'?

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

;; When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.
 
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 19:45:16 +0100, wafflycat wrote:

>> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?
>
> Sh*te ;-)

With NCNs 11 & 51 passing very close to my back door I have to agree :-(

The on-road bits are just as they were before Sustrans added signs, but I
wonder if in continuing to use them I am now part of their traffic count?



Mike
 
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 20:16:55 +0100, David Hansen
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 10 Jul 2006 18:22:32 GMT someone who may be MJ Ray
><[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
>>posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
>>because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
>>don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
>>of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
>>So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?
>
>Cyclepaths.

Agreed... to a point.

On-road there are mandatory and optional *cycle lanes*. *Cycle paths*
are usually alongside roads, either shared use or intended just for
cyclists. *Cycle tracks* are typically cinder tracks away from roads,
and *cycle trails* are usually unsurfaced paths away from roads.

Cycle routes can be any one or more of the above, or indeed any non
motorway or restricted road.
 
On 10 Jul 2006 18:22:32 GMT, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote:

> By the way, yesterday I was honked at and "directed" by the
> spotty oik driver to ride on the (non-shared) pavement. First
> time that's happened to me,

It's happened to me several times. It's one of the reasons for
opposing "shared use" pavements - it encourages pratts in cars to
think that cycles do not belong on the road.

Last time it happened to me was a well-to-do looking woman in a
headscarf, sunglasses and open-top jaguar who yelled over the top of
the windscreen something alonmg the lines of "why don't you f***ing
ride on the f***ing pavement"

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
On 10/07/2006 21:30, Ian Smith said,

> It's happened to me several times. It's one of the reasons for
> opposing "shared use" pavements - it encourages pratts in cars to
> think that cycles do not belong on the road.

There's a pointless bit of shared use pavement near me (Locking Road,
WSM). There is a useful cycle lane alongside the road, then just near a
bus stop is a traffic island, so the road narrows a bit. So, the cycle
lane diverts onto the pavement. Across the front of the bus stop. It
then bumbles along the pavement for a bit, then bops back down onto the
road neatly allowing cyclists to legally jump a set of red lights. (They
always seem to be red!!)

Then people (non-cyclists) wonder why pavement cyclists get shouted at
as much as non-pavement cyclists!

Anyway, why is it dangerous for a cyclist to ride on the pavement,
unless there's a white-painted bike logo? What does that blob of white
paint do to make a pavement safe to ride on all of a sudden? It
certainly doesn't seem to alert peds to the possibility of a bike being
around.

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/
 
Ian Smith wrote on 10/07/2006 21:30 +0100:
>
> Last time it happened to me was a well-to-do looking woman in a
> headscarf, sunglasses and open-top jaguar who yelled over the top of
> the windscreen something alonmg the lines of "why don't you f***ing
> ride on the f***ing pavement"
>

My usual response to that is "why don't you f***ing drive on the f***ing
motorway"

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
> Anyway, why is it dangerous for a cyclist to ride on the pavement,
> unless there's a white-painted bike logo? What does that blob of white
> paint do to make a pavement safe to ride on all of a sudden? It
> certainly doesn't seem to alert peds to the possibility of a bike being
> around.

When pavement cycling was first banned I'm guessing there were a *lot* more
cyclists about, riding bicycles with significantly worse brakes.
 
MJ Ray wrote on 10/07/2006 19:22 +0100:
> When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
> posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
> because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
> don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
> of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?
>

Abominations?

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci
 
Mark Thompson wrote:
> When pavement cycling was first banned I'm guessing there were a *lot* more
> cyclists about, riding bicycles with significantly worse brakes.

When pavement cycling was first banned there weren't /any/ cyclists,
because bikes hadn't been invented (1835 Highway Act, seems to have been
a masterpiece of pre-emptive legislation).

--
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
 
MJ Ray wrote:
> When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
> posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
> because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
> don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
> of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

"Unnecessarily slow and awkward" would be my suggestion from experience
of the off road sections I've been on. In my opinion a route is not
designed for cyclists if you have to get off and open a gate every few
hundred yards. If I actually want to go somewhere I now avoid the off
road bits unless I am with people who express an extreme preference to
avoid cars.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage
 
MJ Ray wrote:

> By the way, yesterday I was honked at and "directed" by the
> spotty oik driver to ride on the (non-shared) pavement. First
> time that's happened to me, but I don't usually ride on Sundays
> and that's why: Sunday drivers!

Happened to me tonight on the A40. I caught him up at the Gyratory,
got him to wind the window down and pointed out I had as much right to
be on that road as him. Surprisingly he agreed, but muttered his
concern about my safety. I had to leave it at that to get back to the
right lane before the lights changed. It would have been nice to talk
about junctions, priority, and the difference between dangerous and
frightening. And the fact that riding on-road at least halves journey
time.

Colin McKenzie

--
On average in Britain, you're more likely to get a head injury walking
a mile than cycling it.
So why aren't we all exhorted to wear walking helmets?
 
"dkahn400" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MJ Ray wrote:
>> When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
>> posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
>> because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
>> don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
>> of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
>> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?
>
> Car-free routes? I know it's not a complete description but any form of
> words including "motorised" or "non-motorised" would be too clumsy.

Seconded.

cheers,
clive
 
"dkahn400" <[email protected]> writes:

>MJ Ray wrote:
>> When there was some Sustrans rep on the BBC breakfast news last,
>> posters here objected to describing cycle tracks as 'traffic-free'
>> because cycles are traffic, after all. I'm told that Sustrans
>> don't like calling them 'off-road' because it makes people think
>> of mountain-biking and 'shared-use' is too vague.
>> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

>Car-free routes? I know it's not a complete description but any form of
>words including "motorised" or "non-motorised" would be too clumsy.

Preferably with something like (unsurfaced) (tarmac) (vertical) (etc.)
added. When I'm not in a hurry a slower carfree but hard surfaced route
can be lovely, but I also remember that vertical route ending in a
farmer's mud field near Burntisland....

Roos
 
in message <[email protected]>, Danny
Colyer ('[email protected]') wrote:

> Mark Thompson wrote:
>> When pavement cycling was first banned I'm guessing there were a *lot*
>> more cyclists about, riding bicycles with significantly worse brakes.
>
> When pavement cycling was first banned there weren't /any/ cyclists,
> because bikes hadn't been invented (1835 Highway Act, seems to have
> been a masterpiece of pre-emptive legislation).

Errmmm... no.

The pedal powered bicycle did not appear until four years later, but
Draisiennes were introduced into London in 1818 by a coachbuilder called
Johnson and by the mid 1820s were enjoying a craze among rich young men.
They were heavy, clumsy, had iron tyres and no brakes at all.

They would have been an absolute menace on the footway.

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

;; part time troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Which Sustrans route should I do?
Replies
22
Views
879
UK and Europe
MJ Ray
M
L
Auto Insurance question: On my auto insurance form I have to selectwhether I should let my auto insu
Replies
0
Views
682
UK and Europe
[email protected]
L
C
Jens Voigt says Contador should/will win the Giro
Replies
0
Views
669
UK and Europe
caffetrieste
C
H
HPV- should i vaccinate my daughter?
Replies
0
Views
459
UK and Europe
HPV VACCINE STUDY
H
B
Should we shoot them now?
Replies
1
Views
503
UK and Europe
John Clayton
J
Top Bottom Back