So what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

[Brian G]

Pinky wrote:

>
> I have looked at other routes and SUSTRANS seem to be hell bent in moving
> cyclists off road regardless of distance or quality of the route..

And they're not alone. The only advantage of being now in later life is
that I'm not likely to be around and riding when the combined forces of
splenetic motorists,idiot journalists, wet politicians and pusillanimous
parents finally manage to force us off the roads "for our own safety".
FFS, as the young so pithily put it these days.

--
Brian G

 

[Peter Clinch]

Roos Eisma wrote:

> 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....

"vertical" doesn't really do it[1] justice, as this suggests it was
actually straight in one dimension...

Pete.

[1] on one of NCN1s alternate forks. Possibly good fun on an MTB, less
so on a loaded tourer.
--
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/

 

[sothach]

MJ Ray wrote:

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

The Road to Nowhere

 

[Paul Weaver]

Colin McKenzie wrote:
> 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

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.

 

[andym]

MJ Ray wrote:
> So, what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

Bottle banks? (or at least the glass covered patch next to the bottle
banks)

Drag raceways for chavs on those illegal mini motorbike things?

or Footpath for grumpy pedestrians offended that a cyclist would
actually like to pass?

--
AndyM.

 

[MJ Ray]

"dkahn400" <[email protected]>
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > 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.

I like both of those and will put mention them when I reply to the Sustrans
local office. I agree that car-free routes seems much more likely.

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).

Cyclepaths seems confusing, and I don't think I want to encourage more of
those recent pavement-repaint farcilities. Unless it's a fast trunk road,
I don't see the point of them. Cycle lanes are far better every time.

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

About the broken glass: yes, it sucks here compared to most places.
I suspect that louts in France and Germany don't smash glass so
liberally, but I could be wrong. If you spot it, please call it in to
the street-cleaners if you can. I don't know if it's common elsewhere,
but West Norfolk Council provide a freephone number 0500-CLEANUP but
it's only signposted near the town centre. They usually clear it in a
day or two. The stuff near home, I sweep up myself - it seems it's the
quickest way to a glass-free urban route under a Conservative-led council.

About the obstructed and indirect routes: yes, they suck. Fix them.

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

 

[MJ Ray]

Paul Boyd <[email protected]>
> 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.

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.

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.

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

 

[andym]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Paul Boyd <[email protected]>
> > 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.
>
> 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.

Bell is a legal requirement in Germany. I assume such a device does
not appear in the BS for UK sold bicycles?
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?

--
AndyM.

 

[andym]

MJ Ray wrote:

> About the broken glass: yes, it sucks here compared to most places.
> I suspect that louts in France and Germany don't smash glass so
> liberally, but I could be wrong.

I've not noticed a major problem in Germany, although the last weeks
have been worse due to some football competition. It's just a matter
of time for the street cleaners to sweep the entire town. I note they
were out at 4am on Monday and most of the shared-use paths near me were
cleaned before I went to work Monday am.

--
AndyM.

 

[Peter Clinch]

andym wrote:

> Bell is a legal requirement in Germany. I assume such a device does
> not appear in the BS for UK sold bicycles?
> 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?

I find the bells on my bikes very useful on shared paths when I use
them. Absolutely no bloody use in traffic at all, where I find *OI!*
works much better, but on shared paths/no motors "pedestrianised" places
(like Dundee city centre) people take notice and seem to consider it
polite. Milage may vary in other places, natch...

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/

 

[Jim Price]

MJ Ray wrote:
<snip>

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

<snip>

> About the obstructed and indirect routes: yes, they suck. Fix them.

That was what I criticised, and I'm not going to be ashamed of it TYVM.
It would appear you don't think that is silly criticism either.

To me the obvious name for the routes on or off road is cycleway - to
match bridleway, pathway and carriageway. That way you are not made to
think you have exclusive right of way (which you rarely do on sustrans
routes) but you know you are allowed to cycle on the thing. You would
then need to establish through usage (and possibly a highway code
definition and legislation similar to that which protects bridleways?)
whether cycleway meant purely off road or not. Then, like the concept
(but not always the implementation) of a bridleway, there would be a
connotation that it is not a road. The term already seems to be in use
but not very consistently.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, Ian Smith wrote:
>
>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"

I wonder if any of the motorists who behave like this are any of the
same ones who complain about the number of pavement cyclists once
they get out of their cars and change into pedestrians? Unlikely, but
I wouldn't put it past some of the uk.transport crossposters.

 

[Tony Raven]

Simon Brooke wrote on 11/07/2006 09:06 +0100:
>
> 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.
>

Point of order m'lud. Cycles were not banned from footways by the 1835
Highways Act until it was amended by Section 85 of the Local Government
Act 1888, at which time cycles were well established. And before you
take your usual offence, I should point out that this is for England and
Wales and it is different in Scotland; currently it's the Roads
(Scotland)Act 1984 that applies.

--
Tony

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

 

[Tony Raven]

andym wrote on 11/07/2006 13:00 +0100:
>
> Bell is a legal requirement in Germany. I assume such a device does
> not appear in the BS for UK sold bicycles?
> 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?
>

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.


--
Tony

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

 

[sothach]

MJ Ray wrote:

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

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. It is shameful to be furthering
these policies of the <defunct european regime> that only the Godwin
stops me from naming.

 

[Tony Raven]

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 ;-)

--
Tony

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

 

[Daniel Barlow]

MJ Ray <[email protected]> writes:

> 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 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.

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.


-dan

--
http://coruskate.blogspot.com/ why skate when you can talk about it instead?

 

[dkahn400]

Simon Brooke wrote:

> 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.

Hence the traditional cry, "Why dos't thou not ride on the f***ing
Draisienne path?"

--
Dave...

 

[sothach]

Daniel Barlow wrote:

> 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.

That's a common one: often, moving off after the lights change, the car
behind automatically moves out to overtake, even if I'm at or above the
legal (for cars) limit. They then find themselves in the position of
having to continue speeding in the wrong lane, or slow down and pull in
(except that never happens).

 

[dkahn400]

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.

--
Dave...