So what should Sustrans call their non-road routes?

[MJ Ray]

Ian Smith <[email protected]>
> [...] Everyone else is useless and MJRay alone is championing teh
> cause of the benevolent super-body Sustrans. [...]

An excellent example of losing touch with reality. Not everyone
else is useless, I'm not alone, I'm not championing it, it's not
benevolent and it's no super-body. The rest of your post was
littered with similar errors.
--
MJR/slef

 

[wafflycat]

"MJ Ray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff€y€cat*@€btco*nn€ect.com>
>> This is where I have a different opinion. I do not see Sustrans as giving
>> cyclists more options, I see them as a very real threat to cycling on
>> road
>> with the emphasis on 'traffic-free' and 'safe' being intermingled [...]
>
> I agree that any Sustrans-related speakers who use a different emphasis to
> the apparent policies of car-free and safer are dangerous for cycling.
> That's part of why I started this thread.
>
>> [...] the routes seem to go exceedingly indirect &
>> winding routes from A to B, so are suitable for leisure and not
>> sustainable
>> transport. [...]
>
> Over-generalisation. In some places, they are much more direct than
> roads.
>

Once again, MJ Ray dismisses the experience of many of the cyclists on this
newsgroup. What a surprise.


>> [...] Even round
>> KL, I can't get my 'bent round the obstacles on Sustrans routes... and
>> I'm
>> not the only one with a 'bent in KL.
>
> There's the Environment-Agency-insistence ones on the South Lynn-Saddlebow
> stretch, but all the other KL Sustrans routes I can think of are currently
> barrier free on at least one alternative. There's even staggered bollards
> on one stretch.
>

Sorry - Sustrans are keen to take the praise for their routes, so they
should be taking the flak. If stuff on their routes doesn't come up to
scratch they should not accept it. Period. They cannot have their cake and
eat it, which is what you want to do.


>> [...] Indeed due to the proliferation of
>> white outline paint bicycles on numerous footpaths in KL I actively avoid
>> cycling in KL. Sustrans makes KL a bad place for a non-resident to cycle
>> in.
>
> The white bicycle footpaths I can recall are all either county botch jobs
> or section 106 developer botch jobs, not Sustrans routes. The Sustrans
> paths that do run along roads have been built up to standard, although
> some now show signs of tree root damage.
>

Sustrans routes do include white painted bikes on footpaths in KL - I;ve
cycled them. They are *exactly* the short of thing which promotes conflict
between cyclists & motorist. Either way the cyclist cannot win, if you cycle
on road you get the "get on the bloody cycle path" routine and if you cycle
on the path, you get the "bloody cyclists on the footpath" routine. Such
things are bad for cycling long term.


>> One of the other major criticisms I have of Sustrans is that it seems to
>> be
>> the personal fiefdom of one person, with little accountability to actual
>> cyclists.
>
> Yes, that's entirely fair criticism. I'm not happy with that, but while
> Sustrans has the ear and purse of government, it's worth trying to fix
> any bugs they have.
>
>> [...] The CTC, on the other hand is run by cyclists for cyclists and if,
>> as a cycling member I don't like what the CTC board is doing, I can vote
>> against the board members. [...]
>
> Unfortunately, the CTC has various problems in membership and
> communication,
> which I guess either you like or are being outvoted on. Democracy isn't
> perfect either, sadly, else councils wouldn't build so much dross.
>

The CTC is way better at protecting cyclists interests than Sustrans. At
least it isn't a one-man fiefdom, which is what Sustrans appears to be.



--
> MJR/slef
>

 

[Ian Smith]

On 15 Jul 2006 16:30:39 GMT, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote:

[of Sustrans]
> it's not benevolent

Well, something's getting through, at least.

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

 

[Stephen Patterson]

On 14 Jul 2006 01:17:12 -0700, sothach wrote:
> Anyone know who Sustrans is answerable to? Who holds them to account
> for their (dodgy) decisions? I know the charity book-keeping is
> proberbly covered OK, but they ain't elected councillors, they aren't
> covered by a regulator. Looks like another WWF or FSC
> do-question-us-we-know-best step-up.

Well, they're a charity & registered company, only 182 actual employees
http://www.charitiesdirect.com/CharityDetail.asp?orgid=5545

--
Stephen Patterson :: [email protected] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: E3E8E974 :: Jabber: [email protected]
"At night, the razor weasels come."

 

[Stephen Patterson]

On 14 Jul 2006 20:00:33 GMT, Ian Smith wrote:
> And they are also often imposed by Sustrans, for no readily apparent
> reason. In particular, a number of their much-flaunted works of art
> prevent use by all but unencumbered uprights.

Oddly enough the specs in sustrans' FF22 access control doc call for 1.2m
clear width http://www.sustrans.org.uk/webfiles/Info sheets/ff22.pdf


--
Stephen Patterson :: [email protected] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: E3E8E974 :: Jabber: [email protected]
"At night, the razor weasels come."

 

[Stephen Patterson]

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 21:45:55 +0100, Jeremy Parker wrote:
> A nice neutral word like "Greenways" also has the advantage that the
> consultants can go after more different pots of money,

Consultant ... hmmm ... shortened combination of convict & insult?.

--
Stephen Patterson :: [email protected] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: E3E8E974 :: Jabber: [email protected]
"At night, the razor weasels come."

 

[Stephen Patterson]

On 14 Jul 2006 17:04:00 +0100 (BST), David Damerell wrote:
> I'm reluctanctly forced to agree. For this April's Whitby Goth weekend I
> cycled between Scarborough and Whitby; even though NCN #1 is a disused
> railway line, hence having gentle gradients
[snip]
> This is due to the poor condition of the surface. Most of it's just
> speed-sucking mud and gravel, but there are one or two potholed bits in
> one of which I was lucky not to come a cropper.

It used to be better surfaced but about 7 or 8 years ago it was dug up to
lay in a gas main to many of the adjoining towns/villages. Before then it
was hard packed clinker but you could hold good speed even on narrow wheels.

--
Stephen Patterson :: [email protected] :: http://patter.mine.nu/
GPG: E3E8E974 :: Jabber: [email protected]
"At night, the razor weasels come."

 

[Jim Price]

Stephen Patterson wrote:
> Consultant ... hmmm ... shortened combination of convict & insult?.
>
Someone who won't be around once the fan is running.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage

 

[Danny Colyer]

MJ Ray wrote:
>>Over-generalisation. In some places, they are much more direct than
>>roads.

and wafflycat responded:
> Once again, MJ Ray dismisses the experience of many of the cyclists on this
> newsgroup. What a surprise.

MJ Ray is right. It /is/ an over-generalisation. In some places they
/are/ much more direct than roads. Which is why I commute along one.

> Sorry - Sustrans are keen to take the praise for their routes, so they
> should be taking the flak.

Agreed, but...
> If stuff on their routes doesn't come up to
> scratch they should not accept it.

Once the route is in place, councils *will* add whatever **** they like.
I recently partially won a 5 year battle to get these bollards removed:
<url:http://www.colyer.plus.com/danny/cycling/commute/bollards.html>

Partial in that they haven't all been removed, but there are now only 4
of them. They weren't put in by Sustrans, they were put in by the
council, so that's who I've had to harangue to get them taken out.

I'm led to believe there's a good chance of 3 RADAR gates being removed
some time in the next 6 weeks, as well, I think largely because I've
been asking repeatedly over a number of years. They weren't put in by
Sustrans, and in fact go against Sustrans guidelines. All down to the
council again.

> The CTC is way better at protecting cyclists interests than Sustrans. At
> least it isn't a one-man fiefdom, which is what Sustrans appears to be.

Which is why I'm a CTC member and refuse to become a Sustrans supporter.
They can't be blamed for everything that councils do on Sustrans
paths, though.

Then again, the Bath-Bristol isn't really a Sustrans path. It was
created by Cyclebag, which later became Sustrans. ISTM they lost their
way somewhere in the years since then.

--
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

 

[wafflycat]

"Danny Colyer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MJ Ray wrote:
>>>Over-generalisation. In some places, they are much more direct than
>>>roads.
>
> and wafflycat responded:
>> Once again, MJ Ray dismisses the experience of many of the cyclists on
>> this newsgroup. What a surprise.
>
> MJ Ray is right. It /is/ an over-generalisation. In some places they
> /are/ much more direct than roads. Which is why I commute along one.
>

Danny, it's not an over-generalisation. We know the route you take is a good
one. Would that the one you take be the norm, but it appears not to be from
the experience of many a cyclist here.

Cheers, helen s

 

[MJ Ray]

"wafflycat" <w*a*ff€y€cat*@€btco*nn€ect.com> wrote:
> "MJ Ray" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > "wafflycat" <w*a*ff€y€cat*@€btco*nn€ect.com>
> >> [...] the routes seem to go exceedingly indirect &
> >> winding routes from A to B, so are suitable for leisure and not
> >> sustainable
> >> transport. [...]
> >
> > Over-generalisation. In some places, they are much more direct than
> > roads.
>
> Once again, MJ Ray dismisses the experience of many of the cyclists on this
> newsgroup. What a surprise.

I'm not. I don't think many of the cyclists on this newsgroup would
make such an obviously false over-generalisation. Just the few who
get a red mist at the S-word. Some of the routes are much more direct.
Would that they all were, but both credit and criticism where it's due.

> [...] If stuff on their routes doesn't come up to
> scratch they should not accept it. Period.

Yes, I think that's arguable.

> They cannot have their cake and
> eat it, which is what you want to do.

Sorry, you're no telepath if that's what you think I want.

[...]
> > The white bicycle footpaths I can recall are all either county botch jobs
> > or section 106 developer botch jobs, not Sustrans routes. The Sustrans
> > paths that do run along roads have been built up to standard, although
> > some now show signs of tree root damage.
>
> Sustrans routes do include white painted bikes on footpaths in KL - I;ve
> cycled them. [...]

Name them, please.

--
MJR/slef

 

[wafflycat]

"MJ Ray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff€y€cat*@€btco*nn€ect.com> wrote:

>>
>> Sustrans routes do include white painted bikes on footpaths in KL - I;ve
>> cycled them. [...]
>
> Name them, please.
>

NCN 1

 

[Danny Colyer]

wafflycat wrote:
> Danny, it's not an over-generalisation. We know the route you take is a good
> one. Would that the one you take be the norm, but it appears not to be from
> the experience of many a cyclist here.

Helen, you wrote that:
> [...] the routes seem to go exceedingly indirect &
> winding routes from A to B, so are suitable for leisure and not
sustainable
> transport. [...]

An "IME" or a "usually" or a "mostly" in there would have made it
perfectly true, but without that ISTM that your comment:
>>>dismisses the experience of many of the cyclists on
>>>this newsgroup.

I'm no fan of Sustrans. I know that the route I use is an exception
rather than the norm, which prevents me from supporting Sustrans. But,
as you so often point out about dealing with courteous lorry drivers,
it's important to occasionally praise the good as well as condemning the
bad.

Criticise the **** that's been foisted on so many of us by Sustrans all
you like. It's important that we do. But don't completely ignore what
they've done right.

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

 

[David Nutter]

On 2006-07-15, MJ Ray <[email protected]> wrote:
> "wafflycat" <w*a*ff€y€cat*@€btco*nn€ect.com>
>> This is where I have a different opinion. I do not see Sustrans as giving
>> cyclists more options, I see them as a very real threat to cycling on road
>> with the emphasis on 'traffic-free' and 'safe' being intermingled [...]
>
> I agree that any Sustrans-related speakers who use a different emphasis to
> the apparent policies of car-free and safer are dangerous for cycling.
> That's part of why I started this thread.
>
>> [...] the routes seem to go exceedingly indirect &
>> winding routes from A to B, so are suitable for leisure and not sustainable
>> transport. [...]
>
> Over-generalisation. In some places, they are much more direct than roads.

Well, yes and no. I'm no fan of the Sustrans routes; the ones I've used have
been consistently horrible, as I shall now tell.

On Thursday evening I went to this fine Pubbe
(http://www.bottleandglass.co.uk/ located at
www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=53.2255&lon=-0.6832&scale=100000&icon=x)
for the consumption of BEER and PIES with other folk from the local
conservation group. Since the majority of the group didn't fancy the ride to
Harby along the A57, they decided to go down NCN 64 which is pretty much
direct from the middle of Lincoln and I joined them to be sociable.

The surface is horrible: gravel on top of hardpack dirt or broken tarmac for
added fun when braking or cornering. At one point it takes a random detour
through a pub carpark, then slaloms through some kind of daft barrier
arrangement composed of 4 bollards. You could just about get through it
without dismounting on a compact frame MTB; my tourer with a single pannier
stood no chance. It's so narrow that one can't pass or be passed by other
traffic in any direction comfortably and consequently our speed was so slow
that it took 50 nerve-wracking minutes to get from Lincoln to Harby.

On the return journey, I took the road and made it back in about half an
hour despite the steak and beer consumed reducing my speed. Other, braver
souls went on the path again in the dark, taking just over an hour to get
back.

Regards,

-david

 

[Peter Clinch]

bookieb wrote:

> I agree with you in general terms, but many large organisations tend to
> get stuck at either ridiculous extreme, e.g:
> it can't be perfect, so we won't do anything,
> or:
> anything of any standard is better than nothing.
>
> As with most things, the required standard is not perfection, but "fit
> for purpose", "best practice" being an attempt to specify what is
> required to reach that level of fitness i nmost cases.

A fair point, though I personally feel something that slows me down for
no particular reason and increases my level of risk for no particular
reason is arguably falling below "fit for purpose".

We've deliberately abandoned NCN1 in a few places now, because those
particular bits were just Too ****. This is folk in no hurry on a
trundly tour.

> ISTM, as a disinterested observer, that there is no clear agreement as
> to what that purpose is in respect of many of the Sustrans routes.
>
> Until the purpose(s) for which they are intended are defined, it's
> difficult to see if the many criticisims (sp?) (principally: poor
> surfaces, indirect route, not to,from or via likely destinations)
> levelled against them are valid.

That is, of itself, one of the criticisms, of course. *I* say they're
basically leisure routes because utility routes that slow you down a lot
and make you take much longer to get where you're going are *not*
utilitarian. Function through fitness for purpose.

> Have Sustrans actually said that these are primarily leisure routes?

No, but as above, and also look at their own description. Aside from
numbers, the main description on the NCN home page is "The National
Cycle Network now passes within one mile of half the population and as
it continues to grow so does its popularity – an amazing 201 million
trips were made on the Network in 2004 alone. The routes are free to use
and open to all, making them a great way for you and your family to stay
fit and healthy while enjoying a breath of fresh air." There isn't
anything about A to B travel.

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

Ian Smith wrote:

> Everyone else is lying when they say they're yet to see a good
> Sustrans path and MJRay alone can recognise excelence in cycle
> facility provision.

I've seen some great ones. But I've seen a lot more much less than
great ones and some completely ridiculously hopeless ones.

But what says a lot is that the bit of our 2004 NCN1 Northern tour we
enjoyed the most was where NCN1 conforms almost 100% to the road network.

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

MJ Ray wrote:

> Look at what the 'quite a few' do to anyone who dares post anything about
> their good experiences of Sustrans, or acknowledges a problem with them
> and tries to do anything to improve matters.

I've acknowledged I've had a nice time on Sustrans routes, to the point
of putting up a web page saying so, and another page of constructive
criticism I sent to them. We'll be using some of their nice maps later
this week.

So, just for the record, what have folk like those Bad Hats Tony and
Helen done to me?

> It's not all about getting
> cyclists off the road: it's about giving more cyclists more options.

The CTC recently felt they had to mount a vigorous campaign to stop us
getting sidelines off the roads into "facilities". Can't you see any
connection?

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/

 

[Peter Clinch]

MJ Ray wrote:
> Unfortunately, the CTC has various problems in membership and communication,
> which I guess either you like or are being outvoted on. Democracy isn't
> perfect either, sadly, else councils wouldn't build so much dross.

My councillor is currently trying to find out why the council (services,
not elected bit) ignored input from cyclists and went ahead and built a
**** route that they'd been told in advance was hopeless. It isn't
always the democracy that's the problem.

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/

 

[wafflycat]

"Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>
> So, just for the record, what have folk like those Bad Hats Tony and Helen
> done to me?

You haven't tasted my cake yet ;-)

Cheers, helen s

 

[Ambrose Nankivell]

wafflycat wrote:
> "Peter Clinch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> So, just for the record, what have folk like those Bad Hats Tony and
>> Helen done to me?
>
> You haven't tasted my cake yet ;-)

Can you do one without milk, eggs, wheat or maize? If so, can you mail one
to me.

A