Sustrans and the lottery

[Michael MacClancy]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:59:26 -0000, Jon Senior wrote:

> MartinM [email protected] opined the following...
>> Out of interest is there an age limit for cycling on the pavement or is it
>> up to individual police discretion?
>
> I believe the age limit is defined by the age of legal responsibility.
> AFAIK there is no exemption for children cycling on the pavement, just
> that they are too young to prosecute.
>
> Jon

A view which is reinforced by the following text from
http://www.grampian.police.uk/output/print-version.cfm?content_refno=657

(I've never seen a site that reminds you of the copyright when you try to
copy from it. Try selecting some text and then right clicking to copy.)

"Another area of concern regarding the standard of cycling in Moray is that
many cyclists think that it is acceptable to cycle on pavements. Grampian
Police would like to stress that this is not only illegal but causes danger
to pedestrians, particularly the blind who cannot see them but also the
deaf who cannot hear bikes approaching. Research has shown that children
under nine years of age are too young to cycle on the road safely,
therefore parents should NOT encourage them to cycle on the pavement, but
should take them to a cycle track or park where cycling is permitted so
they can learn in a safe environment."

In Germany the authorities go about things rather differently. Children
under the age of 9 MUST cycle on the pavement, even when there is a cycle
path. Nine and ten year olds are allowed to cycle on the pavement but
don't have to. Pavement cycling is forbidden for anyone over the age of
ten. This means, of course, that if an adult goes out for a ride with an
eight year old then the adult rides on the road (or cycle path) and the
child on the pavement.

--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

 

[Al C-F]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:55:26 -0000, "MartinM" <[email protected]>
wrote:


>>
>> Let me get this straight. You're advocating that adding to the
>> traffic through encouragement of leisure journeys, and reinforcing the
>> belief that cycling is a leisure pursuit only to be undertaken away
>> from public roads is a good thing?
>
>I'm not advocating anything, I happen to think that people using any sort of
>bike on any sort of journey is better than nothing, btw most riders along my
>Sustrans route ride to and from it. What about riders who drive many miles
>to races and other rides?. Is driving to Wales to go mountain biking any
>better than driving to the local Sustrans route?

In what way, exactly, do any of your examples relate to SUStainable
TRANSport?

>
>> I wish I could use a euphemism like 'novel' or 'unusual' to describe
>> this point of view. Alas, such views have been held for too long by
>> too many for such words to be appropriate.
>>
>> And, (I'm not sure that I've parsed your last sentence correctly), I
>> would prefer that they sat in front of the DVD/PS2 given the effect
>> that 'cycles as playthings' has on the attitude of the motorists who
>> share my roads.
>
>Well they wouldn't and it is not up to you or I to tell them where they
>should be riding a bike; we're not talking abour people abandoning the road
>to ride on Sustrans routes, they are extra journeys.

That people ride their bikes wherever they please is of no concern to
me. That counter-productive farcilities are produced in the name of
SUStainable TRANSport annoys me for the effect it has on the motorists
who share my roads.
>

 

[Al C-F]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:05:05 -0000, "MartinM" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
>message news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:04:43 -0000, "MartinM" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>. And why should
>> >> cycle tracks discriminate against people who choose to ride on narrow
>> >tyres?
>> >
>> >Money I'm afraid, cinder paths are much cheaper than tarmac (and horse
>> >riders probably prefer them but lets not go there)
>>
>> So they even encourage the view that cycling is hard work!
>
>yeah right; a 13 km long path with no hills is really hard work!. Our
>Sustrans routes are surfaced with a self-repairing all weather surface which
>is very nice to cycle on even with 23mm tyres.
>

I cycle 25 miles a day on tarmac roads in all weathers using 28mm
tyres pumped up around 100 psi. I am unlikely to ride the same
distance on knobbly tyres and a sludgy cinder track in the middle of
winter. It's too much like hard work.

 

[Al C-F]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:07:00 +0000, Gonzalez
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On 09 Nov 2004 19:05:10 GMT, [email protected]omcom
>(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:
>
>>>What do you suggest for cyclists who feel intimidated by traffic?
>>
>>Practise on quieter roads first to gain confidence. Study and apply the Highway
>>Code. Study and apply Cyclecraft. Cycle with a companion to gain cofidence.
>>Join a local cycling group...All sorts of ways to gain confidence.
>
>What do you suggest for cyclists who feel intimidated by traffic and
>wish to use their bike to commute?
>
>The options are:
>1. Stuff the intimidation and use the road
>2. Stuff the law and use the pavement
>3. Stuff the environment and go by car

Easy. Suitably motivated potential cyclist looks at the roads they
want to use and sees a few cyclists. Thinks, 'they can do it, why
can't I'. Buys Cyclecraft to find out how it's done. Rides
progressively busier roads.

Solved.

 

[Al C-F]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 06:42:36 +0900, James Annan
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I don't believe that driving a car with a bike on the roof is
>intrinsically more worthy than driving a car without a bike on the roof.

Image is all.

Witness sales of SUVs.

 

[MartinM]

Al C-F wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 20:05:05 -0000, "MartinM" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote
in
> >message news:[email protected]...
> >> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 13:04:43 -0000, "MartinM"
<[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>. And why should
> >> >> cycle tracks discriminate against people who choose to ride on
narrow
> >> >tyres?
> >> >
> >> >Money I'm afraid, cinder paths are much cheaper than tarmac (and
horse
> >> >riders probably prefer them but lets not go there)
> >>
> >> So they even encourage the view that cycling is hard work!
> >
> >yeah right; a 13 km long path with no hills is really hard work!.
Our
> >Sustrans routes are surfaced with a self-repairing all weather
surface which
> >is very nice to cycle on even with 23mm tyres.
> >
>
> I cycle 25 miles a day on tarmac roads in all weathers using 28mm
> tyres pumped up around 100 psi. I am unlikely to ride the same
> distance on knobbly tyres and a sludgy cinder track in the middle of
> winter. It's too much like hard work.


well that's fine because the tracks are not deigned for riders like
you; even if they were tarmacced doesn't sound like you would use them.
Why does cycling have to be so one-size-fits-all? I ride hundreds of
miles on tarmac every year as well but use Sustrans routes whenever it
suits, which is quite often.

 

[MartinM]

I cycle 25 miles a day on tarmac roads in all weathers using 28mm
tyres pumped up around 100 psi. I am unlikely to ride the same
distance on knobbly tyres and a sludgy cinder track in the middle of
winter. It's too much like hard work.

well that's fine because the tracks are not designed for riders like
you; even if they were tarmacced doesn't sound like you would use them.
Why does cycling have to be so one-size-fits-all? I ride hundreds of
miles on tarmac every year as well but use Sustrans routes whenever it
suits, which is quite often. If you don't like Sustrans routes don't
use them, but don't tell other riders whether they should use them or
not.

(KFs thread)

 

[David Martin]

On 9/11/04 7:06 pm, in article [email protected], "Andy
Leighton" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>> Would you say that this is inappropriate cycling for a father and his
>> seven year old?
>
> As long as the idea is to wean the child onto the roads. At one point
> the move from pavement to road has to be made. The longer this move
> is left, the harder it will be (psychologically).

As a fatehr who cycles with his seven year old, it is normally the parent
who is less keen to be on the road.. We take the roads by choice, because
having to stop at all the junctions, watch out for driveways etc. is a lot
of faff and spoils the enjoyment for the child.

Fortunately the drivers round here are quite considerate outside of rush
hour..

...d

 

[David Martin]

On 10/11/04 9:29 am, in article [email protected],
"Michael MacClancy" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Research has shown that children
> under nine years of age are too young to cycle on the road safely,
> therefore parents should NOT encourage them to cycle on the pavement, but
> should take them to a cycle track or park where cycling is permitted so
> they can learn in a safe environment."

And how do they get to the park or cycle track? And how do they learn to
travel on the roads without actually travelling on the roads?

Someone needs to get his braincell back.

...d

 

[David Martin]

On 10/11/04 9:48 am, in article [email protected],
"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> I cycle 25 miles a day on tarmac roads in all weathers using 28mm
> tyres pumped up around 100 psi. I am unlikely to ride the same
> distance on knobbly tyres and a sludgy cinder track in the middle of
> winter. It's too much like hard work.

I used to do 16 hilly miles each way on an MTB. In the summer I would do
this every day with semi-slicks. In winter I would use studded knobblies and
it would take twice as long. Mostly due to the snow and ice. It was a rare
week I did that more than twice.

...d

 

[Al C-F]

On 10 Nov 2004 02:08:22 -0800, "MartinM" <[email protected]> wrote:

>well that's fine because the tracks are not deigned for riders like
>you;

then they're not much use for SUStainable TRANSport.

>even if they were tarmacced doesn't sound like you would use them.

If they were the best way to get me from where I am to where I want to
be, I'd use them.

The definition of 'best' may depend on my mood at the time.

 

[Gonzalez]

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 07:57:35 -0000, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

>Glad to hear it. I know that parents are involved in the walking buses,
>but how would the liability work in this case? I don't wish to
>discourage you, but that is an area I could see being problematic.

Liability is probably little different from a parent giving a another
parent's child a lift to school in their car.

 

[Dave Kahn]

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Chris Malcolm [email protected] opined the following...
> > I recall the stationery officer in a company I once worked for.
> >
> > "Where have all the A4 pads gone?"
> >
> > "We don't stock them any more."
> >
> > "Why not?"
> >
> > "We've been told to improve efficiency and cut costs. We analysed our
> > records and found that A4 pads were our largest single expenditure."
>
> That is scarily "Dilbert"!

I was chatting once to the regional manager of a major oil-field
services company about computerising his stock control system. He was
refusing to spend money on a system as he was supposed to be making
savings. I suggested that efficiency gains in stock control would
produce savings that would pay for the system many times over. He told
me he had a way of saving even more money: he had simply put a stop on
all orders of everything. I thought for a moment then asked him what
would happen if we had a job scheduled in the North Sea and the
engineer discovered that we didn't have enough o-rings, for example.
"No problem. I fly some in from another region then helicopter them
out to the rig."

The un-Dilbertian thing about it was that this manager was a
highly-qualified engineer.

--
Dave...

 

[Jon Senior]

Gonzalez [email protected] opined the following...
> Liability is probably little different from a parent giving a another
> parent's child a lift to school in their car.

Let's hope so.

Jon

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

>
> I recall the stationery officer in a company I once worked for.
>
> "Where have all the A4 pads gone?"
>
> "We don't stock them any more."
>
> "Why not?"
>
> "We've been told to improve efficiency and cut costs. We analysed
our
> records and found that A4 pads were our largest single
expenditure."
>
> Yes, a few managerial explosions later A4 pads were
re-introduced...

In Washington DC, where I used to live, that's known as a "Washington
Monument" cut. Whenever the National Park Service had a budget cut,
they would always reduce the hours that the Washington Monument,
Washington's most popular visitor attaction, was open, explaining
that yes it was very regretable etc., but unfortunately there had
been these budget cuts, and there was no alternative. The cuts never
lasted long.

We are fortunate that bluff honest Brit's would never be that
devious.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"MartinM" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I cycle 25 miles a day on tarmac roads in all weathers using 28mm
> tyres pumped up around 100 psi. I am unlikely to ride the same
> distance on knobbly tyres and a sludgy cinder track in the middle
of
> winter. It's too much like hard work.
>
> well that's fine because the tracks are not designed for riders
like
> you; even if they were tarmacced doesn't sound like you would use
them.
> Why does cycling have to be so one-size-fits-all?
>

As a cyclist, I had already deduced that. In fact Sustrans design
standards say that they are not suitable for **any** regular
cyclists, because riding regularly makes you too fit for the design
speeds used.

Now please tell the motorists, who are often less familiar with the
fine distinctions between cyclists

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]>
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >Hi Helen,
> >
> >I think that you dismiss much of the excellent work Sustrans does
by
> >looking at some seemingly absurd cycle facilities.
>
> It's the absurd farcilities that send out very clear signals.
>
> >Sustrans is a charity set up to encourage sustainable forms of
> >transport, of which the promotion of cycling at all levels is at
its
> >core.
>
> Farcilities are *not* sustainable transport - they are exactly the
opposite.
>
> >At the front line, I am working on a Sustrans funded project to
> >encourage more children to arrive at the school, where I am a
teacher,
> >by any means other than car.
>
> Good, but I do hope you are pointing out and actively working for
any
> *farcilities* to be excluded from any Sustrans work you are
involved in.

Here in London it's not Sustrans that matters, but the London Cycle
network (LCN+), the new draft "Design Standards for Cycling in
London" and the Disablity Act.

It has been realised that some cyclists are disabled, and may be
riding trikes, not bikes, or may be stokers on tandems. This boils
down to, it has been decreed, a minimum width for bike paths and bike
lanes of 1.5 m, except for approach lanes at traffic lights.

With the Disibility Act now going into force, this one requirement is
causing general consternation among London's bicycle bureaucrats.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Jeremy Parker]

"Gonzalez" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> What do you suggest for cyclists who feel intimidated by traffic
and
> wish to use their bike to commute?
>
> The options are:
> 1. Stuff the intimidation and use the road
> 2. Stuff the law and use the pavement
> 3. Stuff the environment and go by car

Not so. The problem of being intimidated by traffic is the same as
the problem of being intimidated by flying, or anything else. If
someone is afraid of flying to New York, you don't fix the problem by
providing aeroplanes that go the whole way across the Atlantic at
only ten feet above the sea.

To cure phobias, any phobia, the techniques are

1. learn the fact and general background about the subject. Find
out what the dangers actually are, and the techniques for avoiding
those dangers that are real

2. Work up to the scariest places gradually and in small doses,
with, to start with, easy ways to bail out when the mental stress
gets too much

To cure a phobia you fix peoples heads, not the outside environment.

Ideally if anyone is rabbiting on about the particular danger, real
or imaginary, associated with that phobia, you get them to shut up in
the presence of the phobia victim.

Jeremy Parker

 

[Michael MacClancy]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:22:19 +0000, Peter Clinch wrote:

> And why should cycle tracks discriminate against people who choose to
> ride on narrow tyres?
>
> Pete.

I think it's fascinating how a comment like this sets the tone for a whole
discussion. Reading it one would think that the NCN wholly comprised
cinder tracks.

Actually, 70% of it is on roads and I guess that a very large proportion of
the off-road element is actually on asphalt or paving.

I have read on urc that sections of the NCN resemble parts of the Somme
battlefield and agree that this is a pity. Sustrans should be encouraged
to remedy this. However, the network isn't as bad as one might believe
from a cursory glance at urc.
--
Michael MacClancy

www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 11:22:19 +0000, Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> And why should cycle tracks discriminate against people who choose
>> to ride on narrow tyres?
>>
>> Pete.
>
> I think it's fascinating how a comment like this sets the tone for a
> whole discussion. Reading it one would think that the NCN wholly
> comprised cinder tracks.

And in any case, if you want to ride on cinder tracks, fit suitable
tyres. Heavens, my road bikes have 20mm tyres, but I'm not religious
about it. If they didn't work for the kind of riding I wanted to do I
could very soon (and relatively cheaply) have 32mm tyres on.

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

;; may contain traces of nuts, bolts or washers.