Sustrans and the lottery

[Simon Brooke]

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

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> I have serious beefs with them - for example, they were given -
>> /given/ - the Big Water of Fleet viaduct, across which it was
>> possible to cycle (and which made an important link in long-distance
>> off-road cycling routes in Galloway, and what did they do? Erect big
>> eight foot high steel barriers at either end. Locked shut.
>>
>
> I hate things like that. It seriously begs the question 'Why'? Do
> they
> think the bridge is unsafe or what? Otherwise it looks like another
> case for the yet-to-be-formed 'Cyclists direct action group' - to get
> down there with some generators and angle grinders, bolt cutters or
> gas bottles and oxy-acetylene torches

According to local rumour, it is because the bridge parapets are too low
- less than 50 cm off the clinker - and they fear to be sued if people
topple over the edge. The viaduct is a good height - if you did topple
over there wouldn't be much need to call an ambulance. But, for
heaven's sake, how stupid do they think people are? The stupidest thing
about this is that the cost of the barriers (and getting them up there
and installing them) must surely have been not an order of magnitude
different from the cost of decent handrails.

I thoroughly agree with you about the need for a direct action group.

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

;; Human history becomes more and more a race between
;; education and catastrophe.
H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"

 

[AndyP]

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote

> I *loathe* the Sustrans agenda of getting
> cyclists off roads - it reinforces the misplaced idea that cyclists have
no
> business being on the road.

That's a very negative attitude. I consider myself lucky to have the choice
of taking the direct route mixing it with the lorries on the road or taking
the scenic offroad option with the wildlife. Whilst on the road I consider
myself as much a part of the traffic as anyone else, ignore the daft bits
meant for bikes to avoid roundabouts etc., and have never felt treated any
differently because I'm on a bike. Bad drivers probably used to cut me up
and pull out in front of me more when I used to drive than they do now.

Who is it exactly that thinks cyclists have no business on the roads anyway?
Someone has already pointed out that a lot of Sustrans routes are on the
roads even if they are circuitous minor ones. Sustrans don't exist for
people who are happy to use A roads in heavy traffic, these people don't
need them. They exist for the substantial portion of people who see the
roads as unpleasant and dangerous and wouldn't use bikes at all if there
wasn't an alternative.

 

[Clive George]

"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> According to local rumour, it is because the bridge parapets are too low
> - less than 50 cm off the clinker - and they fear to be sued if people
> topple over the edge. The viaduct is a good height - if you did topple
> over there wouldn't be much need to call an ambulance. But, for
> heaven's sake, how stupid do they think people are? The stupidest thing
> about this is that the cost of the barriers (and getting them up there
> and installing them) must surely have been not an order of magnitude
> different from the cost of decent handrails.

50cm is too low for viaduct parapets IMO. Fine for railways, as they rely on
rails, parapets needing to be somewhat bigger than feasible against
something train-sized. But I would agree that railings of some form are the
answer. (probably railings with mesh, like on the A65 bridge near us.)
Next question is, can the parapets take suitable railings? It's actually
potentially quite hard - if it's masonry, you can't just attach to the top
of the wall.

cheers,
clive

 

[MartinM]

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> >And the amount of segregation in DK is considerably less than in NL, if
my
> >experiences of cycling in both are in any way typical. The difference is
> >that Dutch and Danish motorists do not posses the "cyclists are a species
of
> >vermin" mindset, if yer arsks me.
>
> This is one thing I do dislike about we Brits. Stick us behind the wheel
of
> motorised transport and we have a tendency to become psychopaths where we
show
> a seeming increasing tendency to think the road is there for our our
individual
> use and woe betide anyone who gets in our way. And if the other lowlife in
our
> way happens to be a non-motorised road user, then they are the scum of the
> earth who deserve to be intimidated and run off the road (slight
exaggeration,
> but you get my drift).

right on the money there, if you want to get a lift off a passing motorist
the best thing you can do is carry a petrol can, you then become stranded
decent person (who just happens to have ignored his/her flashy orange light
for the last n miles) rather than freeloading scum.

BTW France is the worst hitchhiking country in the EU apparently

 

[Gonzalez]

On 07 Nov 2004 07:56:40 GMT, [email protected]omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

>I don't - for the simple reason it encourages the idea that cyclists should not
>be on the road, and too many of their "farcilities" are just that - a farce.
>Cycle paths that are quagmires in the wet, that have bollards in the middle of
>them, that are simply and existing footpath with a bit of white paint on
>them...

Hi Helen,

I think that you dismiss much of the excellent work Sustrans does by
looking at some seemingly absurd cycle facilities.

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.

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.

There is no quick fix, and I am keen that any improvements I make are
medium or long term.

First I need to find out how people travel to school, so I know who to
target. For example, in my class, 13 children arrive at school by
car, 13 children arrive on foot, 3 arrive by bus and 1 cycles. (Most
children live within two miles of the school and the girl who cycles
lives four miles away.)

The children to target are those who come by car.

Next I need to do a more detailed survey of those who arrive at school
be car. Why do they come by car? What would it take to get them out
of cars?

Solutions being looked at are grouping children who live close to each
other and setting up walking busses and cycle trains, where they are
collected and escorted to school by parent volunteers.

I would also like to see some older children travel to school
independently, and to encourage that we are looking to give children
additional road safety training and cycle proficiency training.

Cycle proficiency would be at three levels:
1. Basic cycling skills in the playground (Year 4)
2. Further cycle control, and basic road cycling skills (Year 5)
3. Road cycling skills, including traffic lights, right turns and
mini roundabouts; bike maintenance (Year 6)

I hope that Sustrans will pay for me, a colleague and two parent
volunteers to attend a four day training course qualifying us to teach
cycle proficiency to children, as described above.

But however proficient we make the children, we cannot affect the
habits of drivers. We can ask Sustrans to provide children with high
visibility jackets, but the stupidity of a small minority of drivers
knows no bounds.

We may have to ask the council to change a junction layout, we may
have to request a push button cycle crossing, and yes, we may have to
request on or off road cycle lanes - even some paths to be made shared
use.

It is not just about making cycling safe, it's about making people's
perception of cycling being safe. And unless people perceive that
their child will be safe cycling to school, they will continue to
drive.

People generally perceive Sustrans cycle routes as being safer than
other routes, and in that respect Sustrans deserve the support of the
entire cycling community. But producing a cycle network is only the
visible side of Sustrans work. They also do much work which is less
visible.

And little things can make a difference. Each year for the last 5
years I have led a local Sunday cycle ride for my pupils. As I have
no cycle qualification I have to insist that a parent or carer
accompanies each child. One Year 4 child desperately wanted to come
on the ride but his father had no bike. He borrowed one, and rode for
the first time in twenty years. He enjoyed the experience so much he
now cycles to work daily - accompanying his child to school first.

Fine, Helen, point errors out to Sustrans, but don't write them off as
a force for the good of cycling on the basis of a few seemingly absurd
facilities.

 

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

>Unfortunately, his attitude is far too prevalent in planning and
>motoring communities.

He also seems to forget that a lot of us here are motorists as well as
cyclists, so actually aren't anti-motoring nutcases. I honestly believe that
being a regular on-road cyclist has made me far more aware of vulnerable road
users when I'm in motorist mode. Perhaps instead of segregating cyclists, more
people who are primarily motorists at present should spend time out on their
bikes, getting to see life from the other end of the scale.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

 

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

>That's a very negative attitude.

Everytime there is a white bike painted on a footpath to designate it a
shared-use facility (totally inappropriately) it reinforces the idea that is
put forward by the tablold press that cyclists have no business on the roads.
Sustrans plays into this everytime it has such a farcility.

snippity..


>Who is it exactly that thinks cyclists have no business on the roads anyway?

Read the press and you'll see it's a publicised view of many, as supposedly
"safe routes for cycling"

>Someone has already pointed out that a lot of Sustrans routes are on the
>roads even if they are circuitous minor ones. Sustrans don't exist for
>people who are happy to use A roads in heavy traffic, these people don't
>need them. They exist for the substantial portion of people who see the
>roads as unpleasant and dangerous and wouldn't use bikes at all if there
>wasn't an alternative.

AFAIAA, Sustrans is supposed to be about sustainable transport - which is not
just about leisure cycling.

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

 

[JohnB]

Gonzalez wrote:

> 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.

<Snip excellent work>

> It is not just about making cycling safe, it's about making people's
> perception of cycling being safe. And unless people perceive that
> their child will be safe cycling to school, they will continue to
> drive.

Your initiatives sound superb.
Where are you based?
i am interested in learning more.

pm if you wish: john(at)jpbdesign(dot)net

John B

 

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

>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. Unlike
when I reported the bollard on NCN13 near me to the local Sustrans person and
was told it was safer than cycling in the road, which is a load of complete,
err.. bollards ;-) If Sustrans was more visible about good quality visible and
genuinely sustainable cycling facilities, I'd support it. As it is, I cannot
support an organisation that I see effectively encouraging the view that
cyclists should not be cycling on the public highway in order to be safe, and
that the painting of a bike on a footpath a safe and adequate cycling facility
make, and that for a cycle facility to be safe it has to somehow be
ridiculously circuituous that to get from A to B, you have to go via J, S & Q
to be "safe". If people are perceiving cycling on a footpath to be safe, they
are wrong and for Sustrans to encourage this view is also wrong IMO.

snippity..


>And little things can make a difference

Indeed, as I've already said, every white bike painted on a footpath to make it
a cycle path is making a bad difference IMO.

snippity..


>Fine, Helen, point errors out to Sustrans, but don't write them off as
>a force for the good of cycling on the basis of a few seemingly absurd
>facilities.

Sadly they seem to have more than a few absurd facilities...

Cheers, helen s


--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

 

[Simonb]

MartinM wrote:

> BTW France is the worst hitchhiking country in the EU apparently

Absolutely true. A friend and I hitchiked down to Brindisi once. After a day
and a half, we gave up on France as we'd got no further than just south of
Boulougne. We headed towards Belgium -- a completely different story
(admittedly we were picked up by some Poles, so not really par for the
course). Germany was amazing! Aachen to Munich in one go!

Remember hitch-hikers? Don't see them very often these days.

 

[MartinM]

"Simonb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MartinM wrote:
>
> > BTW France is the worst hitchhiking country in the EU apparently
>
> Absolutely true. A friend and I hitchiked down to Brindisi once. After a
day
> and a half, we gave up on France as we'd got no further than just south of
> Boulougne. We headed towards Belgium -- a completely different story
> (admittedly we were picked up by some Poles, so not really par for the
> course). Germany was amazing! Aachen to Munich in one go!

I spent 4 days near Strasbourg once, SNCF rural train services make the
Scottish Highlands positively lavish by comparison; and we missed our last
train back; walked 20km with outstretched thumb to no avail, one driver
followed us for about 1km before driving literally next to us for another km
and then driving off!

> Remember hitch-hikers? Don't see them very often these days.

no indeed, perhaps National Express and Virgin have made travel more
affordable, or perhaps car drivers are just too scared of who they might end
up with in their cars ;-(

 

[Gonzalez]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:25:22 +0000, JohnB <[email protected]> wrote:

>Your initiatives sound superb.

It's still at *talking shop* stage. (Except for the Family Cycle
Ride).

>Where are you based?

Lewisham, South East London.

>i am interested in learning more.

http://www.saferoutestoschools.org.uk/index.php?f=travel_plans.htm

>pm if you wish: john(at)jpbdesign(dot)net

I'd prefer to keep this on Usenet while it's of general group
interest. However, I'll email you from my school address in case you
want more specific details.

 

[MartinM]

> (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:
>
> >I don't - for the simple reason it encourages the idea that cyclists
should not
> >be on the road, and too many of their "farcilities" are just that - a
farce.
> >Cycle paths that are quagmires in the wet, that have bollards in the
middle of
> >them, that are simply and existing footpath with a bit of white paint on
> >them...

Try coming down to the South East and seeing the traffic volume and driving
standards (inc HGV's) that we are expected to send our kids out to mix it
with! you would welcome all the excellent improvements Sustrans have done.

 

[Simonb]

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:

> Sadly they seem to have more than a few absurd facilities...

You haven't taken on Gonzales' points at all. You've just rattled on about
how bad some Sustrans facilities are. We all know this, Gonzales is aware of
such shortcomings and was pointing out that, for some people, this is the
only riding they can tolerate. I'm sure you didn't start Kevin on main roads
when he first started riding. For a lot of people, Sustrans routes are a
re-introduction to cycling.

Also, as a Sustrans volunteer, Gonzales is doing dreat work at encouraging
more cycle use at his school -- you chose to completely ignore this point
and the other aspects of their work.

 

[Gonzalez]

On 08 Nov 2004 20:33:04 GMT, [email protected]omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

>>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.

I will work hard to have a safe cycle route through the station car
park close to the school. It is a short cut between the town centre
and the school, and with drivers reversing without looking it is a
real danger. Cyclists cannot expect to be able to enter the car park
at full tilt with clueless drivers about. If it takes a bollard in
the middle of the cycle lane to slow then down - so be it.

>Unlike
>when I reported the bollard on NCN13 near me to the local Sustrans person and
>was told it was safer than cycling in the road, which is a load of complete,
>err.. bollards ;-) If Sustrans was more visible about good quality visible and
>genuinely sustainable cycling facilities, I'd support it. As it is, I cannot
>support an organisation that I see effectively encouraging the view that
>cyclists should not be cycling on the public highway in order to be safe, and
>that the painting of a bike on a footpath a safe and adequate cycling facility
>make, and that for a cycle facility to be safe it has to somehow be
>ridiculously circuituous that to get from A to B, you have to go via J, S & Q
>to be "safe". If people are perceiving cycling on a footpath to be safe, they
>are wrong and for Sustrans to encourage this view is also wrong IMO.

While I broadly agree with you, I suggest that once people start
cycling on pavements they soon gain confidence and move onto the
roads.

I take the view that any cycling is better than no cycling.

>snippity..
>
>
>>And little things can make a difference
>
>Indeed, as I've already said, every white bike painted on a footpath to make it
>a cycle path is making a bad difference IMO.

NO. It shows that that footpath is also an approved cycle route -
perhaps a short cut, or a tricky junction bypass. Once people have
the confidence they will realise that the road are usually the best
place for cycling - but what are they to do before they reach that
level of confidence?

To expect a new or returning cyclist to use roads from day 1 is
unrealistic.

>
>snippity..
>
>
>>Fine, Helen, point errors out to Sustrans, but don't write them off as
>>a force for the good of cycling on the basis of a few seemingly absurd
>>facilities.
>
>Sadly they seem to have more than a few absurd facilities...

Next time you go out and about in Norfolk, look for the good cycle
facilities. You may just be surprised at how much good is going on.

 

[Gonzalez]

On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:55:33 -0000, "Simonb"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Also, as a Sustrans volunteer, Gonzales is doing dreat work at encouraging
>more cycle use at his school -- you chose to completely ignore this point
>and the other aspects of their work.

I have to point out that I am not a Sustrans volunteer.

I am a paid teacher working with Sustrans and the local council to
draw up and implement a School Travel Plan. It is part of my
management responsibility within the school.

I organise the Family Cycle Ride on a voluntary basis - but that has
no connection with Sustrans, and is only one day a year.

 

[Al C-F]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:07:22 +0000, Gonzalez
<[email protected]> wrote:

>People generally perceive Sustrans cycle routes as being safer than
>other routes, and in that respect Sustrans deserve the support of the
>entire cycling community.

Perception and reality have already been discussed on this thread.
The line of discussion would not support your assertion.

 

[Al C-F]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:11:30 +0000, Gonzalez
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>Indeed, as I've already said, every white bike painted on a footpath to make it
>>a cycle path is making a bad difference IMO.
>
>NO. It shows that that footpath is also an approved cycle route -
>perhaps a short cut, or a tricky junction bypass. Once people have
>the confidence they will realise that the road are usually the best
>place for cycling - but what are they to do before they reach that
>level of confidence?

Why should they be encouraged to gain their confidence by riding on
the least safe part of the highway?

 

[JohnB]

Al C-F wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 20:07:22 +0000, Gonzalez
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >People generally perceive Sustrans cycle routes as being safer than
> >other routes, and in that respect Sustrans deserve the support of the
> >entire cycling community.
>
> Perception and reality have already been discussed on this thread.
> The line of discussion would not support your assertion.

Unfortunately 'people' consists of a much wider group than the
experienced cyclists on this ng.
Gonzalez is right - you may not like it, and I don't, but IME if you ask
any group of non-cyclists the consensus is that off-road routes are
perceived to be safer than riding on the roads.

John B

 

[Gonzalez]

On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:46:35 +0000, Al C-F
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:11:30 +0000, Gonzalez
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Indeed, as I've already said, every white bike painted on a footpath to make it
>>>a cycle path is making a bad difference IMO.
>>
>>NO. It shows that that footpath is also an approved cycle route -
>>perhaps a short cut, or a tricky junction bypass. Once people have
>>the confidence they will realise that the road are usually the best
>>place for cycling - but what are they to do before they reach that
>>level of confidence?
>
>Why should they be encouraged to gain their confidence by riding on
>the least safe part of the highway?

Because otherwise they may not cycle at all.

Besides, I'd dispute a claim that a busy road or tricky junction is
the safest place for someone to learn to gain cycling confidence. I
learnt to cycle on a crazy paving path in my parents' garden,
graduating to the pavement, quiet roads and eventually busy roads.

I still felt uncomfortable when I cycled part of the A74 between
Carlisle and Gretna on my LEJOG attempt, and have never felt very safe
on the A2 between Kidbrooke and the Sun in Sands roundabout.