Sustrans and the lottery

[John Pitcock]

A bridge was built over the River Rea in Birmingham on NCN 5, there was a T
junction at each end. The parapets were built high for safety but they were
of solid masonry so you couldn't see who was coming. After complaints
windows were knocked out and protected with railings.

(This route is useful to me as it runs from 200metres from home off road
north towards the city centre and south to the countryside).

> 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.

 

[Chris Malcolm]

David Martin <[email protected]> writes:

>Good health is even more useful if you are going to be knocked off. Fit
>healthy people tend to survive better than unfit unhealthy people.

I think it's a pretty strong tendency. I've read lots of smash up
reports with great interest, because getting smashed up used to be a
hobby of mine when I was a young fool. With respect to the severity of
injury when you're hurled onto a pile of boulders (for example), the
fitter you are the much less damage you suffer. Apart from good
muscles, tendons, etc., and lack of excess weight, fit people tend to
have much tougher bones simply because of the hammering their bones
get from muscles and impact.

So fit folk start out with less severe injuries. But they also recover
from injuries much better. In this case it's not just the fitness,
it's the attitude. They are determined to recover, and they work at
the physiotherapy exercises, etc.. Having worked my way painfully
through a number of physiotherapy course, I'm stunned by how little
effort some folk put into them. I've watched people go through entire
sessions only moving when the instructor actually looked at
them. Well, it's usually a painful effort. They only turned up for the
company. There's plenty who don't even turn up.

I've never been especially fit, just fitter than average car driver
because I've avoided cars for health reasons (both physical and
financial . But I've always recovered from smash ups very much
better than I was expected to. In two cases I recovered so well I had
to get the later reviewers to actually read the case notes, because
they simply refused to believe my own report of the severity of
damage.

I put it down to determination to recover. When I was a young fool I
tended to believe what docs told me was likely to happen. After a lot
of much better recoveries than docs insisted were possible, I now
usually ask them how much they're prepared to bet . Unfortunately
none of them would put money on their pessimistic prognostications
:-(.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[James Annan]

MartinM wrote:


> This is all very fine and idealistic but the fact is Sustrans gets people
> out on bikes who would never normally ride on the road.

If all they do is drive to the local linear park, pootle up and down,
and drive home, then it is not clear to me that this is a good thing.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Al C-F <[email protected]> writes:

>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:10:35 GMT, "Saxon" <[email protected]>
>wrote:

>> but if the government put enough money in then
>>your Son would get a dedicated cycle route which is as direct as the road
>>from door to school and segregates him from traffic as is done in much of
>>Holland.

>Wrong answer. A zero-cost solution could be effected by better
>standards of driving.

Explain how you improve driving standards without spending any money.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Al C-F <[email protected]> writes:

>On 08 Nov 2004 10:46:20 GMT, [email protected]omcom
>(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

>>I make no apologies for being open about my intense dislike of the growing
>>school of thought in the UK that cyclists have no place on the roads. It is
>>victim-blaming. Lest you forget, we cyclists have a right to be there. Greater
>>safety can be effected by a sea-change in the attitude that bad motorists *who
>>are the main problem* should be allowed to carry on without censure - move the
>>victim, not the problem, is not a view I agree with.

>Agreed.

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

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...

As age-related grumpiness progresses, I'm beginning to think it's a
mistake to give these people jobs. We'd save money and improve
efficiency by keeping them on unemployment benefit.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Peter Clinch]

MartinM wrote:

> This is all very fine and idealistic but the fact is Sustrans gets people
> out on bikes who would never normally ride on the road. All the Sustrans
> facilities in my area are excellent, well used, much preferable to the roads
> (unless riding on 20mm tyres) and all connect with railway lines. Sorry to
> say it but cycling on the road is more dangerous, we have had a lot more
> (experienced) cyclists killed on the local roads than on what you call
> "farcilities"; an HGV tends to do more damage than a collision with a
> pedestrian.

This misses the point that you tend to get the collisions with HGVs at
right of way conflicts, and you get right of way conflicts where cycle
lanes meet roads, as they inevitably do. So though our cyclist won't
get pranged on the cycle track s/he may well get totalled at the
interface with the road, which wouldn't be an issue if they'd been on
the road the whole time. Segregated tracks are /not/ necessarily safer
if they interface with road networks, and they all do.

Also there's preferable and there's preferable. If I want to get to
Monifieth in a relaxed manner I'll ride along the shared use path along
the Tay, but if I'm pressed for time I'll take the road. Which is
preferable? Well, it depends on the circumstances. And why should
cycle tracks discriminate against people who choose to ride on narrow tyres?

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/

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Al C-F <[email protected]> writes:

>On Mon, 8 Nov 2004 15:11:32 -0000, "Jeremy Parker"
><[email protected]> wrote:

>>A bump that effectively bumps such a
>>vehicle ***really*** bumps a bike with well pumped up 23mm tyres. If
>>you are trapped in a 1.5m trough with the only alternatives hitting
>>that bump, or hitting the broken glass/bits of tyre/exhaust pipe/fan
>>belt, that's not a very welcome situation

>Indeed, I have bent a frame on such a bump, at only moderate speed.

At my last motorcycle MOT they detected a minor eccentricity in a
wheel which they agreed to pass on the grounds that if I got a new
wheel it wouldn't take long before it too suffered. "It's the speed
bumps and pot holes", they told me, "You wouldn't believe how many
wheels the police motorcycles go through!"

--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Simon Brooke]

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

> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> in message <[email protected]>, Richard
>> Goodman ('[email protected]') wrote:
>>
>>> "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.
>>
> Well, 50cm is quite low, but still if that was the problem then the
> answer is obviously to put guard rails in - as you say, surely the
> cost of simple
> rails could not have been an order of magnitude more than the gates.
> If it was an important off-road link route then it ought to have been
> worth putting some of their money into it instead of some of the other
> things they
> have done! And if it had been used before as a route in the condition
> it was without problems for the users, which presumably it must have
> been in order to be an important link, it really does beg the question
> of whether this is not just nanny state meets compensation culture
> again, and why, if they were concerned about any possible liability,
> they just couldn't have put up large warnings signs and disclaimers
> instead of closing the route to
> all access. But better of course would have been to put up the rails.
> Wasn't any fuss raised with them about it at the time?

H'mmm... I think I mislead with my use of 'important link'. I think it
is, because the old railway is one of the best routes through Galloway
and gets you quickly and easily into some spectacularly wild places;
but it's never been greatly cycled, because (in the past) other
landowners along the route have heavily discouraged cycling. Now they
are no longer legally able to do so. But it isn't heavily travelled.
Indeed, if you follow the line of the railway from the viaduct through
to Loch Skerrow, you have to pass through a section which is fairly
overgrown and cannot see more than a few dozen cycles a year.

But that is kind of the point. Open the viaduct to cyclists, and the
whole line becomes a cycle route available to less-adventurous
cyclists. Leave it closed, and the route is only available to the
adventurous. If the viaduct were open, I'm sure the route would see
many more cyclists - it would be infinitely preferable to the current
NCN7

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

IMHO, there aren't enough committed Christians, but that's care
in the community for you. -- Ben Evans

 

[Chris Malcolm]

Gonzalez <[email protected]> writes:

>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.)

When I was at school fifty years ago more than 50% cycled on dry days,
and most of those who didn't cycle walked. The rest used busses. Bus
use went up in the rain.

>The children to target are those who come by car.

I don't think any came by car regularly. The few who did once or twice
arrive by parental car got mocked for being soft sissies.

>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.

It was generally accepted by parents and police that twelve was old
enough to walk, cycle, or bus to school, any distance, on your
own. Many parents thought it was ok at eight.

>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)

Our secondary schools were visited once a year by a cycling policeman,
who spent the whole day giving lessons in roadcraft, and practical
exercises in the playground.
--
Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

 

[Rich]

"Chris Malcolm" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Al C-F <[email protected]> writes:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:10:35 GMT, "Saxon" <[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>
>>> but if the government put enough money in then
>>>your Son would get a dedicated cycle route which is as direct as the road
>>>from door to school and segregates him from traffic as is done in much of
>>>Holland.
>
>>Wrong answer. A zero-cost solution could be effected by better
>>standards of driving.
>
> Explain how you improve driving standards without spending any money.

without wishing to take the words out of anyone's mouth, the answer is that
any spending on improving driving standards is more than offset by the
reduction in costs of collisions. Indeed, it would appear to be the case
that spending on improving driving standards would be extremely profitable,
the only problem being that the profit accrues to a government department
different to the one spending the money on improving driving standards.
> --

 

[MartinM]

"James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MartinM wrote:
>
>
> > This is all very fine and idealistic but the fact is Sustrans gets
people
> > out on bikes who would never normally ride on the road.
>
> If all they do is drive to the local linear park, pootle up and down,
> and drive home, then it is not clear to me that this is a good thing.

Well I would not want to do the same but it's bums on saddles ATEOTD; and
the more riders that use it the better surely? or would you rather that they
drove even further to not cycle anywhere or sat in front of DVD/PS2?

 

[MartinM]

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

.. Segregated tracks are /not/ necessarily safer
> if they interface with road networks, and they all do.

well our local ones avoid a lot more hazardous junctions than the adjacent
roads (often via bridges and tunnels)

.. 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)

 

[Gonzalez]

On 09 Nov 2004 09:49:41 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:11:30 +0000,
> Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>> While I broadly agree with you, I suggest that once people start
>> cycling on pavements they soon gain confidence and move onto the
>> roads.
>
>There is also the other view that they see cycling on pavements
>as the normal, sensible thing to do and will cycle on pavements
>which don't have the magic paint.
>
>Now I haven't seen or know of any study that tries to measure the
>perceptions of new, returning or even non-cyclists wrt where bikes
>are safest and where they should be but I feel the increase in
>pavement cyclists (and what they have told me when I suggested riding
>in the road) suggests that quite a number do not move onto the roads
>as they believe that they are safest and should be on the pavements.

What do you suggest for cyclists who feel intimidated by traffic?

A seven year old in my class cycles 4 - 5 Km across Lewisham,
including crossing the A20 and A2211. Her father accompanies her
daily, but looks forward to the day when she can cycle independently.

For part of the route, along the River Ravenbourne, they use an off
road cycle path. For other parts they use the road, and along busy
roads they use the pavement.

Would you say that this is inappropriate cycling for a father and his
seven year old?

 

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

>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.

>A seven year old in my class cycles 4 - 5 Km across Lewisham,
>including crossing the A20 and A2211. Her father accompanies her
>daily, but looks forward to the day when she can cycle independently.
>
>For part of the route, along the River Ravenbourne, they use an off
>road cycle path. For other parts they use the road, and along busy
>roads they use the pavement.
>
>Would you say that this is inappropriate cycling for a father and his
>seven year old?

I can't comment in detail as I don't know the area in detail. When I was a kid
of seven I was given clear instructions by my parents as to where & when I
could cycle and what roads I was allowed to cycle along and importantly - the
ones I was not allowed to be on by virtue of them being too busy. As I grew in
age & experience the reins were gradually loosened so I could cycle over a
wider distance. I also had cycle training (Cycling Proficiency - and once I
passed it I was allowed much more independent cycling). I can also relate to
the experience of teaching my own child to cycle. At first I severely limited
the number of places I allowed him to cycle. The he was only allowed to cycle
on road accompanied by his father or I, so we taught him roadcraft/traffic
awareness/assertive cycling. As he grew in confidence, we allowed him to cycle
unaccompanied over longer distances and on a greater range of roads.Now, age
sixteen, he cycles county-wide and I know I've done the best I can to equip him
with the skills he requires to be as safe as possible. Saying that, there's no
guarantees, but I'd be wrong to keep him off the road because I worry - and
believe me, I do worry, it comes as a major part of the job description of
being a mother ;-) Part of growing up is learning to cope with the risks life
throws at you in as part of normal life. Part of being a parent is to learn to
let go.

There's a school not far from me (primary) where I see kids & their parents
cycling to & from school on what is a busy road at that time. It's a lovely
thing to see.

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--

 

[Andy Leighton]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:32:08 +0000,
Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 09 Nov 2004 09:49:41 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 21:11:30 +0000,
>> Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> While I broadly agree with you, I suggest that once people start
>>> cycling on pavements they soon gain confidence and move onto the
>>> roads.
>>
>>There is also the other view that they see cycling on pavements
>>as the normal, sensible thing to do and will cycle on pavements
>>which don't have the magic paint.
>>
>>Now I haven't seen or know of any study that tries to measure the
>>perceptions of new, returning or even non-cyclists wrt where bikes
>>are safest and where they should be but I feel the increase in
>>pavement cyclists (and what they have told me when I suggested riding
>>in the road) suggests that quite a number do not move onto the roads
>>as they believe that they are safest and should be on the pavements.
>
> What do you suggest for cyclists who feel intimidated by traffic?
>
> A seven year old in my class cycles 4 - 5 Km across Lewisham,

[snip]

> 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).

I don't know Lewisham, and I don't have children - so I cannot say
what I would do with any certainty. But I would maybe take the child
for rides on quiet roads (outside school hours) and gradually
get them used to traffic before the "pavement is safe, road is dangerous"
meme takes hold. Of course everything depends on the confidence and
ability of the child when they eventually start using the road for real.

If I was the father I wouldn't be cycling on the pavement (assuming there
is no magic paint) as it sets a bad example. I would probably get off and
walk those bits - I would let the child cycle and explain it is because
he is young and when he gets older he can ride on the road like a grown-up.
But I would have no hesitation on using the off-road cycle-paths with a
seven year old who isn't ready to use the roads (which are often at
their worst when children would be using them).

I didn't say that there were easy answers to any of my original points
but over-reliance on cycle-paths DO seem to lead to some people believing
the roads are too dangerous to cycle on and end up riding on normal
pavements.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

 

[dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers]

>If I was the father I wouldn't be cycling on the pavement (assuming there
>is no magic paint) as it sets a bad example. I would probably get off and
>walk those bits - I would let the child cycle and explain it is because
>he is young and when he gets older he can ride on the road like a grown-up.

Sensible thing to do.

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--

 

[MartinM]

"dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> >If I was the father I wouldn't be cycling on the pavement (assuming there
> >is no magic paint) as it sets a bad example. I would probably get off
and
> >walk those bits - I would let the child cycle and explain it is because
> >he is young and when he gets older he can ride on the road like a
grown-up.
>
> Sensible thing to do.
>
> Cheers, helen s

I have no qualms about my youngest cycling on the pavement as he is
a) too wobbly to go on the road and also has a habit of dropping the thing
when he gets bored
b) too slow to be a hazard;
I cycle parallel to him on the road.
Out of interest is there an age limit for cycling on the pavement or is it
up to individual police discretion?

 

[Al C-F]

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 12:59:57 -0000, "MartinM" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Well I would not want to do the same but it's bums on saddles ATEOTD; and
>the more riders that use it the better surely? or would you rather that they
>drove even further to not cycle anywhere or sat in front of DVD/PS2?

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 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.

 

[Al C-F]

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!

 

[Al C-F]

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 18:32:08 +0000, Gonzalez
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What do you suggest for cyclists who feel intimidated by traffic?

Read 'Cyclecraft' and practise on progressively busier roads.

>
>A seven year old in my class cycles 4 - 5 Km across Lewisham,
>including crossing the A20 and A2211. Her father accompanies her
>daily, but looks forward to the day when she can cycle independently.
>
>For part of the route, along the River Ravenbourne, they use an off
>road cycle path. For other parts they use the road, and along busy
>roads they use the pavement.
>
>Would you say that this is inappropriate cycling for a father and his
>seven year old?

I would say that her father has no place cycling on the pavement.