Sustrans and the lottery

  • Thread starter dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
  • Start date



On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 12:37:26 GMT, "Rich"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"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.
>> --

>

To which I can only add that proper enforcement of the existing laws
would also reduce the spend on collisions.
 
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:21:54 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>
>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."


Marconi Radar, 1988?
 
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 19:24:37 -0000, "MartinM" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Out of interest is there an age limit for cycling on the pavement or is it
>up to individual police discretion?


I think that police are advised to use a great deal of discretion.
They are unlikely ever to ask children under 16 to use a road and are
advised not to prevent any pavement cyclist unless they are causing a
nuisance.

At one time I believed that the law was set by wheel size but I no
longer believe this to be correct.
 
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:25:58 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
Malcolm) wrote:

>>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!"


Despite the damage to my frame, I was told that I 'must' have been
safer because the speed bumps have slowed the traffic.

The small claims procedure is a wonderful thing.
 
"Al C-F" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
> 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'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?

> 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.
 
"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.
 
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
 
>>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


See all of above ^^^^^^^^^^ as they apply to anyone wishing to gain confidence
cycling. Nothing has to be stuffed except the view that there are no options!

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--
 
On 09 Nov 2004 19:06:55 GMT, Andy Leighton <[email protected]>
wrote:

>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).


One thing this girl does not lack is confidence. But... she has only
been cycling to school for 9 weeks.

I cannot fault the dad for his support of his daughter.

>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.


Lewisham is a busy Inner London region. At 8.30am the A20 and A2211
carry very heavy commuter traffic, as well as delivery lorries and
vans entering London from Kent.

After crossing the A20 and Lewisham High Street the father and
daughter are faced with a right hand turn onto Lewisham Hill to the
plateau of Blackheath. The pavement is wide and it is along this
pavement that the pair cycle on the right of the road to avoid a busy
right hand junction without lights.

Multimap detail:

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=538000&Y=176000

Photo of the roundabout. The right hand turn is just out of view at
the top right hand corner of this photo.

http://www2.lewisham.gov.uk/commproperty/property/images/Roundabout_close-up.jpg

And here's a painting of Lewisham Hill in the 1820s. Notice the broad
pavment on the left (on the right going up the hill) which exist to
this day. Indeed, the raised section of pavement is still as it was
then.

http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/lewisham/blackheath/lewisham-hill-01347-640.jpg

>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 think we have to trust this father to use his best judgement.

Believe me, there is not an easy solution.

My underlying point is that while we may all say that it's a great
idea for children to walk or cycle to school, things are never as
simple as they seem. We have to examine the reason why children
aren't walking or cycling, and address those issues. And if the
parents perceive the roads to be unsafe, let's look at the possibility
of cycle paths/lanes or shared use paths around schools.

Sustrans is doing excellent work in providing *Safe Routes to School*,
and work hard to educate local authorities, who are probably largely
to blame for the seeming absurd cycling facilities often blamed on
Sustrans.

But I still say that it may not be wholly unreasonable to place a
bollard in the middle of a cycle lane when it emerges into traffic, a
car park or a largely pedestrian zone.
 
On 09 Nov 2004 20:30:09 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

>
>See all of above ^^^^^^^^^^ as they apply to anyone wishing to gain confidence
>cycling. Nothing has to be stuffed except the view that there are no options!


See above my ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.

The local cycle group is unlikely to cross Lewisham daily at 8.30am
and again at 3.30pm.

However, we are looking at the possibility of cycle trains, and the
girls father is one of the people I have in mind to escort a cycle
train.

http://www.countryside.gov.uk/Essen...ce_intro/CaseStudies/W_encouragingcycling.asp
 
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 20:49:42 +0000,
Gonzalez <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Believe me, there is not an easy solution.


I think I said that. :)

Also I am pretty sure that one solution doesn't fits all - what is
appropriate in Lewisham, is likely not to be appropriate in smaller,
less busy towns, and even less likely to be appropriate in villages
and rural areas.

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


Some of them may find they enjoy cycling and start to cycle more,
including utility trips. Some of them may have their existing prejudices
reinforced, that cyclists have no place on the roads. It is not clear to
me that the beneffits of the former outweigh the cost of the latter.

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.

James
--
If I have seen further than others, it is
by treading on the toes of giants.
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
 
Al C-F <[email protected]> writes:

>On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 11:21:54 +0000 (UTC), [email protected] (Chris
>Malcolm) wrote:


>>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."


>Marconi Radar, 1988?


Close. ICL, 1980ish.
--
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/]
 
On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 19:37:12 +0000, Gonzalez
<[email protected]> wrote:

>At one time I believed that the law was set by wheel size but I no
>longer believe this to be correct.


People used to assert this confidently, but I've never come across a
definitve statement of it.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain
 
"James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> MartinM 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?

>
> Some of them may find they enjoy cycling and start to cycle more,
> including utility trips. Some of them may have their existing prejudices
> reinforced, that cyclists have no place on the roads. It is not clear to
> me that the beneffits of the former outweigh the cost of the latter.
>
> 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.


maybe not, but as I do both I'm not qualified to comment
 
Gonzalez [email protected] opined the following...
> See above my ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.
>
> The local cycle group is unlikely to cross Lewisham daily at 8.30am
> and again at 3.30pm.


As others have mentioned (And from my own experience), you gain
confidence by riding quiet roads, then increasingly busy ones. Once
you've realised that you can control the traffic, main roads are no
longer so daunting.

If the wannabe commuter doesn't yet have the confidence then I would
suggest using another form of transport until they do (Unless they can
find a cycling companion for the journey). The fact that they were
considering it makes them far more likely than most to switch when they
can.

Depending on the journey it might also be possible to mix transport
systems so the bike gets used for a quieter part of the commute, then
locked up and a bus / tram used for the remainder.

> However, we are looking at the possibility of cycle trains, and the
> girls father is one of the people I have in mind to escort a cycle
> train.


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.

Jon
 
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
 
"MartinM" <[email protected]> writes:


> Out of interest is there an age limit for cycling on the pavement or is it
> up to individual police discretion?


AIUI Anyone cycling on the pavement commits an criminal offence -
however the courts don't entertain prosecutions of those deemed not be
responsible for their actions (whatever the offence). Which normally
includes anyone below the age of ten (and perhaps older, depending).
 
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"! :)

Jon
 
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> in message <41908542$0$33733


> 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.
>


Ah, I see.. you meant 'important' to those in the know ;)

> 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
>


I certainly think that as a charity Sustrans has a duty to put its assets
into use. To be given a valuable land asset and just bar the gates
preventing even those who previously used it as a cycle path from enjoying
it would seem to contravene the very purpose for which it was founded, let
alone failing to improve upon it. As you say, it couldn't have cost that
much more to put up railings than gates so it seems pretty disgraceful to
me. Still, I suppose before commenting too strongly one should hear their
explanation for it. At least that much they have to do!

Rich