Sustrans Blues

MJ Ray said:

Google Maps tells me my web browser is not supported. Putting the ll
into streetmap points at a street not on the NCN Route. Where is it?

I know there's a daft junction on the route in that village (South Wootton),
but I can't remember quite how it doesn't work (it's easy enough to work
around, so I do it semi-automatic) and I'm sure there's no bollard.

Just follow NCN 1 from the train station out towards Sandringham and you
will find it. The route runs along, crosses and then continues along a
busy road and then turns left into a side street. The example will
unfold in front of your wheels shortly thereafter.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Quoted message said:

Ian Smith <[email hidden]>
In my opinion, no, we should not be blindly supporting an organisation
that is sometimes doing harm to the cause of cycling as useful
transport mode.

I didn't suggest blind support. I suggested getting involved with the organisation in order to improve their thinking from the inside.

It seems to me from reading this thread that there are some excellent critics of poor cycling facilities who should be part of Sustrans and providing their useful input directly where it's needed.

Cheers,

Wheelist

John B said:

much more than the CTC who tend towards cliquiness.

Witness......😉

Wheelist.

Phil Armstrong said:

John B said:

Tony Raven said:

John B wrote:
> CTC don't even allow under 18's out with them so that will
> really encourage new riders - I don't think.

That must be a local DA issue.

Perhaps. think its more to do with worries over child protection issues

Which is hardly the fault of the CTC is it?

Are you saying that someone outside the CTC imposes such a rule on them?
If so who?

Quoted message said:

I can't see Sunday rides
continuing very long into the future if it's suddenly decided that all
participarts must go through a background check before being allowed
on a ride.

I fear it is going that way :-(

John B

in message <[email hidden]>, MJ

Ray (') said:

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[...] CTC does far more for you as a utility cyclist
(and for me as a leisure/sporting cyclist) than Sustrans and British
Cycling put together ever will.

Maybe, but it's very difficult to see from here.

Quoted message said:

The CTC is your national political lobbying organisation,

It answers consultations, campaigns for an urban speed limit
so low that cyclists will break it

As the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists, that's simply irrelevant.

Quoted message said:

and takes credit for other
people lobbying about the Highway Code. What else recently?

Well, they're welcome to take the credit for my lobbying, since they
provided me with the research backup to do it.

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

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

wafflycat said the following on 09/06/2006 08:41:

Quoted message said:

Well you do tend to get more cyclists staying in the proper place - the
road, which is a lovely smooth surface and has absolutely nothing wrong
with it for cycling purposes.

Smooth road? Ever ridden around Lincoln?? :-) Actually, it's a nice
part of the country - I just wished I lived there!

This is the city that installed a warning sign warning of a huge pothole
under a bridge. Not just a temporary triangle, but a proper
post-in-the-ground job....

....just after it was finally almost filled in!

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Simon Brooke said the following on 09/06/2006 11:24:

Quoted message said:

As the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists

Really? I always understood it did. Not that it's usually an issue for
me any more :-(

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Paul Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said the following on 09/06/2006 11:24:

Quoted message said:

As the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists

Really? I always understood it did.

Yes, really. You're not the only one with that misunderstanding, so this
gets brought up every so often...

cheers,
clive

Paul Boyd said:

Quoted message said:

As the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists

Really? I always understood it did.

Yes, really. All the speeding legislation deals specifically with
motor vehicles. That ain't us.

"Bob"
--

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

"Paul Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said the following on 09/06/2006 11:24:

Quoted message said:

As the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists

Really? I always understood it did. Not that it's usually an issue for
me any more :-(

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

No, cyclists cannot be done for breaking the speed limit as the limits apply
to *motorised* vehicles. A clue is cunningly given in the Highway Code, in
the nice picture that accompanies rule 103... not a pedal cycle in sight.
:-)

Cheers, helen s

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
SNIP

Quoted message said:

You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that Sustrans has
anything to do with cycling. He was just demonstrating that it clearly
doesn't, as many here have already realised.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Don't know loads about Sustrans - but isn't it short for Sustainable
Transport - which is only partly cycling - there are others like walking,
public transport and vehicle sharing.

SusTrans as far as I know are only a lobbying body that can raise some
funding for certain things - so bad planning on cycle routs is not purely
down to them.

There are other purely cycling bodies that are doing as bad if not worse on
helping to provide for safe cycle routes whether they be on the main
carriageway or not.

Dave

wafflycat ?.com said:

"MJ Ray" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

[...] He asked me how I knew and I told him it was due to being a CTC
member. "Who?"

As someone who only got involved with the societies side of cycling in
the last year or two, I'm not surprised. Some CTC members *never*
expand the acronym on first use - you're not so famous you can avoid
it - and the same is true of some CTC publicity materials - see how
quickly you can find it on www.ctc.org.uk

Even once you know, a touring club is not interesting to many so-called
'utility' cyclists, whereas Sustrans is. Sustrans helps find off-road
routes for us and publishes useful research for persuading councils.
In my experience, Sustrans have been more responsive by telephone and
email, while CTC do stupid things like emailing MIMEd and Worded texts
that I can't read, even when asked not to.

Quoted message said:

Then you don't actually know the CTC. It is now called the CTC precisely
because it does far far more than talk about touring. It simply is the UK's
main cycling organisation for cyclists, especially utility cyclists.

I've tried to join it twice, in both cases losing my money. I note
others have had similar experiences.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you aren't aware of the excellent insurance and legal help the CTC
provides to its members so that if they are injured whilst cycling, they can
have suitable recourse to professional help and financial recovery.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you aren't aware of the vast amount of work the CTC does providing
cycle training - to provide the trainers and the courses for people to learn
how to cycle safely and with confidence.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you don't know the the CTC is largely responsible for the
legislators in the UK knowing that the changes proposed to the Highway Code
were detrimental to the interests of all cyclists.

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you don't know that the CTC has a very good off-road section.

Let me know when they get round to having a good membership section.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +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/]

wafflycat said the following on 09/06/2006 13:05:

Quoted message said:

No, cyclists cannot be done for breaking the speed limit as the limits
apply to *motorised* vehicles. A clue is cunningly given in the Highway
Code, in the nice picture that accompanies rule 103... not a pedal cycle
in sight. :-)

That all seemed fairly unanimous! I'll have to try to work up to being
able to break the speed limits again :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

"Paul Boyd" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

wafflycat said the following on 09/06/2006 13:05:

Quoted message said:

No, cyclists cannot be done for breaking the speed limit as the limits
apply to *motorised* vehicles. A clue is cunningly given in the Highway
Code, in the nice picture that accompanies rule 103... not a pedal cycle
in sight. :-)

That all seemed fairly unanimous! I'll have to try to work up to being
able to break the speed limits again :-)

Whilst you may not be done for breaking the speed limit - there is an
offence you can be done for, which may be as a result of travelling at a
speed which is in excess of the limit thast applies to motorised vehicles.
Indeed, even if you are travelling at a speed below the motorised speed
limit, your manner of cycling may result in being 'done'

Cheers, helen s

Paul Boyd said:

Quoted message said:

No, cyclists cannot be done for breaking the speed limit as the limits
apply to *motorised* vehicles.

Quoted message said:

That all seemed fairly unanimous! I'll have to try to work up to being
able to break the speed limits again :-)

I'm currently a bit conflicted on this topic. The group consensus in
urc seems overwhelmingly anti speeding, a stance with which I agree.
However, we (sorry, don't mean to tar you all with same brush)
occasionally get a little bit smug and gleeful about the fact that the
speed laws don't apply to us, and crack the odd joke about setting off
cameras with impunity.

I'm pondering this because the other day on the 'bent I was doing
55mph in a 50mph zone and my conscience has been pricking at me ever
since. The damn thing is insisting I'm being hypocritical, and that
it's as anti social for me to be traveling at excessive speed as it is
for drivers of motor vehicles.

I found that in order to justify my bit of fun to myself I was
thinking things like "it was a clear day with good visibility, the
road was dry, I have excellent brakes" etc. Of course I then realised
I was trotting out the hackneyed lines of speeding drivers. Oh dear.

On one hand it's undeniable that because of it's lower mass my bike is
vastly less dangerous to others at a given speed than a car or van or
truck, but on the other, there is still the potential for serious harm
should I have a mishap at significant speed.

But what counts as excessive speed on a bike? It didn't feel excessive
to me, but then that way lies the Paul Smith argument.

The law doesn't require us to, but should we adhere to the speed limit
anyway just because it's the right thing to do? I'd love to know where
others stand on this issue.

"Bob"
--

Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

Paul Boyd <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I don't think Sustrans have heard of Weston-super-Mare, or if they have
they haven't provided anything useful whatsoever, so I don't have a lot
of Sustrans experience. [...]

Yes, WsM is a bit of a Sustrans desert at the moment. NCN route
33 will connect WsM to Clevedon/Bristol and Bridgwater eventually,
getting rid of the 7+ mile detour around the Yeo, but only the smallest
stretches are open so far. There are currently planning applications
about Backwell with North Somerset Council, references 06/P/1285/F and
06/P/1286/F, which would probably benefit from constructive criticism.
Contact NSC for details of the Yeo crossing at Tutshill Sluice.

WsM seems to be somewhere that the local tracks and minor roads offer
a pretty good cycle network already, so I can understand why it would
be a low priority for Sustrans. IMO, he biggest benefits of NCN are
when it opens direct routes which would not otherwise exist. It's a
shame that the NCN-more-direct and the NCN-far-away-from-cars routes
aren't marked differently somehow.

Somewhat bizarre that you pick another town to which I have a strong
connection.
--
MJR/slef

Ian Smith <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

MJ Ray said:

I see you silently cut out all the other utilitarian benefits.

No, I EXPLICITLY highlighted the FIRST thing you chose to highlight.
I said that was exactly what I was commenting on. You quoted me
saying that - no 'silently' involved.

You did cut out the rest of the paragraph without marking it.

Quoted message said:

It was you that put them in that order. It simply demonstrated the
point - sustrans routes are not primarily about utility, they are
primarily about recreation, and only accidently or incidently benefit
utility cycling.

I put them in that order because it flowed better IMO, listing the
specific features before the shared ones. It does not necessarily
reflect the relative importance of them and I didn't spend 17 years
redrafting the paragraph to make it flame-proof.

This is like a conversation with a psychiatrist who answers a "Good
morning" with "What do you mean by that?" Disappointing.

--
MJR/slef

Ian Smith <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

MJ Ray said:

Ian Smith <[email hidden]> [...]

Quoted message said:

Bing a member of my local cycle forum and asking the local highway
authority what they are doing about them, mainly.

So you just talk and write to the highways guys about it?

Are you suggesting I should borrow a bulldozer and remove them
myself? What do you suggest doing other than talking to the people
that are legally empowered to do something about them? [...]

I suspect advocating damage of public property would be illegal,
if entirely justified in this case, so I won't suggest that.

You may be able to assist with safety assessments, redesigns and
so on. Councils often use contractors from faraway places - most
of the non-Sustrans KL stuff seems to get designed 50 miles away in
Norwich, based on maps which are often out-of-date - so quite a lot
of the designers and builders seem to have no experience of the local
landscapes or the variety of cycles available and sometimes don't know
the various local planning policies as well as residents.

It would be better to ask the local authorities "can we do Y about X?"
or even "what can we do to fix problem X?" rather than just ask what
they are doing about problems. Offer to help fix it if you could.

--
MJR/slef

Call me Bob said:

I'm currently a bit conflicted on this topic. The group consensus in
urc seems overwhelmingly anti speeding, a stance with which I agree.
However, we (sorry, don't mean to tar you all with same brush)
occasionally get a little bit smug and gleeful about the fact that the
speed laws don't apply to us, and crack the odd joke about setting off
cameras with impunity.

There is a fundamental difference between speeding in a motor vehicle
and speeding on a bike, which is if a cyclist speeds then the primary
person in danger is the cyclist, rather than anyone else around them.
Cyclists don't manage to kill many people by running into them,
motorists are well into 4 figures in the UK every year.

Similarly, while I never drink and drive I often drink and cycle to some
extent. If someone gets killed it'll be me., most likely. People are
more at risk of getting seriously hurt by me if I'm driving completely
sober than if I'm cycling after a couple of beers. Hence the different
behaviour. It is amount of risk that's the key, not the cause.

Quoted message said:

I'm pondering this because the other day on the 'bent I was doing
55mph in a 50mph zone and my conscience has been pricking at me ever
since. The damn thing is insisting I'm being hypocritical, and that
it's as anti social for me to be traveling at excessive speed as it is
for drivers of motor vehicles.

The mass of your bike plus you is about 100 Kg. The mass of a typical
car is 1-2,000 Kg, so an order of magnitude more energy to total
anything you hit.

Quoted message said:

I found that in order to justify my bit of fun to myself I was
thinking things like "it was a clear day with good visibility, the
road was dry, I have excellent brakes" etc. Of course I then realised
I was trotting out the hackneyed lines of speeding drivers. Oh dear.

Compare the deaths caused by drivers to the deaths caused by cyclists
(aside from their own). Also bear in mind you're causing less danger to
those around than a car driven at 30 legally if you're doing 35 in a 30
limit.

Quoted message said:

But what counts as excessive speed on a bike? It didn't feel excessive
to me, but then that way lies the Paul Smith argument.

Speed you cannot control. There is, of course, no objective definition
with numbers attached.

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 hidden] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Call me Bob said:

The law doesn't require us to, but should we adhere to the speed limit
anyway just because it's the right thing to do? I'd love to know where
others stand on this issue.

I prefer to stick to the road speed limit purely because I don't want
to annoy motorists who believe that the limits DO apply to push bikes.
Even riding at the notional limit (or on occasion very slightly higher)
doesn't stop ijits from trying to overtake at stupid places (on a bend,
at a summit, at a road narrowing)... Excuse me, but there is no need
to pass AT ALL! Grrrr.

PhilD

--
<><