National Cycle Network: some routes abandoned

[Blue Hills]

Most of it is a waste of time anyway. Whether there's a sustrans sign or not I will cycle upon a road or bridleway if it's appropriate to do so.

For you maybe and I generally avoid them unless they happen to be going the way I want and don't take weird diverts or go through barriers. But I think they are very valuable for encouraging folks into cycling.

 

[Shreds]

I'd like to see them clearly labelled according to whether they are suitable for all bikes, including road bikes. So many aren't. MTB-only, or passable with a touring/gravel bike in dry weather (wet too, as long as you don't mind being spattered and grinding down your drivetrain.

I understand where tou are coming from entirely but sub dividing cycles would bring silly arguements.

I have riden the same bike in time trials, cyclo cross competitions, hill climbs, Audax, racing, touring and many other facets of our wonderful means of transport.

Dont need a mountain bike to climb mountains. Gravel bike is just a trendy marketing name for a lightweight mountain bike. Mud cleans off all well cared for bikes. Its called good maintainance.

 

[rogerzilla]

NCN45 at Cricklade was, and maybe still is, a joke. Gravelled old railway with a gate about every 100m in some parts. Then, after about a mile, it took you down a muddy, deeply-rutted farm track and dumped you on the road you could have used in the first place. Too many of them are tick-box, spend the budget exercises.

The Bristol-Bath one is the exception that proves the rule; shame they weren't all like that.

 

[rogerzilla]

Mud cleans off all well cared for bikes. Its called good maintainance.

My point is that few of them are any use as "sustainable transport" for commuting, shopping, etc. They are mostly leisure routes and some (like the Camel Trail) actively generate car traffic. Drive to the start, unload the bikes, off you go.

 

[CanucksTraveller]

The NCN 12 is close by and use it often but it has to be on the touring bike, it's quite rough in places (remarkably so in one or two bits where the soil has washed away and it's literally rocky). It's not passable on road tyres.

 

[Shreds]

The NCN 12 is close by and use it often but it has to be on the touring bike, it's quite rough in places (remarkably so in one or two bits where the soil has washed away and it's literally rocky). It's not passable on road tyres.

Dont touring bikes use road tyres then?

 

[Drago]

For you maybe and I generally avoid them unless they happen to be going the way I want and don't take weird diverts or go through barriers. But I think they are very valuable for encouraging folks into cycling.

I'm not so sure that signposting an unrideable stretch of bridleway for cyclists provides value for anyone, other than sign manufacturers.

 

[Blue Hills]

I'm not so sure that signposting an unrideable stretch of bridleway for cyclists provides value for anyone, other than sign manufacturers.

I agree that there are some barmy bits - not sure if it's still there but I seem to remember a steep offroad descent on the London to Brighton route - somewhere near Fickleshole from memory. Approaching Olympic or It's a Knockout standard.

 

[Shreds]

I'm not so sure that signposting an unrideable stretch of bridleway for cyclists provides value for anyone, other than sign manufacturers.

The possibilities for sign manufacturers is endless, and the local authority would quote ludicrous amounts to temporarily close the path, make a risk assessment, give written notice to all concerned, set up a diversion, dig hole, plant a sign, and then reopen it.

Just look at the nonsense created by Covid cycle lanes and Councils closing roads to stop “cars” spreading the virus. Can a car catch Covid?

These people are brain dead from the start. No common sense.

And what would the warning signs say?

Hole in the road?
Beware dogs?
Red light district?
Beware of cars?
Beware of drug addicts?
Badly council maintained road?
.......the list is endless...

 

[mjr]

Dont touring bikes use road tyres then?

Not if you believe Mr Schwalbe. They use "touring" or "endurance" tyres with a harder compound and thicker centre tread, and generally wider widths.

 

[Slick]

Yeah I suppose it could go either way depending on where you are but I was thinking of one in particular here which like most round here are shambolic anyway and have no influence on my choice of route and I think that's a shame. I'm involved locally in funding a very short stretch here which is estimated ar 3.5 million for just over 4 miles on an old railway line.

Seems it's more dependent on where you live than I first realised.
This was copied from another site.

Iain, there is no reduction in the NCN in Scotland. In addition, the fact that a route has been removed from the NCN does not mean that it is no longer a cycle route. It has been removed because it no longer meets the minimum criteria for being accepted as an NCN route. This follows from Sustrans' review of the NCN undertaken 3/4years ago. The intention was to 'incentivise' some authorities, mainly in England, to develop routes to a much higher standard. For example, in Northumbria a little south of Berwick, a section of NCN 1 was little more than a tyre rut through a field!

 

[mjr]

[copied from another site] In addition, the fact that a route has been removed from the NCN does not mean that it is no longer a cycle route. It has been removed because it no longer meets the minimum criteria for being accepted as an NCN route.

It may still be a cycle route, but there will now be nothing to indicate which is the best of the probably-all-poor choices to reach the next "minimum criteria" section of the route. It means the NCN is no longer a Network covering all the Nation of England... and over on that other site, I'm being told that the NCN is not only for cyclists but for many types of users, so that's the N, C and N all no longer appropriate. Has Sustrans done a bait-and-switch, taking cycling grants and donations and building a vague you-can-cycle-if-you-must motor-free system?

This follows from Sustrans' review of the NCN undertaken 3/4years ago. The intention was to 'incentivise' some authorities, mainly in England, to develop routes to a much higher standard. For example, in Northumbria a little south of Berwick, a section of NCN 1 was little more than a tyre rut through a field!

If that was the intention, this breaking-up of the network suggests it didn't work, doesn't it?

 

[Slick]

It may still be a cycle route, but there will now be nothing to indicate which is the best of the probably-all-poor choices to reach the next "minimum criteria" section of the route. It means the NCN is no longer a Network covering all the Nation of England... and over on that other site, I'm being told that the NCN is not only for cyclists but for many types of users, so that's the N, C and N all no longer appropriate. Has Sustrans done a bait-and-switch, taking cycling grants and donations and building a vague you-can-cycle-if-you-must motor-free system?


If that was the intention, this breaking-up of the network suggests it didn't work, doesn't it?

I get that, but I'm definitely underwhelmed at the thought of losing something that I wouldn't use but that may be because it hasn't happened here yet. It could be the thin end of the wedge or it could spur improvement and obviously as the status quo is all but useless to me, I would be willing to hope for the latter. Also, after being involved with Sustrans and other bodies, I don't particularly think the review being carried out 3 years ago suggests it doesn't work, their wheels turn very slowly and is probably about right to make such a huge difference to the route. Knock it down and start again is sometimes the best solution.

 

[snorri]

Check your local routes at https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ncn/

On checking routes in my area, I see that most of the cycle routes on this map described as 'Traffic Free' are actually shared use paths,ie shared with pedestrian traffic, so neither traffic free nor segregated cycle routes.
Also, the path widths fall below recommended standards. One section of single track, where I dismount when meeting an oncoming cyclist is designated a "cycle route".

 

[CanucksTraveller]

Dont touring bikes use road tyres then?

I'm pretty sure you know what I'm getting at. My touring bike has 35mm tyres with thicker tread and puncture protection, they're fine on rocky parts of routes... the road bike has 25mm slicks with no protection, and they're not suitable on rocky stretches.
Yes they can both be considered "road" tyres, though it's a bit pedantic to pick someone up on that imo.