Sustrans/cycleways- what do you want?

[equicyclist]

My horse wouldnt like this either! I think as vulnerable road users we have some things in common and unfortunately those creating routes for us do not ask us what we want and provide what they think we want. This is why Im asking these questions. That said I think they do ask someone but not necessarily those from the area who would be the regular users. Unless you take the time to try and educate the policy makers and suppliers of these routes we are never going to be able to compromise. Because we are never going to please everybody. Cost is also going to be a consideration.

 

[equicyclist]

And what a pleasant, articulate read it is. Welcome aboard, enjoy the ride. What's your horse called....can I stroke her/him?

My horse is called Albert and yes if we ever meet on the trail, you can. He is very friendly and is used to cyclists emerging from the forestry trails in Brechfa. We often provide the odd plaster to those who misjudge the bends! We are not allowed on the cycleways except the Millenium Coast Path at Pembrey. Anyone from this area?

 

[equicyclist]

Posting on here, each of us can only represent ourselves. This is not a body or organisation where cycling policy is decided upon.

I am looking for views and opinions and I thank you all for giving them. As I mentioned I am working with the local council to improve access for all and have my own views on surface etc as a leisure cyclist and horse rider but not everyone is a leisure cyclist. I want to be informed to make informed observations when Im asked. Councils seem to want to keep the users separate but I think there is a saving to be made by allowing users to share a space. I expect that we would all prefer to be alone in most cases but it makes a much nicer ride to pass the time of day and be friendly with other users no matter what their mode of transport. But.... Im sure like me there is someone here that hates those very long extendable dog leads!! If users are considerate I do think we can exist together.

 

[equicyclist]

Do you think that if the useage is higher then the users will police illegal users or make its use safer? I dont feel as vulnerable on a route on my horse as I would on the bike and if its well populated then motorbikes tend to avoid it in my experience.

 

[Danny]

I am looking for views and opinions and I thank you all for giving them. As I mentioned I am working with the local council to improve access for all and have my own views on surface etc as a leisure cyclist and horse rider but not everyone is a leisure cyclist. I want to be informed to make informed observations when Im asked. Councils seem to want to keep the users separate but I think there is a saving to be made by allowing users to share a space. I expect that we would all prefer to be alone in most cases but it makes a much nicer ride to pass the time of day and be friendly with other users no matter what their mode of transport. But.... Im sure like me there is someone here that hates those very long extendible dog leads!! If users are considerate I do think we can exist together.

In my experience different groups of users can and do successfully share leisure routes. Everyone just needs to show a bit of consideration for each other.

However I do think that extendible dog leads ought to be banned on principle, and it should be an imprisonable offence to walk a dog with one on a designated cycle route.

 

[wafflycat]

I am looking for views and opinions and I thank you all for giving them. As I mentioned I am working with the local council to improve access for all and have my own views on surface etc as a leisure cyclist and horse rider but not everyone is a leisure cyclist. I want to be informed to make informed observations when Im asked. Councils seem to want to keep the users separate but I think there is a saving to be made by allowing users to share a space. I expect that we would all prefer to be alone in most cases but it makes a much nicer ride to pass the time of day and be friendly with other users no matter what their mode of transport. But.... Im sure like me there is someone here that hates those very long extendable dog leads!! If users are considerate I do think we can exist together.

For getting from A to B, either direct or via X, Y, Z and anywhere inbetween I find that I don't actually require any special farcilities, ta - I make use of the excellent network of existing routes called roads. I can choose from busy ones, quiet ones, wide ones, narrow ones.. country ones.. urban ones.. I gave up cycling on the footpath (and those bits of magic white paint used to make an outline drawing of a bike do not change a footpath into anything resembling something suitable for cycling) when I was a child of about 10. Managed to make it into my fifties without having to feel it necessary to have special farcilities provided in order to cycle.

 

[Norm]

WC, I think that the prejudices you bring to the discussion are stopping you from seeing that equicyclist is also looking for shared facilities, but shared with other more sedate forms of locomotion.

I agree with you, that it takes more than paint to turn a footpath into a cycle facility, it appears to me that equicyclist is looking to maximise the benefits we can get from using the many legal routes which are not roads. Maybe if you dropped your barricades, you could move on from your perception of "farcilities".

I've spent many pleasant hours cycling on roads, whether for pleasure, exercise or commuting, I don't have an issue sharing tarmac with cars. But there best times that I've had on a bike have been away from roads, with the kids or with friends, relaxing into the cycling as a form of enjoyment. Maybe that's down to the traffic levels and speeds where I live.

I consider myself fairly lucky because I can access many hundreds of miles of car-free routes, such as those equicyclist mentions, just by crossing the main road outside my house. If it weren't for that option, I don't think that the kids would even have bikes. I've only once had to grab my daughter as she hit something and started falling to the right in front of a car, but once is enough. If I hadn't been there and hadn't grabbed her, there would only have been one conclusion to the story.

Whilst there are plenty of good reasons to use roads, there are also plenty of good reasons to have quieter paths available, with a guarantee that there is nothing motorised to share it with.

 

[ColinJ]

For getting from A to B, either direct or via X, Y, Z and anywhere inbetween I find that I don't actually require any special farcilities, ta - I make use of the excellent network of existing routes called roads. I can choose from busy ones, quiet ones, wide ones, narrow ones.. country ones.. urban ones.. I gave up cycling on the footpath (and those bits of magic white paint used to make an outline drawing of a bike do not change a footpath into anything resembling something suitable for cycling) when I was a child of about 10. Managed to make it into my fifties without having to feel it necessary to have special farcilities provided in order to cycle.

It's very nice that you have such a wide choice of routes available to you but some of us aren't so lucky!

We have two large slabs of rock about 1,000 feet high with a relatively small gap between them. In the valley there is a railway line, a canal and a river crammed in, only leaving room for one road and because of that it is a very busy one at times!

As I wrote above - I insist on keeping the right to ride on the road but I like having the choice not to.

 

[equicyclist]

oops, not sure how you do pictures!

This is an old mineral railway line with a drainage canal along part of its length. The surface is compressed stone but it is a bit softer in places where there is silt on top but I feel could be easily improved without tarmac. I would appreciate your views. Its currently used by cyclists and walkers but more, I think by riders. The planning application initially states shared space/footpath but with only a small section for horse riders and the path is due to be tarmaced. It is wetter at one end which will need more attention but I think this is a nice natural surface which wouldnt cost much to improve.

 

[Danny]

One of the cycle routes near me run along an old railway line and was originally created as a "cinder track" (though this may not be the correct technical term for the surface).

It quickly wore down and became difficult to cycle on both because of the amount of use it had from cyclists and walkers, and because some sections were used by horse riders. I was told that the horse riding did a lot of damage to the surface and you could certainly see indents from the hoofs in places.

Eventually most of the path was resurfaced with tarmac, and where it is wide enough there is a separate path for horses running along the side.

I think you really need to get some expert advice on the most appropriate surface for your route. Sustrans do provide technical guidelines on developing cycle routes, but I could not immediately spot anything that covers the issues you are raising. I would suggest you contact them and see if they can point you to relevant materials or put you in touch with someone you can talk to.

 

[marinyork]

This is an old mineral railway line with a drainage canal along part of its length. The surface is compressed stone but it is a bit softer in places where there is silt on top but I feel could be easily improved without tarmac. I would appreciate your views. Its currently used by cyclists and walkers but more, I think by riders. The planning application initially states shared space/footpath but with only a small section for horse riders and the path is due to be tarmaced. It is wetter at one end which will need more attention but I think this is a nice natural surface which wouldnt cost much to improve.

From the two photos that's a horrendous looking surface, that is not really wide enough for triple use. I can well understand why they wouldn't want horse riders all over it along side peds, dog walkers and cyclists, I think you'd have big problems. I would think whatever they do to it, it might cost quite a lot of money to sort out.

 

[equicyclist]

The planning application says they will scrape the surface which I think may be a good idea but from what I understand tarmac is costly and although Im not saying its fine, I think there must be a cheaper alternative. You say its not wide enough but it varies between 2m to 10 m along its length. At pinch points cyclists will be required to dismount. Should riders be excluded when they too could do this? Its currently being used as a multi user track and has been for years with no issues. I feel that its conduct of the users that is key and not width. Bridleways have been open to cyclists since 1968 and they are not a standard width, with some being used for trhe safe routes to school initiative. In my experience users will wait for each other to pass and are on the whole very courteous. I expect that if a survey was done, the users of the route would be happy to share it.

 

[equicyclist]

I doubt this will be a commuter route and there is a tarmaced alternative connecting the same settlements that cyclists wanting tarmac would prefer. Its predominantly a route used by the locals to have safe access off a road with no pavements to local amenities.
But Im here for your vies and I didnt expect you to say you would love it as it is! Its ideal for horses but not for cyclists unless you like the rough stuff!

 

[SavageHoutkop]

At pinch points cyclists will be required to dismount. Should riders be excluded when they too could do this?

I object to the 'required to'. A cyclist who has had to get off and push is twice as wide as a cyclist on the bike surely? And what if there's nothing oncoming in any case? What are recumbents supposed to do?

 

[wafflycat]

The planning application says they will scrape the surface which I think may be a good idea but from what I understand tarmac is costly and although Im not saying its fine, I think there must be a cheaper alternative. You say its not wide enough but it varies between 2m to 10 m along its length. At pinch points cyclists will be required to dismount. Should riders be excluded when they too could do this? Its currently being used as a multi user track and has been for years with no issues. I feel that its conduct of the users that is key and not width. Bridleways have been open to cyclists since 1968 and they are not a standard width, with some being used for trhe safe routes to school initiative. In my experience users will wait for each other to pass and are on the whole very courteous. I expect that if a survey was done, the users of the route would be happy to share it.

One of the many reasons I don't like farcilities. Would motorists be prepared to put up with having to abide by signs saying "get out and push your car"? I think not. It's this sort of mentality towards cyclists that is part of the problem.