Time to make a change

[HJ]

Anything that get more people out cycling has to be good, the one thing that makes cycling on the road safer is more cyclist...

 

[doyler78]

Anything that get more people out cycling has to be good, the one thing that makes cycling on the road safer is more cyclist...

That's a good point. How many people have we known who started cycling on footpaths because they felt the roads where to dangerous who with a little confidence progressed to the road. Recent research suggests that greater volumes of cyclists reduce rtas involving cyclists thus making the roads safer for us all. It just about giving more choice. You don't have to use it but no matter how crap some cycle lanes are you will usually find someone who uses it therefore it benefits someone. Whether it is the best use of money is another argument but as has already been pointed out the money has already been ring fenced so we might as well support it for those that would use them.

 

[BentMikey]

The problem is that I believe sustrans are effectively reducing the numbers of cyclists on roads. I think that so much encouragement to cycle off road where it is "safe" is swinging the balance. Unfortunately it's the other way around - it's safer to be cycling on the road.

 

[gambatte]

Just had a quick glance.

Looks like the Sherwood ones promoting cycling as well.

 

[Morrisette]

Whatever the issues regarding cycle lanes/road/sustrans/etc, the Connect2 is the only one of the 4 projects that is actually a NATIONAL scheme, the others are really quite local, and as someone above pointed out, should be local council funded, or have funding from some other 'lottery' pot.

For this reason if for no other, it should win. IMO!

 

[domd1979]

Connect2 isn't really national though - its a series of very localised schemes. Something like Black Country Urban park would probably still benefit the same number of people.

"Should be council funded" - what budget would you cut locally to pay for these other schemes? There's lots of things that maybe ought to be council funded, but the money simply does not exist.

Whatever the issues regarding cycle lanes/road/sustrans/etc, the Connect2 is the only one of the 4 projects that is actually a NATIONAL scheme, the others are really quite local, and as someone above pointed out, should be local council funded, or have funding from some other 'lottery' pot.

For this reason if for no other, it should win. IMO!

 

[User482]

I've voted for sustrans. Whilst I have reservations about some aspects of their work, getting more bums on saddles is a good thing in my view. I think we have to remember that their work isn't primarily aimed at the likes of us.

 

[HJ]

The problem is that I believe sustrans are effectively reducing the numbers of cyclists on roads. I think that so much encouragement to cycle off road where it is "safe" is swinging the balance. Unfortunately it's the other way around - it's safer to be cycling on the road.

I have seen no evidence of the number of cyclists on roads reducing, off road path are a handy way to get around, but at the end of the day you still need to use the road at some time. Certainly over the last 10 years I have seen a distinct increase in the number of cyclist using the roads here in Scotland, maybe things are different down south.

 

[BentMikey]

Who could say with any certainty that the numbers wouldn't be a lot higher without the efforts of Sustrans?

 

[doyler78]

I'm with hairy jock on this one. It seems to me that anyone that wanted to cycle on the road would and anyone wanting to use cycle paths do. As has already been pointed there aren't many cycle paths that run from door to door therefore some will use a mixture of cycle path and road, others will use cycle path and footpath. For that use a mixture of path and road you then question why they would use the cycle path at all. If anything my experience is that people who use this mix tend to end up eventually using roads almost exclusively and those that continue to use both are general leisure cyclists who aren't bothered about getting from a to b as quickly as possible and would rather not contend with the traffic where traffic free routes exist even where these are less than perfect.

So I think the point is that it isn't Sustrans that makes users use cycle paths its the cyclists themselves and their reasons for choosing are largely around perceived danger or comfort. Some just don't like the competition that there is on the road. The jockeying for position. Some just like a leisurely cycle with little or no hassle. Some cycle paths are clearly crap and some are actually quite good and plenty are adequate for leisurely rides.

Sustrans themselves would tell you that they don't recommend cycle paths for faster riders, indeed they find it a danger to do so as many are shared use or segregated but only with a line where pedestrians tend to wonder into the cycle parts. Sustrans provides a valuable voice for some. I think it just that they have been very successful in getting the ear of many funding bodies that they ingender such passionate feelings in other groups. I am sorry but it is there job as an advocacy group to make others see their point of view. Its for others to provide counter arguments where appropriate.

 

[neslon]

I just voted for sustrans. Firstly, the other projects are in the deep south, so have nothing to do with me. Secondly, I ride on roads every day, but my wife and kids have less confidence. the more cycle paths & connectivity there is, the more they will join me on bike trips out. Hopefully, some of the sustrans stuff will be near us.

 

[summerdays]

I'm with the sustrans vote ... the posts above (nelson, hairy jock, doyler78, User482) have explained it as I see it... that you don't have to use them, and that more cyclists equals more understanding, and inexperienced cyclists don't want to go on the road. I'm not saying that you don't get those who don't understand why you don't use them... but at least its a starting point for conversations about cycling.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

I'm just not sure about the whole "more understanding" thing - personally I think the idea of encoraging cycling, but not on roads fuels bad driving and intolerance.

"I cycle lots and I always use paths and don't get in the way, what is this @rsewit doing on the road, he should be on the path."

Cyclists belong on the roads and I refuse to support anything which makes it look as hough we are not supposed to be there.

 

[BentMikey]

To me, if Sustrans were really sustainable transport, they wouldn't have very much focus on cycle paths at all. Instead they'd be working on cycle parking with proper stands, National Standards training, and supporting the hierarchy of provision. Instead they seem to me to be cycle paths, cycle paths, and more crap and useless cycle paths.

 

[Jacomus-rides-Gen]

I share your view Mikey.

Personally I would also like to see Think! adverts which contained moronic car drivers doing things like what happend to bollo, or left-hooking cylists - its all wall and good doing them for kids crossing the road and motorbikes, but cyclists never get represented.

Cycle paths only have a place in a society that accepts cycling as a valid mode of transport.