Vote for Sustrans?

[KitsuneAndy]

What I'm saying, Brock, is that I suggest you read the research given via the links already posted about the real world data.

From the couple that I read through (I will read the rest later) they didn't detail the extent of the injuries.

I'd put money on there being more cyclists dieing on roads as there are on traffic free routes.

 

[Brock]

Ah I see.. people feel safer on dedicated cycle paths so they don't watch where they're going and crash into each other, or trees, that's a tricky one.

Where do Sustrans claim their routes are inherently safer than cycling on the road anyway? This seems to be your main gripe with them, but I can't find it now I look.

 

[Elmer Fudd]

Am I right in thinking that most people who are anti SusTrans are road bike riders ? I'm not afraid of the roads on my hybrid but I'd rather have a pootle on a Sunday am where I'm not breathing car fumes, more a bit of (nearly) fresh air. As soon as I can get off road, the better.

 

[Brock]

I'm continuing to wade through the 'real world data' that you suggested Waffly and it seems to suggest that badly designed cycle paths cause accidents, perception of lowered risk causes carelessness, and errmm mopeds are definitely iffy:

Accidents on Stevenage cycleways 1972 - 1977
98 cycleway accidents in official (Stats 19) statistics during 5-year period. 82 involved mopeds (which can use the paths)

I don't see why any of this should mean that it isn't beneficial to offer alternate and more pleasurable routes for cyclists and walkers.

I've never suggested that NCN routes are safer, Sustrans doesn't seem to make any claims that their routes are safer than any other, so we come down to your point that less intelligent drivers may misconstrue the fact that there are paths for cyclists as proof that they can shout at them?

I do agree that driver education should form a major part of the general promotion of cycling, and perhaps it will come from Cycling England or some other quarter. We can hope, but I still can't understand the vitriolic hate of Sustrans from people who apparently are completely happy with their cycling environment.

 

[Brock]

Am I right in thinking that most people who are anti SusTrans are road bike riders ? I'm not afraid of the roads on my hybrid but I'd rather have a pootle on a Sunday am where I'm not breathing car fumes, more a bit of (nearly) fresh air. As soon as I can get off road, the better.

Well that's pretty selfish of you Elmer, because as soon as you leave the road you are contributing to the impression that cyclists aren't allowed there.

You'll make Mikey want to spit again.

I'm going on too much now aren't I?

 

[snorri]

I'm going on too much now aren't I?

Not half as much as wafflycat, and you do seem to be taking a more reasonable stance.

 

[BentMikey]

There's nothing wrong with off-road trails for leisure riding, MTB, etc, it's the emphasis on the need for a National Cycle Network that is pointless and bad for cycling. For going from A to B we already have the perfect cycle network with all the routes needed. They are called roads.


You lot seem to feel that Sustrans promotes cycling. I don't think it does anything to increase cycling levels across the whole of the UK.

 

[Chuffy]

I'm firmly in the anti camp and it's got nothing to do with snobbery. It's to do with the fundamental difference between promoting sustainable transport (ie people using their bikes as day to day transport) and merely providing half arsed, half baked schemes which do very little except for making the less confident feel even less happy about using the comprehensive network of routes that we already have, eg the road system. At best Sustrans is well meaning but wrong in application. At worst they're complicit in trying to keep cyclists off the road. Where you see them as being depends on your personal point of view but they don't justify their influence and funding.
£50m for better bike parking and better road training, that I'd be happy with. £50m for rubbish routes, crap blue signs on country lanes and a bit of paint splashed on pavements? No.

 

[Steve Austin]

I'll be voting for Sustrans, partly as i'm a cyclist and i want to support an organisation that supports cyclists.
I hope they get the money.

 

[col]

Well that's pretty selfish of you Elmer, because as soon as you leave the road you are contributing to the impression that cyclists aren't allowed there.

You'll make Mikey want to spit again.

I'm going on too much now aren't I?

No your not,i see where your coming from.What im puzzled at,is why some people think making car,wagon,bus free cycling available if you want it,is a bad thing.It may ,if you over analyse,seem that it gives the wrong message,but to who in reality?Road cyclists,who want to be seen more as road vehicles?It doesnt have anything to do with that imo,its about making ways available for anyone who chooses to cycle them,surely.Getting seen by motorists as a bonifide member of the road is something completely different.As for safety,It reminds me of the helmet debate,if we try hard enough,we can say that sustrans has some dangerous spots,but it has to be safer,when there are no motorised veheicles involved in general.

 

[John the Monkey]

Not to be funny Col, but the arguments from both sides are in the posts everyone's made so far.

 

[col]

Not to be funny Col, but the arguments from both sides are in the posts everyone's made so far.

I know, just trying to summarise my opinion

 

[summerdays]

I agree with the statement that it is safer on the road than on some of the cycle paths running along side. That doesn't mean that someone doesn't want to use them.

They may feel safer, my husband certainly prefers the off-road parts of his once a week commute (I asked him to be sure), but I know he will take care at the junctions along the ring road which are controlled by traffic lights. He would like there to be more cycle paths off the road.

That means once a week there is one less car on the road (benifits all of us). It takes time to build up your confidence to cycle in traffic, the cycle path allows him to commute by bike, and some of the way he is on the road which will build up his experience and confidence.

 

[jonesy]

I agree with the statement that it is safer on the road than on some of the cycle paths running along side. That doesn't mean that someone doesn't want to use them.
...

Unfortunately it is exactly this type of cycle path alongside the road that cause existing cyclists the greatest problems. I've no problem with the genuinely traffic-free parts of the NCN, (as long as they are located in places where they are actually likely to get reasonable numbers of users...) indeed there are some excellent examples in and around the town I live in that are well used by walkers and cyclists alike. Good traffic free routes provide additional choice that didn't previously exist, without undermining our right to use the road as well.

One of the worse aspects of much of the NCN is the over-reliance on shared-use pavements. These take space from pedestrians, introduce conflict, reduce convenience and directness while immediately encouraging motorists to think that all cyclists should make use of it. This sort of infrastructure is actually contradictory to all official guidance on cycling infrastructure, yet seems to be the default provision for many LAs. Its widespread use on the NCN has set a rather unfortunate precedent: from the perspective of many highway engineers a type of infrastructure widely used on the National Cycle Network must be good enough for use elsewhere...

Edit- as for the vote, I probably will vote for Sustrans because the Connect2 project is about local links, mostly (if not all?) within towns, with the aim of improving the convenience of walking and cycling for everyday journeys.

 

[simon l& and a half]

the real problem is this: segregation makes cycling another, subsidiary problem instead of part of the answer. The correct way to rid our streets of congestion, reduce road deaths, reduce traffic generated fumes and noise is to reconfigure them as social spaces, in which pedestrians, cyclists (including cycle cabs), buses, delivery vehicles get people and goods around. It works when it's tried - and it's good for business. The correct response to congestion is to reduce trip generation.

But....the government promotes out of town housing development, and refuses absolutely to close all but a few high streets to the car - on the grounds that they are mostly A roads. Sustrans is a neat cover for this - all those scratchy little lines weaving around and about, crossing paths, bunnyhopping kerbs tell councils and the government that 'something is being done'. So...spend a wodge of money on a path to circumvent the Mile End Road, neglecting the fact that the Mile End Road is one of the most well cycled roads in London (whoops!) and that the crying need is to make the Mile End Road a nice place to be - the kind of place that you can call the centre of your town, rather the road to Stratford or a feeder road for the Blackwall Tunnel.

I don't think that Sustrans does a great deal of harm. But that's it. And, despite the gloom of the paragraph above it does seem that the Government is getting the message about cycle paths. Central funds are going in to training and (dread phrase) 'modal shift'. My MP - an ex-Minister for cycling - said that he's signed orders for tens of millions of pounds worth of cycle paths and he wasn't convinced that they were doing a bit of good. The London/outside of London split (cycling rising exponentially/cycling flat) is pretty obvious. GOAL 2012 went south and Sustrans lottery bid is really a bit desperate. I won't be voting for it, but then I won't be voting for anything - I detest the wretched lottery.