You can vote for Sustrans online now!

[wafflycat]

I love you too, Hilldodger

I speak from my experience of Sustrans routes. It will not get my vote based on that experience.

The clamour is already there to get cyclists off the roads and on to segregated farcilities - this type of bid only increases the risk of that happening IMO. Don't forget, this pushing cyclists off road and on to farcilites has already been tried - most recently with the proposed changes to the HC which was only defeated by intense lobbying by cycling organisations such as the CTC and by thousands of individual cyclists writing to their MPs. Spend £50 million on segregated farcilites and what the clamour grow once mroe to get us off the roads and on to those lovely farcilities that have been provided at great expense... If segregated farcilities really increased the number of people cycling, then why hasn't it happened with Milton Keynes, where the redways were installed? See
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html and http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/sustrans1.html

It is also a fallacy that cycling on road is 'unsafe'. If it were, I wouldn't be doing it (I cycle urban (town & city) and rural, dual carriageways to country lanes) and I certainly wouldn't have allowed my son to cycle to & from school and take part in time trials. The reality is that cycling on road is a remarkably safe activity. Yes, there are risks, but the Sustrans equation of 'safe' equalling 'traffic-free over-eggs the pudding about the real level of risk associated with cycling on road. The reality is the benefits of cycling far outweigh the risks: promoting traffic-free to equal safe makes folk think cycling on road is far more dangerous than it really is and it adds to the clamour to get cyclists off roads - after all, it's far too dangerous out there

 

[Danny]

I do not believe that Sustrans are part of some conspiracy to get cyclists off the road. As I previously pointed out, most of their long distance routes are actually on roads.

Most forum members are confident and experienced enough to cycle on main roads, but many occasional cyclists are not. I have many friends who would never cycle out into the country if it were not for the Sustrans routes.

In York where I live, Sustrans provides several very well used routes which safely take cyclists out of York and across the busy ring road. You then eventually join onto country lanes and can cycle for miles with having to cross any main roads.

As I said previously, I am sure that not every Sustrans route is perfect, but I think it is unfair to rubbish them just because some specific bit of cycle route is poor.

Also, while I can't speak for Kings Lynn where Waffly Cat lives, I know that around York Sustrans gets blamed for the design and condition of every cycle route in the city, when they are only actually responsible for a few specific sections - the rest being down to the local authority.

 

[wafflycat]

I don't think there's any conspiracy either.

I do, however, believe that there is real clamour to get cyclists off the roads - it would have been a side effect of the propsed changes to the HC had they gone through. Luckily for we cyclists, it was spotted early on and successfully lobbied against. The promotion and provision of segregated cycling farcilites does promote the idea that cyclists don't belong on the roads.

I think that the Sustrans promotion of segregated cycling farcilities will enhance that clamour to get cyclists off the roads and on to farcilities where they exist. It already happens now. Look how many of us post how we've been shouted at to 'get on the bl**dy cycle path!" and how the police can be downright keen to get us off the roads - as witnessed by the Daniel Cadden case. There's regular letters in newspapers from irate members of the public asking why cyclists aren't on cycle paths which have been provided at great expense..

I also believe that the Sustrans mantra that 'safe' equates to 'traffic-free' is misguided at best and at at worst, plain wrong - see my earlier posts for the links discussion between John Franklin & Sustrans and on his study of the Milton Keynes redways.

I don't think that Sustrans *deliberately* seeks to have the right to ride on the road removed, but I do think it is the inevitable end result if we go ever more down the route of segregated farcilities.

 

[domd1979]

It doesn't matter how the bid has been put together. Putting the on/off road debate aside (although it is an important one).... Your assertion appears to be that £50m spent on something non-cycling related is less beneficial than something cycling related. In this particular instance I happen to think that the other (non-cycling) alternatives for the dosh could benefit more people's quality of life.

Sustrans also irritate me immensely, particularly since they campaigned against the re-instatement of an old railway track bed, as, erm, a railway because they wanted it as a cycleway. Sustrans preference appeared to be they'd rather lots of china clay lorries were on the roads of Cornwall than divert one of their routes away from the rail alignment.

Both of you are showing your ignorance of how the bid has been put together.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

 

[domd1979]

Agree entirely.

Cycling needs to be promoted as an every day form of transport, to replace car journeys (particularly short ones). Too much emphasis has been placed on promoting cycling as just a leisure activity rather than as a day to day form of local transport.

I don't think there's any conspiracy either.

I do, however, believe that there is real clamour to get cyclists off the roads - it would have been a side effect of the propsed changes to the HC had they gone through. Luckily for we cyclists, it was spotted early on and successfully lobbied against. The promotion and provision of segregated cycling farcilites does promote the idea that cyclists don't belong on the roads.

I think that the Sustrans promotion of segregated cycling farcilities will enhance that clamour to get cyclists off the roads and on to farcilities where they exist. It already happens now. Look how many of us post how we've been shouted at to 'get on the bl**dy cycle path!" and how the police can be downright keen to get us off the roads - as witnessed by the Daniel Cadden case. There's regular letters in newspapers from irate members of the public asking why cyclists aren't on cycle paths which have been provided at great expense..

I also believe that the Sustrans mantra that 'safe' equates to 'traffic-free' is misguided at best and at at worst, plain wrong - see my earlier posts for the links discussion between John Franklin & Sustrans and on his study of the Milton Keynes redways.

I don't think that Sustrans *deliberately* seeks to have the right to ride on the road removed, but I do think it is the inevitable end result if we go ever more down the route of segregated farcilities.

 

[Danny]

I don't think there's any conspiracy either.

I do, however, believe that there is real clamour to get cyclists off the roads - it would have been a side effect of the propsed changes to the HC had they gone through....

I think that the Sustrans promotion of segregated cycling farcilities will enhance that clamour to get cyclists off the roads and on to farcilities where they exist. It already happens now. Look how many of us post how we've been shouted at to 'get on the bl**dy cycle path!" and how the police can be downright keen to get us off the roads - as witnessed by the Daniel Cadden case. There's regular letters in newspapers from irate members of the public asking why cyclists aren't on cycle paths which have been provided at great expense..

I also believe that the Sustrans mantra that 'safe' equates to 'traffic-free' is misguided at best and at at worst, plain wrong - see my earlier posts for the links discussion between John Franklin & Sustrans and on his study of the Milton Keynes redways.

I am not sure that there is actually that great a "clamour" to get cyclists off the roads. The fact that some civil servants in the notoriously pro-car Department of Transport came up with some badly thought through changes to the HC doesn't amount to a public clamour. Nor does one ill judged police prosecution.

York has extensive cycle routes which I sometime choose to use, and sometime do not. I have never once had anyone say to me that I should not be riding on the road, nor have I ever seen a letter in our local paper suggesting this, even though they regularly publish a great many letters attacking cyclists for various alleged misdemeanour's.

Until the road network is re-designed to properly cater for cyclists, and traffic laws are full enforced, many people will simply not cycle on busy roads. Sustrans are providing an alternative which has already succeeded in getting large numbers of people onto their bikes.

 

[Danny]

It is also a fallacy that cycling on road is 'unsafe'. If it were, I wouldn't be doing it

I know it is a fallacy, you know it is a fallacy, but the problem is that most occasional cyclists believe that it is unsafe, and simply won't use their bikes on main roads.

 

[wafflycat]

It's a fallacy which is promoted by Sustrans as it equates 'safe' as 'traffic-free' and encourages segregated routes. It should not be encouraged.

 

[Tim Bennet.]

Until the road network is re-designed to properly cater for cyclists, and traffic laws are full enforced....

Then let's have a proposal to spend £50m on dealing with these core issues.

 

[Tony]

I am on my way back from Australia in a couple of hours. Over here, you are obliged by law to use on-road cycle lanes. It makes right turns interesting. There are plenty of off-road cycle routes, all of which have big signs reminding cyclists that peds have right of way on them at all times.
That sums up Sustrans for me!

 

[Pete]

Of course all roads can be 'safe' if everyone using them drives/rides carefully and in accordance with the Law. Indeed I find riding on a dual carriageway reasonably 'safe' as long as everyone can see me, I don't play silly-b*ggers, and I follow the 'correct' procedure when turning right...

Safe, yes. Pleasant? No. No-one will honestly claim, from the bottom of their heart, that cycling on a D/C with heavy traffic including nose-to-tail HGVs roaring past at 80mph is actually a 'pleasant' experience. And part of the drive to get more people out on their bikes, is surely to make cycling be, and appear to be, a pleasurable experience to them.

I honestly don't know the best answer here. I avoid the 'facilities' when they're obviously going to impede my progress (even at my slow pace!). the ones with right-angle corners and trees in the middle of the path, the examples in the excellent Warrington website. I use cycle routes when they're an obvious shortcut that actually speed up my progress (e.g. not having to thread through a traffic queue).

I take issue with the comments about bollards. If a bollard is well placed so that it can be seen from a distance, I don't have a problem. After all, I have a handlebar on my bike, I can steer! Bollards, I'm afraid, are a necessary impediment on one of my favourite cycle-routes, to keep out the fly-tippers and Gypsies. Recently a group of Gypsies demolished a row of bollards to get their caravans onto this place which is a blocked-off country lane given over to cycle path/bridle path use, which they then completely blocked: I couldn't cycle along it at all. I like to claim I'm fairly tolerant, but that's not on, in my book. They were duly evicted after a few days, and the bollards have been replaced with a much more robust-looking set: a double row instead of a single one, and I hope they are effective this time. I really do. I'm quite happy to ride between them, and I'm glad they're there.

 

[marinyork]

There have been letters in the York paper suggesting cyclists should be off the road. The letters are so wrapped up in Mike Usherwood surrealism and people complaining about various things though that they make up a small percentage of cycling letters. If you got rid of Mike Usherwood I think they'd actually be a lot more prominent calls for getting us off the road.

I did use to get people in the east of York suggesting that I should shouldn't be using the old design Grimston Bar roundabout and that there was an NCN nearby or stupid dangerous lanes around the roundabout. People on the A166 used to get extremely irrate although I've experienced people who don't drive at 60+mph getting the same abuse. Sustrans is crap. It may have a few good bits near York but most of it is crap. On their online routes they selectively advertise a rubbish set of cycle lanes. I sometimes used to go to Tadcaster and a decent offroad parallel cycle track existed for those who didn't want to be mowed down by maniacs on the A64 but wanted a direct route. Sustrans didn't like advertising this because they wanted to get a new route on a popular set of country lanes with serious cyclists that were on rolling hills that there wasn't much of a chance getting the general public to use. It's the political rubbish that is as irritating as their incompetance. Then you'll see some spokesperson on the tv (granted it is hard to get your point across in a soundbite to some journalist who isn't remotely interested in cycling) going on about traffic free routes to Timbuktu.

 

[Danny]

It's a fallacy which is promoted by Sustrans as it equates 'safe' as 'traffic-free' and encourages segregated routes. It should not be encouraged.

If you look at the Sustrans website, you'll see that what they are promoting is something quite different.

Sustrans is all about promoting sustainable transport and encouraging people who are currently using cars to walk or cycle. Off road routes is one of the ways Sustrans is trying to achieve this. Calling them "segregated" is a very emotive term - I would say they are providing an alternative for people who do not want to cycle on roads, or do not feel confident to do so.

Sustrans does do other other things to promote cycling. In York, and other cities, they have run a very successful programme to encourage secondary school children to cycle to school, which has resulted in a significant increase in children travelling by bike. This programme is all about children learning to cycle safely on roads.

There is plenty of evidence that Sustrans has succeeded in getting more people cycling on the road, on off-road routes, and on the national cycle network which is a combination of on and off road roads.

 

[Danny]

Sustrans is crap. It may have a few good bits near York but most of it is crap. On their online routes they selectively advertise a rubbish set of cycle lanes. I sometimes used to go to Tadcaster and a decent offroad parallel cycle track existed for those who didn't want to be mowed down by maniacs on the A64 but wanted a direct route. Sustrans didn't like advertising this because they wanted to get a new route on a popular set of country lanes with serious cyclists that were on rolling hills that there wasn't much of a chance getting the general public to use. I

"Most of it is crap"...how many Sustrans routes have you actually used in different parts of the country? Most of the ones I have been on have been very good.

Also I don't see why Sustrans are under any obligation to advertise a pretty poor route alongside a major dual carriageway which they did not build. When I rode on it, it was precisely the sort of badly maintained track that people in other posts have been trying to attribute to Sustrans.

 

[marinyork]

As I've said before I've done fairly large parts of the ones in Yorkshire and also on far few occasions some in the south of england.

They aren't under an obligation, but why bother putting anyone elses routes on, seems dishonest and politicised to me? They are of mixed quality and usefulness. Your comment about the tadcaster path about it being badly maintained seems absurd, there are sections near the flyovers that are bad but most of it is decent, if that is the case then just about every sustrans route must be "pretty poor". It's decent quality and direct, what sustrans isn't. It's traffic free so it should be the perfect cycle route for sustrans but they don't bother putting it on because of political reasons and it's not winding and scenic country enough for them. I just don't agree with sustrans trying to take the credit for other peoples' already well established routes - seems pointless glory taking to me.

They do actually emphasise the "traffic-free" in their soundbites on tv, whether they mean to or not. One of the connect2 schemes near me if they get the funding is as much about locals having a very bad time crossing over a bottleneck road that is unpleasant as the cycling part of it. Sustrans should focus almost exclusively on problem areas and short cuts - motorways, canals, rivers, very busy A roads whether they be for peds or cyclists.