You can vote for Sustrans online now!

[domd1979]

Why then did they object to the Bodmin & Wenford Railway's proposal to extend along former route alignment in order to carry china clay, which would have taken a significant number of HGVs off the local road network?

Sustrans is all about promoting sustainable transport

 

[Brock]

I still find the vehemence, paranoia and selfishness displayed by the most vociferous anti Sustrans bleeters strange. I mean, yes, there IS a perfectly good road network that we are all allowed to ride on, yes, most of us are perfectly able and confident enough to ride on roads that are busy with fast traffic, and yes, there might well be some NCN sections that are far from perfect. However, the provision of alternative links, signed routes through pleasant lanes and shortcuts avoiding nasty traffic filled stress points can only be a good thing in my view.
I commute happily on main roads every day and love every minute of it. When I'm cycling for leisure I often make use of Sustrans routes and 'farcilities' (oh my! How I giggle at that hilariously witty wordplay) and am grateful for them. The provision of such facilities DOES encourage people to cycle, whatever dusty, dubious and contrived statistics to the contrary some may pull out of their fudgehole.

Linking Sustrans with some fictional underground movement to outlaw cycles on roads seems a ludicrous reason to be so unhelpful towards them. It exists as a powerful and established charity which is working to promote cycling, and I find it bizarre that cyclists aren't prepared to contribute and praise the good works Sustrans does, while suggesting ways for improvement to the areas that cause such consternation. Could it just be elitist snobbery?

I'll be voting for them, because it costs me nothing, increases the profile of cycling, and will benefit me directly with the improvements to facilities locally.
Could the money be spent in better ways to promote cycling? Possibly. Is there an opportunity to do that in this vote? No.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

The main problem I have with Sustrans is that their name is all wrong. It's not about sustainable transport, it's about going out for a pleasant, traffic free, Sunday afternoon pootle with the kids. Very nice and hats off to those who enjoy it, but it's not transport in any sense I understand the word.

 

[Brock]

The main problem I have with Sustrans is that their name is all wrong. It's not about sustainable transport, it's about going out for a pleasant, traffic free, Sunday afternoon pootle with the kids. Very nice and hats off to those who enjoy it, but it's not transport in any sense I understand the word.

Vote for the Eden project then, they're obviously going to create paradise and a state of perfect bliss if they nab the 50 million.

 

[domd1979]

No, it isn't elitist snobbery.

Sustrans largely (but not exclusively) promotes leisure cycling - don't have a problem with that. But, they make all sorts of other claims. Their own statistics show that the NCN is predominantly used for leisure purposes. They try to imply massive carbon savings "if all the journeys made on NCN had been made by car". Buried away in their own stats are figures showing that the majority of NCN journeys haven't replaced car journeys, and clearly its never going to be the case that people would make the journey by car if they're out to enjoy a cycle ride!

Where cycling really needs to be promoted is as a day-to-day form of transport for short journeys (say <5miles), as an alternative to the car. The NCN doesn't really provide for this. Segregation, whilst nice for leisure rides in more rural areas, is causing problems for promoting cycling as a mainstream form of transport. It would help if Sustrans were more honest about the primary function of the NCN rather than trying to make claims about functions it fulfils that it clearly doesn't. If cycling is ever to be seen as a mainstream form of transport, then the approach to promoting segregated routes needs to be changed and balanced out with promoting utility cycling, and the rights of cyclists to use the road network. Increasingly car driving society appears to be taking the view that cycling should be a segregated activity for all cycle trip purposes. Sustrans approach has inevitably contributed to that.

Linking Sustrans with some fictional underground movement to outlaw cycles on roads seems a ludicrous reason to be so unhelpful towards them. It exists as a powerful and established charity which is working to promote cycling, and I find it bizarre that cyclists aren't prepared to contribute and praise the good works Sustrans does, while suggesting ways for improvement to the areas that cause such consternation. Could it just be elitist snobbery?

 

[Brock]

No, it isn't elitist snobbery.

Sustrans largely (but not exclusively) promotes leisure cycling - don't have a problem with that. But, they make all sorts of other claims...

Do they really make such wildly inaccurate claims? Surely any charity is legally bound to some degree of honesty in its own promotional material? If they point out that cycling produces much less carbon than cars, then I don't suppose anyone will mistakenly jump to the conclusion that Sustrans is about to turn global warming around.

Where cycling really needs to be promoted is as a day-to-day form of transport for short journeys (say <5miles), as an alternative to the car.

Why does it?

In my experience Sustrans is doing a reasonable job of improving the local environment for walkers and cyclists by increasing the journey options for these groups without really inconveniencing anyone else.

If people are more tempted to try cycling as a leisure activity because there are pleasant routes for them to try locally at the weekend, then they are far more likely to realise the bicycle is actually a perfectly viable form of transport, and go on to use it for journeys they may have made by car in the past.

If you really want to force people out of cars and onto bicycles for day to day transport, lobby for an increase in road tax and more widespread congestion charges in cities. that'd suit me.

 

[John the Monkey]

If people are more tempted to try cycling as a leisure activity because there are pleasant routes for them to try locally at the weekend, then they are far more likely to realise the bicycle is actually a perfectly viable form of transport, and go on to use it for journeys they may have made by car in the past.

...or view it as an activity that takes place in leisure time, or at most only on specially allocated "safe" tracks and paths, per the point Dom made last;

Increasingly car driving society appears to be taking the view that cycling should be a segregated activity for all cycle trip purposes. Sustrans approach has inevitably contributed to that.

I'd be interested to see a study looking at both hypotheses, myself, I don't think there's ever been one, and I can't recall anyone quoting one last time this debate was had. My personal view accords more with Domd1979's (knowing people who will happily drive their bikes to trails to ride, but would never consider riding on the public road) but I readily admit that I base that only on talking to a fairly small number of acquaintances.

 

[Brock]

My personal view accords more with Domd1979's (knowing people who will happily drive their bikes to trails to ride, but would never consider riding on the public road) but I readily admit that I base that only on talking to a fairly small number of acquaintances.

So based on that experience you would consider the provision of such 'trails' a bad thing? I would contend that your friends' quality of life and health is being improved even if they do stubbornly refuse to cycle to work on the road, and so surely those particular trails are worth having?

I feel I should point out again that the majority of NCN routes are ON ROAD. Obviously some particularly timid cyclists will just travel the totally traffic free sections for a short Sunday pootle before loading their cycles back into the 4x4 to drive home, but I'm sure many will make the transition onto the quiet roads and gain confidence with traffic in a way that might just end up with them using the bicycle to fight evil, crime and planetary implosion.

 

[marinyork]

Was quite amused to see that Sheffield City Council are gunning for the sustrans connect2 scheme, highly ironic as a competitor is Sherwood Forest. Also that the scheme would cost an eye watering £1.5M in total.

 

[Gerry Attrick]

I reckon the Sustrans routes have a perfectly good role in the encouragement of cycling. I returned to cycling relatively recently and as an old beggar, I found even some of our quiet lanes around here somewhat intimidating. Because the lanes are quiet, Mr and Mrs Ford-Focus and the like think they can go tearing down them without the hindrance and bother of meeting me coming the other way round a blind bend. 'Taint pleasant for experienced wheelers let alone me. So I decide to get used to the bike on a sustrans bike track and others like it. Thoroughly enjoyable, lots of time to poke your head up and admire the girl......err magnificent scenery, and no pressure from the petrol heads.

Take Mrs Gerry (please), she would never have set her posterior on a saddle without first trying out the traffic-free routes. I got myself a road bike after gaining confidence, and use it on all types of roads. Now surely that's something to be encouraged. People will naturally want to travel on ordinary roads when they (re) discover the pleasures cycling holds. Sustrans is good enough for my vote.

 

[domd1979]

Why does it?

Because cycling is a form of transport, and needs to be seen as a viable means of transport for day to day journeys to replace some of the high proportion of car journeys which are short in length.

If people are more tempted to try cycling as a leisure activity because there are pleasant routes for them to try locally at the weekend, then they are far more likely to realise the bicycle is actually a perfectly viable form of transport, and go on to use it for journeys they may have made by car in the past.

Bicycle ownership in the UK is at roughly the same level as car ownership. The very small proportion of traffic that is bicycles implies that the majority of bicycles are bought entirely for leisure purposes and never get used for anything else. IMO, a serious effort needs to be put into changing public attitudes before the cross over from leisure to utility cycling will occur.

If you really want to force people out of cars and onto bicycles for day to day transport, lobby for an increase in road tax and more widespread congestion charges in cities. that'd suit me.

Agree entirely that the cost of motoring needs to be increased. Although, most road pricing proposals appear to be predicated on spending the revenue on public transport provision. It would be good to see a proportion of any road pricing revenue (when it eventually happens somewhere outside London) spent on cycling.

 

[marinyork]

Sustrans seem to go on about walking very rarely when I see them on tv. It's always going on about offroad routes that are about as useful as Irish famine relief roads. Sustrans to me come across as the sort of people that in other circles are convinced that suddenly everyone is going to jump on a train or a bus and do polls about them and come up with a load of superficial and cosmetic changes - buses smell, they are noisy, dirty, blah, blah, blah, etc. These superficial changes are enacted and not much changes. This is the same thing, off road cycle tracks going nowhere are the same cosmetic nonsense. Sustrans could build hundreds of miles more and find no change in cycling. To get people to change you need to clobber them financially, change attitudes and build practical solutions.

 

[John the Monkey]

So based on that experience you would consider the provision of such 'trails' a bad thing? I would contend that your friends' quality of life and health is being improved even if they do stubbornly refuse to cycle to work on the road, and so surely those particular trails are worth having?

I wouldn't disagree - in the sense of my friends having something nice to do on clement weekends, those trails are grand - the local bike hire shops did well out of them before they took the plunge and bought their own gear, and it's been fun talking to them about their experiences.

It hasn't cut their car journeys though - one of them visits his parents pretty frequently (he's single, and has to eat somewhere ) about a 2 mile trip, that he does by car. The others among them think I'm mad/brave for riding with traffic, and wouldn't think of doing so, despite my suggestions about road positioning, and how to stay out of trouble.

My post wasn't intended to judge outcomes as such, just question the assertion

If people are more tempted to try cycling as a leisure activity because there are pleasant routes for them to try locally at the weekend, then they are far more likely to realise the bicycle is actually a perfectly viable form of transport

- as yet, I've not seen that from the people I know, although they've gained a very pleasant hobby.

but I'm sure many will make the transition onto the quiet roads and gain confidence with traffic in a way that might just end up with them using the bicycle to fight evil, crime and planetary implosion.

I dunno about the last part, but I hope you're right about the first - certainly Gerry's experiences back that up, and is good to hear.

 

[gpx001]

Sustrans get my vote - at least they are trying to imrpove cycling facilities in the UK. I use a few of their National Cycle Routes regularly, which have both on and off road sections and whilst not 100% brilliant, they provide a decent cycle friendly marked route in and out of the towns and city I use.

 

[Brock]

Because cycling is a form of transport, and needs to be seen as a viable means of transport for day to day journeys to replace some of the high proportion of car journeys which are short in length.

Yeah but I mean, on a basic level, why does it? There always seems to be this need to get people onto bicycles, I'm trying to work out what the reason for that actually is.

Is it simply carbon footprint maths? I've never really seen myself as an eco warrior