"Job losses at Sustrans expected as Gov't pulls plug on cyclefunding"

Discussion in 'Cycling Archive' started by Mike Causer, Nov 13, 2015.

  1. Mike Causer

    Mike Causer Guest

    Mike Causer, Nov 13, 2015
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mike Causer

    Peter Clinch Guest

    From my perspective locally their main work is training provider and
    cycle encouragement in schools through their I Bike initiative
    (http://www.sustrans.org.uk/scotland/what-we-do/schools-and-universities/i-bike)
    and it would be a shame if that got dented.

    Pete.
     
    Peter Clinch, Nov 16, 2015
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. to get cyclists off the road, into the gutter and out of the way of
    real road users.

    It's got so bad around here that I regularly get held up when driving
    by cyclists trying to get me to overtake unsafely, both when the road
    is too narrow and when I am about to turn left. They slow down and
    pull right into the dooring zone or gutter and won't pull out and
    restore their previous speed even when they see that I am waiting
    for them, and well behind.

    I don't know what proportion of 'cyclists' now believe that cycling
    should not be allowed on the road except in demarcated facilities,
    but I am getting an increasing number who tell me that. Dammit, it
    happened even on a (seriously) rural road in Cornwall, where two
    cyclists told me that I should ride only on the official cycle
    route.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
     
    Nick Maclaren, Nov 17, 2015
    #3
  4. Mike Causer

    Adam Funk Guest

    How is that Sustrans's fault?
     
    Adam Funk, Nov 17, 2015
    #4
  5. Sigh. Read my first paragraph, and the paragraph that you snipped.
    Yes, I was told BY CYCLISTS that I shouldn't be riding on any rural
    roads except the Sustran-designated ones. That's still rare, but I
    am seeing signs that the attitude is spreading.

    They are one of the prime movers in encouraging the use of 'off-road'
    (often merely pavement or footpath) cycle routes, designating such
    alternative routes as 'cycling routes' and so on. The more that
    cyclists are 'encouraged' off the road, the more that both motorists
    and cyclists believe that cyclists don't belong on the road and that
    ones who use the road deserve what they get.

    I accept that they were not a prime mover in 'cycle lanes' etc., but
    they have certainly joined forces with the promoters of those (look
    at their Web pages). But what you seem to have missed is that this
    is a matter of whether cyclists should be treated like vehicular
    traffic or pedestrians on wheels, and Sustrans are definitely among
    the prime movers pushing for a change from the former to the latter.
    Whether or not they realise what they are doing is irrelevant, and
    I hope you know where a road paved with good intentions leads.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
     
    Nick Maclaren, Nov 17, 2015
    #5
  6. Mike Causer

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 17:07:46 -0000 (UTC)
    On a similar note, it has been suggested to me that I ought to cycle up
    the Loch Lomond cycle path instead of the main A82 road. I explained
    that the cycle path is far too uneven in places and only fit for
    mountain bikes, whilst being also busy with pedestrians and 2-way
    cycling with some very narrow, overgrown sections. Meanwhile out on the
    main road, there's a 1-metre-wide tarmac shoulder beyond the solid white
    line in both directions which is actually pretty good to use, and which
    facilitates cruising at higher speeds whilst keeping out of the traffic
    flow. I feel that this arrangement is more than adequate for country
    roads and should be implemented everywhere possible. Now if the Loch
    Lomond cycle path were constructed to Dutch standards, that would be an
    entirely different matter.
     
    Ian Smith, Nov 17, 2015
    #6
  7. I am one of the cyclists who is seriously endangered by a 1 metre
    cycle lane, so I can't back that. Make it 1.5 metres, and I agree
    with you.
    Unless it's a lot better than the ones around here, you could omit
    the "Dutch" and it would still be true :-(


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
     
    Nick Maclaren, Nov 17, 2015
    #7
  8. Mike Causer

    Ian Smith Guest

    On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 20:48:46 -0000 (UTC)
    I can't argue with that, and didn't wish to imply everyone would be
    happy with 1 metre. Even on that road, the shoulder edge is either
    drainage rubble or a steep drop off into soil; which might have one
    tumbling unceremoniously if wheels ventured there; thus concentration
    required. However, I don't think you'd be too enthralled by the lochside
    path either. Much of it is ok though at a more sedate pace than I would
    like.
    That's for sure. The Dutch are practically so far ahead of any other
    country, they must be genuinely shocked when they visit foreign
    parts! :)
     
    Ian Smith, Nov 17, 2015
    #8
  9. Mike Causer

    Clive George Guest

    Depends which bit of the A82 you're talking about - a lot of it further
    north is stuff I don't like meeting cyclists on, because it's too
    narrow, twisty and busy.

    I see that's the bit where there isn't the cycle path...

    I don't think a 1m shoulder is wide enough though.
     
    Clive George, Nov 17, 2015
    #9
  10. My impression is sustrans have been rather wrong footed by the growth in
    the last, 10 years or of the growth of the MAMIL both in terms of
    leisure cycling and commuting.

    my contacts localy was a fair bit of poltics and hyperpole, at various
    meetings lots of claims of kids going to school riding on the old
    railway, which being halfway up the valley side, the roads that connect
    it to the towns and villages though not long are impressivly steep.

    a few at 10-12% and moving up to one beast of a climb to the railway at
    21% not thats averages not peak gradients, so the chances that school
    kids would use to go to school was and is unlikely.

    My folks place over look it, due to access it's not heavly used.

    get a few dog walkers a day, just now and then a horse, weekdays maybe a
    cyclist a day, on the weekends maybe a few MTBer joining up some trails
    and just now and then a family group if it's warm dry weather.

    what you don't get is commuters.

    Roger Merriman
     
    Roger Merriman, Nov 17, 2015
    #10
  11. What I've seen from them is mostly the NCN: we will take a narrow
    footpath with lots of gates and stiles and put magic blue signs on it,
    and then it will be a CYCLE ROUTE YAY.

    I get the impression that they think of cycling as a dedicated leisure
    activity: "I will go out for a ride" (probably driving to the start
    point, and wearing special expensive clothes for it) as one might say
    "I will go to the gym". They have nothing to say about the utility
    cycling that's far more my interest.
     
    Roger Bell_West, Nov 18, 2015
    #11
  12. Mike Causer

    Adam Funk Guest

    I don't think it's fair to blame Sustrans for that; their aim is to
    *add* cycles routes, & AFAIK they've never said people shouldn't cycle
    on the existing roads. It makes more sense to blame the gov't & local
    councils for failing to educate non-cycling drivers & for building
    crap cycle lanes.

    There's nothing wrong with *good* cycle lanes, although I agree with
    you that bad ones are worse than nothing.
    I'll take a look at their website again (I haven't really looked at it
    for a while).
     
    Adam Funk, Nov 18, 2015
    #12
  13. Mike Causer

    Adam Funk Guest

    If it were up to me, councils would be legally required to make them
    2 m wide or not at all (with a few exceptions).
     
    Adam Funk, Nov 18, 2015
    #13
  14. Mike Causer

    Rob Morley Guest

    On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 12:41:12 -0000 (UTC)
    It does seem that way sometimes.
    I've seen the same behaviour, it's most annoying.
    I've read the Highway Code since I was about ten years old, perhaps it
    should be mandatory reading in schools. And Franklin's Cyclecraft for
    those who are interested.
     
    Rob Morley, Nov 18, 2015
    #14
  15. Given the preponderance of studies, I'd think it should be possible to
    get a good case together that a council allowing the existence of <2m
    cycle lanes is making the roads more dangerous for cyclists (and
    presumably for other road users) than if the lanes weren't there at
    all. Win against one council and the others would follow rather than
    risk the legal costs. That's the sort of thing I'd like to see a
    cycling organisation get behind: something that would actually improve
    safety for cyclists.
     
    Roger Bell_West, Nov 18, 2015
    #15
  16. Mike Causer

    Owen Dunn Guest

    (Nick Maclaren) writes:
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Wow. uucp.
    Apart from their work on the NCN, which varies hugely, I also remember
    reports of them opposing rail reopenings which irks me. Citation
    probably needed.

    (S)
     
    Owen Dunn, Nov 18, 2015
    #16
  17. Mike Causer

    Adam Funk Guest

    Indeed!
     
    Adam Funk, Nov 18, 2015
    #17
  18. Do you seriously believe everything you read on the Web? :)


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
     
    Nick Maclaren, Nov 18, 2015
    #18
  19. Mike Causer

    Peter Clinch Guest

    Seems a bit long winded. A decent standards manual plus a legal
    requirement to build to it implemented from centre seems like a better
    plan to me.

    Pete.
     
    Peter Clinch, Nov 18, 2015
    #19
  20. And that's the good ones :-( If you want to see an unbelievably
    ghastly one, try NCN 11 from Sawston to Waterbeach.
    And mine, though I am also interested in recreational highway and
    byway cycling, and genuine touring (being now retired). Actually,
    that's where Sustrans started, but they seemed to be a number of
    well-intentioned but clueless and, er, unthinking do-gooders. When
    they started, they were asking for support but said that they had
    plenty of money, so I deduced that they were a front for the motor
    lobby, with the intent of 'doing something' for cyclists to fend
    off any real action. It appears that it was, at least, not as simple
    as that, but they may well have been 'useful idiots' and that is
    where the money came from.


    Regards,
    Nick Maclaren.
     
    Nick Maclaren, Nov 18, 2015
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Similar Threads
There are no similar threads yet.
Loading...