I’m not sure if this was picked up on when it appeared in the paper on Sunday, I can’t find any reference on here, but this is the original story:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630882/Elf-n-safety-brigade-call-police-grandad-tidies-brambles-footpath.html
Anyway, I’ve just had an email from Sustrans, with their response, and their contacting the Press Complaints Commission.
Response here: http://www.sustrans.org.uk/press-releases/sustrans-response-daily-mail-article-17-may

Whilst the ex-cop is clearly considers himself above the law some of his comments ring true. I tried to follow a couple of Sustrans routes when last in the UK. The swear filter prevents objective comments on signing, maintenance and the state of the surface. On Route 5 I gave up having come to the conclusion that the off-road section were unbearable on a camping-loaded hybrid and the road sections were no safer than more direct roads.

A shambles compared with the routes I’ve used in Germany, Holland, France, Denmark… anywhere else I’ve ever ridden. Sustrans is not the answer to providing a useable cycle network in the UK.

A bit of Googling says I’m not the only one to be disappointed with the network and suspicious of the organisation. A perceptive blogger on Sustrans.

In the case of the cop, that particular part of the path is now very well maintained; a good fence, no brambles and somewhere to sit. Sustrans are being corporate bully boys if they really do prosecute when the outcome for cyclists is better than anywhere I saw on Route 5.

Wow. Theres me thinking it must be a really slow news day

Did I read this right did he really nick 200 meters of someone else’s wrought iron fence and sell it for scrap , or just the bits left after another thief . In his moan to the mail he makes no mention of any other thieves involved just him .

Whilst the ex-cop is clearly considers himself above the law some of his comments ring true. I tried to follow a couple of Sustrans routes when last in the UK. The swear filter prevents objective comments on signing, maintenance and the state of the surface. On Route 5 I gave up having come to the conclusion that the off-road section were unbearable on a camping-loaded hybrid and the road sections were no safer than more direct roads.

I regularly uses Sustrans routes. In fact we plan 300 mile touring holidays around them. On Monday we’re starting just such a holiday from Swansea round South Wales.
Without exception I’ve found them excellent. Traffic free where possible, some minor off road sections easily passable on 1.5in slicks (loaded and towing a trailer) and minor roads pretty much the rest of the way.
But then I can navigate from a map and read a sign……. Maybe that helps?

I just saw STW have disabled links to the Daily Mail – that’s a mistake IMO. I don’t much like the paper either but to try and censor links to it is wrong.

Did I read this right did he really nick 200 meters of someone else’s wrought iron fence and sell it for scrap , or just the bits left after another thief .

It’s not clear, is it. The Sustrans response says “As the article makes clear, 130 metres of Victorian railings were removed from our land” but the article really doesn’t make that clear at all. The bloke says he cleared away overgrowth around some spikes, the spikes presumably being remnants of the old fence; but then later on it says he flogged the old fence?

I applaud him for trying to improve the path, but surely (as an ex copper) he must’ve known that you can’t just uproot someone else’s property and sell it?

It’s not censorship, you can still access the site, if you want to contribute to the fails advertising revenue.

I just saw STW have disabled links to the Daily Mail – that’s a mistake IMO. I don’t much like the paper either but to try and censor links to it is wrong.

Just as well STW hasn’t done any of those things, then.

As I explained yesterday, Daily Mail links aren’t disabled, you can post them quite happily and to follow them you just have to make two clicks instead of one.

It’s not censoring anything, it’s injecting a warning page for anyone who might click it inadvertently, and adds a nofollow attribute to prevent the DM from benefiting from free advertising from STW and increasing their PageRank scores.

@Cougar really, no one clicks it inadvertently. I didn’t see your post yesterday, now read.

I just read the article and it’s not any cycling at all. He said he’d cleared to path to help cyclists. Perhaps it been edited ? The piece says its a footpath so cyclists shouldn’t be riding it anyway.

It’s certainly vague about what he did with the old fence. Slight mention that he sold it to fund the bench? I wonder if the Daily Fail will run the story when someone sits on the bench, it collapses and then sues Sustrans? And which angle they will take?

Oh, sorry. That will be the usual moral outrage then.

As Hora said, slow news day.

really, no one clicks it inadvertently.

Not any more they don’t.

If I could be arsed to argue I’d go and dig out some of the old threads from before the change was implemented, where people have said (paraphrasing) “argh, I wouldn’t have followed that link if I’d known it was a DM page, I shall of course go and flagellate myself with a rusty spork immediately.” However, it’s early and I’ve not yet finished my first coffee, so shall instead deploy the debating tactic beloved of one of our dearly departed arseaches, to wit: I’m right, you’re wrong, hush.

The piece says footpath but that kind of sums up the fails quality of journalism IMO (are Sustrans responsible for footpaths?) I reckon matey boy has sold the fence, needs to cover his tracks, this is what he has come up with.

But then I can navigate from a map and read a sign……. Maybe that helps?

sustrans do make some nice routes but some signage is woeful. I can read a map (just) but I occasionally choose sustrans routes with the same intentions as riding trail centres, disengage brain (or atleast the navigation part) and follow the signs. As sustrans are meant to help get people cycling surely a lot of their target audience wont be proficient map readers. Either way I’m unimpressed with some of their signage which I’d consider to be a bit of a problem.

And the areas I do know well the routes they’ve taken for NCN seem rather strange but there’s probably a myriad of reasons for the final choice so won’t criticize them for that.

I’ve tidied up cycle routes before, cutting back vegetation, that’s probably enough of a legal grey area, wouldn’t touch fence and the like, that’s just asking for trouble. Selling it on is beyond daft.

Dear me, Peter, why imply I’m half blind and can’t read a map when all I’m doing is reporting my experience of a route I rode. I rode Swinley the next day which was much better maintained, and the route to get to the forest along the main road through Winnersh and Wokingham with cycling allowed on the pavements was safer than most of the roads on route 5.

Concerning the section I failed to ride on 40mm knobbly tyres in the wet Spring of 2012, it was improved in 2013 according to the Sustrans site. The alternative in 2012 was the kind of narrow road with not quite enough space for two cars and a bike, and commuters racing along it. Poorly maintained canal towpaths and mud-up-to-the-ankles bridleways aren’t good enough for a national cycle network IMO. There was a frightening level of traffic on narrow roads on both route 5 and the Newhaven-London route.

I report as I find. If the work carried out in 2013 has made the route safer and ride-able so much the better.

I reckon matey boy has sold the fence, needs to cover his tracks, this is what he has come up with.

I’m glad someone can fathom what it’s all about. I can’t even see a bloody PATH in the photos!

Is this the end of CMD’s Big Society?

PS If STW did wish to protect me from outlandish and sensationalist bollx that only narrows the view point of idiots even further filter stuff then I’m fine with that, save me the time of forming opinions on my own.

Vote Cougar!

anti-cycle bias

I don’t think they have any opinions except “print / post what generates traffic” which often means deliberately inflammatory posts, that then get linked elsewhere with “have you seen this outrageous thing in the daily mail”

Yesterday, they carried a piece about the outrage regarding the personal criticism that that opera lady has been getting about her appearance and weight (it’s in the real news too, even radio 4 is talking about it). Yes, the Daily Mail, home of the “sidebar of shame” running pieces about media folk making personal comments on others’ physical appearance. They also had a thing from that Tyger Drew-Honey lad about media impact on young men’s body image and the problems that causes. Ironing etc..

So, no, I don’t think they’re specifically anti-cyclist except in so far as it is one of the things on a very long list that will generate traffic, so it’s in there for commercial rather than ideological reasons.

So edlong you’re saying they’re generally amoral clickbait professional trolling scum as opposed to anticycling specific amoral clickbait professional trolling scum?

Yep, summed up my thoughts exactly.

This isn’t going well for Sustrans.

Sustrans Facebook

ITV News

BBC News

So Sustrans claim their insurers made them report it to the police. They can’t think for themselves then.

At least 20cm spikes on the old fence, if I had such a thing in front of my house with spikes at that height I’d be the one risking prosecution.

gobuchul – Member

This isn’t going well for Sustrans.

Sustrans Facebook……..

any chance STW Towers folks could add a warning to Facebook links?
having read that stuff not sure if need a link to The Samaritans or some Youtube of Bob Marley [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaGUr6wzyT8[/video]

But then I can navigate from a map and read a sign……. Maybe that helps?

Doesn’t the need to pull the map out make the Sustrans bit rather redundant though? I was under the impression that they were supposed to be doing more than recommending quiet roads or canal paths.
All the Sustrans routes I’ve used seem to have involved little more than the odd blue sticker with frequent large gaps between them.

So the BBC piece is quite clear he took the fence down and sold it. And we’re supposed to be upset the guy got a visit from the police? There was nothing stopping him putting a fence up in his own land.

The Sustrans spokeswoman on BBC NE tonight was very reasonable. She explained that the police were called to investigate a significant metal theft (which was admitted on camera), that it had cost a lot of money to make safe the metal spikes left behind and restore a fence and that someones messy verge was another’s habitat for butterflies and birds. She was very reasoned and measured and hoped that the bloke would work with them in the future.
Sadly measured and reasonable doesn’t get heard these days…

You’re right, we’ve heard so many simpering, measured and reasonable corporate PR people that we don’t believe any of them.

Did you read my first link about the Sustrans testifying in court against a cyclist being done for riding on a b-road. The cyclist initially lost his case thanks to Sustrans testifying against him. Thankfully he won on appeal thanks to the law being applied.

Did you read my first link about the Sustrans testifying in court against a cyclist being done for riding on a b-road.

This did not happen.

Read your link again.

Its mostly hearsay..
“A man I met at a recent conference on cycle campaigning conveyed the following story to me”…

and in any case, your link does not even state that Sustrans testified in court against a cyclist.

It says:
” was featured in the local press, where a Sustrans ranger wrote a letter ” which “may very well have influenced the judge”

In other words, the Sustrans ranger (who could just have been someone who occasionally volunteers to clear cycle paths) wrote a letter to a paper.

I report as I find.

So do I. And I think Sustrans are doing a great job, to the point where they’re the only charity we regularly give money to. We’ve now done around 900 miles of ‘organised’ touring (as distinct from general usage) using solely their routes and I’ve not had the slightest problem. We know their routes will take us to some nice places away from the crowds.
But I do have (and it’s rare I blow my own trumpet) a superb sense of direction and a virtual photographic memory for maps, so I just don’t get lost. Hey ho. 🙂

I think they are doing a great job too.

Recently did a mini-tour with my other half on the Devon Coast to Coast route. It was fantastic.

It was our first self-supported camping tour. Currently planning where to go next.

Ask your friend in Winnersh about his French mate’s map reading ability, Peter.

I just read the article and it’s not any cycling at all. He said he’d cleared to path to help cyclists. Perhaps it been edited ? The piece says its a footpath so cyclists shouldn’t be riding it anyway.

It’s a Sustrans route, so is shared use. Yes, it’s a footpath, and it’s also a cycle-path. What it’s not, is a road.
As regards Educator (really ought to learn how to spell) complaining about surfacing of towpath surfaces, etc, he really should be aware that Sustrans are totally at the mercy of whoever is the actual owner of the route, ie the Canal & Rivers Trust, who have taken over responsibility from British Waterways, and local councils. Poor surface maintenance is a continual, on-going problem, and as for local councils keeping cycle path surfaces up together, has Educator seen the state of our road network? Before he has a go at Sustrans, who are fighting a continual battle about these issues, he ought to turn his attention to those who are really responsible for the maintenance of public rights of way in the UK.
As for signing, again, trying to keep up with the damage and removal of signs by vandals, and idiots, is a continual exercise in tooth-grinding frustration.
Along with the reluctance of local authorities to allow signs to be placed on existing street/road furniture.

(really ought to learn how to spell)

It’s spelt correctly, check the film title.