Forum menu
With the odd exception, I've been pretty impressed by Sustrans offerings, both dedicated paths and the 'quiet road' routes I've followed in the SW (and to a lesser extent elsewhere). Modern paranoid parenting would have it that even the pavement in front of their houses isn't safe for their obese pampered 12 year olds, so I don't think that's much of a yardstick.
Modern paranoid parenting would have it that even the pavement in front of their houses isn’t safe for their obese pampered 12 year olds, so I don’t think that’s much of a yardstick.
I do think it is an odd, somewhat arbitrary standard to define. Have they defined what makes a path unsafe? I know of some routes which I wouldn’t describe as unsafe but are thoroughly impractical: giveaways on the cycleway for every driveway it crosses, means accelerating and decelerating every 50 yds, routes that are so popular with dog walkers they are too congested to ride at prime time, canal tow paths with “cyclist dismount” signs on every bridge, and closest to me a “bike traffic light” on a road that outside 0730-0900 and 1700-1900 M-F gets about 3 cars a day, which defaults to green for cars and red for bikes, requires the cyclist to push a button and wait 2 mins for the sequence.
I read it the other way round though - if it IS safe for a 12 yr old, it will be safe for an adult with a bike (rather than a cyclist). Those are the people Sustrans and the government really want to encourage out of cars. Those are the people who are less likely to use the roads themselves.
I read it the other way round though – if it IS safe for a 12 yr old, it will be safe for an adult with a bike (rather than a cyclist). Those are the people Sustrans and the government really want to encourage out of cars. Those are the people who are less likely to use the roads themselves.
I think that's the intention, twisting it the other way for a headline makes it a bit glass half empty and does encourage the sort of mouth frothing bullshit you expect in the comment section.
On a personal level, I feel that the sustrans labelled routes are shite; they're unreliable and untrustworthy. I can't plan a route for a particular level of cyclist based on their network and that's an embarrassment. It's not all their fault. On a case by case basis they can be excellent or downright impassable.
But now that we have a network, they can scream and shout about how they've been forced in to this position by NIMBYS, councils, landowners and embarrass them in to helping improve it. Do you reckon threatening to remove a cycle network would help motivate improvement?
But now that we have a network…
We don’t have a network. We have the notion of a network; a Notional Cycling Network.
The idea of a national network is misguided anyway: if you go to Bristol you can see a nice wall-mounted relief map of how you can in theory cycle from Southampton to York, but what’s the point? People in Southampton want to cycle a couple of miles from home to work or the shops, not 250 miles to the National Railway Museum.
The idea of a national network is misguided anyway: if you go to Bristol you can see a nice wall-mounted relief map of how you can in theory cycle from Southampton to York, but what’s the point? People in Southampton want to cycle a couple of miles from home to work or the shops, not 250 miles to the National Railway Museum.
This is what most of the folk I meet (i.e. committed cyclists) don't understand and explains some of the weird routing decisions. Rural routes are often quite straightforward but these folk complain that urban routes detour past schools, housing estates, hospitals etc. They're not really seeing what Sustrans initially set out to do. TBF, Sustrans are definitely now concentrating on these shorter routes.
The biggest problem is that drivers won’t learn how to behave around cyclists that they encounter
They won't? We haven't really spent any money trying, have we? There's been big campaigns against drunk driving, and to look out for motorcyclists, but I haven't seen anything about cyclists. We could do a hell of a lot better just by getting the message out, IMO. And tbh it's the easiest thing to start with. Would cost peanuts compared to a massive infra rollout.
I've been working in Amsterdam, and I'm not sure I'd like to see the same infra there as here, because you MUST use the cyclepaths where they exist. And they aren't always great. Sometimes they are half a narrow pavement between parked cars and driveways.
I would take their superhighways - arterial traffic-free routes connecting areas, I would take their traffic calming approach to road layout in suburban side-streets, I would take the presumed liability and driver awareness, I would take the cycle-prioritised roundabouts ( in some places - not all roundabouts have cyclist priority); but I would ditch the universal coverage for cyclepaths and the compulsion to use them. There are plenty of big suburban roads where the cars take priority in the junctions and it takes 5 mins to get through on a bike. For small roads I would advocate shared usage with lower speed limits, priorities at junctions and good space and sight. But shared, not segregated.
Sustrans have just tweeted: "Sorry about the earlier typo, it's Notional Cycling Network, hope this clears that up."
Lolz 🙂
Oh, and raise the legal driving age to 25. That'll get people out into the world of work without having access to cars, and they can bloody well cycle (disability notwithstanding).
Oh, and raise the legal driving age to 25. That’ll get people out into the world of work without having access to cars, and they can bloody well cycle (disability notwithstanding).
Not a bloody clue about living outside a city then?
"Not a bloody clue about living outside a city then?"
Its ok you can still get your tractor license at 16.
or since he mentioned cars - i guess you can still get your moped license.
I do reckon that compulsory moped for 6 month-1year prior to getting a car would change attitudes over a generation - and if you drive like a dick and tot up points etc - no hardship plead - you revert to your moped license.
Sorry, you took me literally. Now that Sustrans claim to have a network, is the threat of removing parts of the networks a useful tool?
Now that Sustrans claim to have a network, is the threat of removing parts of the networks a useful tool?
I doubt it, if you told Reading council you were demoting it's cyclepaths they'd shrug and file it with the abandoned BMX tracks.
From the councils own website describing the park facilities http://www.reading.gov.uk/article/7067/Hills-Meadow:
a grassy BMX track
Not a bloody clue about living outside a city then?
Nah. I grew up in the countryside, my mates were farmers etc etc but I wasn't paying attention.
And my post was not entirely serious.
But in any case, most of us could not afford cars for offspring, so it made little difference. I still had to cycle to my mates' houses, get lifts or even hitch-hike.
Bez,
My experience of London Commuting was not one of "if you were assertive and physically fit … the super highways seemed a bit surplus by that point as critical mass of able-bodied men had been reached", but I found a genuine mix of users of all abilities using both main and minor roads. Maybe it's changed in the last 10 years or so, but I moved to London in 2006 and found it a cycling utopia when compared to with Bristol or Nottingham, mostly due to driver attitudes as in London they were used to 20 cyclists at the front of every queue to the traffic lights, at every junction, for every cycle of the lights, for 2 hours every morning and every night.
When it wasn't so busy with cyclists (weekends, daytime etc), drivers seemed much more aware of the presence of bikes and not behave like idiots around them.