The Problem with Sustrans...
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
Simon
I know you had a lot of personal involvement with the case, including being there at the appeal, but there are a lot of stages to go through before a case gets anywhere near a court and these are supposed to filter out inappropriate prosecutions. Although it's always going to be a relief to be acquitted, especially on appeal, I expect most of us would prefer not to be prosecuted in the first place. The eventual exoneration must only partly make up for all the months of worry.
All I know about the case is what I've read in the CTC mag and on here. I had always assumed that things got formal when the stakes were raised during the initial reporting of the incident.
I know you had a lot of personal involvement with the case, including being there at the appeal, but there are a lot of stages to go through before a case gets anywhere near a court and these are supposed to filter out inappropriate prosecutions. Although it's always going to be a relief to be acquitted, especially on appeal, I expect most of us would prefer not to be prosecuted in the first place. The eventual exoneration must only partly make up for all the months of worry.
All I know about the case is what I've read in the CTC mag and on here. I had always assumed that things got formal when the stakes were raised during the initial reporting of the incident.
- EdinburghFixed
- Posts: 2375
- Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm
dave holladay wrote:If Edinburgh Fixed cares to ride straight across at the junction from Dalmeny into the Queensbury Estate and follow the road as it curves to the South (rather than head up to the big house) he should appear at the gatehouse where the Kirkliston road connects with the A90. As yet no-one has had the backbone to press for the official public access via that estate road
Although I appreciate the suggestion, it suffers from the classic problem of being twice as far as the direct route (although perhaps allowing for greater speed).
Maybe Sustrans could revoke "National Cycle Route" status for the stretch on the basis that it is not fit for purpose. That would be a useful spur to use on the council, for those campaigning to have it widened/cleared.
As an aside, I just found this excellent photo-travelogue of the stretch of "facility" in question.
At the time those photos were taken, the council was introducing legislation to ban cyclists from the adjacent road on the grounds that they had a "National Cycle Route" alternative... it's now paved (thank God) but still suffers from the same fundamental problem.
One of the drawbacks that Sustrans has is a lack of "supporting" letters from the public. Even a letter of complaint to Sustrans if raising a valid point (rather than general unhappiness) can be used to push things.
My local council made a stretch of 30metres of my route into a one way road.
As we can not really summon up a lot of complainants, they have done nothing to correct this.
My local council made a stretch of 30metres of my route into a one way road.
As we can not really summon up a lot of complainants, they have done nothing to correct this.
Yma o Hyd
meic wrote:My local council made a stretch of 30metres of my route into a one way road.
As we can not really summon up a lot of complainants, they have done nothing to correct this.
Looking at the central London map yesterday, while planning a route, I realised the one-way streets were the biggest obstacle to a nice route that I could actually remember, rather than have to write down and get lost on. By ignoring the one-way restriction, many turns through Soho turned into one right turn.
I've got a letter to my London Assembly member half-written pointing this out. I'd like to see "No Entry -- except cycles" become the norm (not just in London, but here the mayor wants to promote cycling, and it's where I live.).
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
One important thing is there are two sorts of one-way street. First, there are those intended to speed up traffic flow. Some, such as the slip roads on major highways as an extreme example, were even designed and built for only one-way traffic. These are unlikely to be opened up to contraflow cycling.
Then there are one-way streets intended to discourage driving in certain areas, particularly 'rat-running.' As these were never intended to discourage cycling - it was just an unintended side-effect in a country where the needs of cyclists generally go unconsidered - there is some recognition that cyclists should be exempt. In my own experience, the only problem is that the people lower down the hierarchy who implement this sort of thing scheme by scheme are terrified of being blamed for a cyclist fatality if they allow it on one of their schemes. This is why a general policy decision would be so much better.
Then there are one-way streets intended to discourage driving in certain areas, particularly 'rat-running.' As these were never intended to discourage cycling - it was just an unintended side-effect in a country where the needs of cyclists generally go unconsidered - there is some recognition that cyclists should be exempt. In my own experience, the only problem is that the people lower down the hierarchy who implement this sort of thing scheme by scheme are terrified of being blamed for a cyclist fatality if they allow it on one of their schemes. This is why a general policy decision would be so much better.
- hubgearfreak
- Posts: 8212
- Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm
then there are streets that are one way at one end, but not the other. it's for access to a carpark, but to stop a rat run.
so as a cyclist, we can ride down until the the oneway starts.
or walk on the path along the oneway bit and then cycle the rest.
and then enjoy uninformed motorists shouting obscenities.
so as a cyclist, we can ride down until the the oneway starts.
or walk on the path along the oneway bit and then cycle the rest.
and then enjoy uninformed motorists shouting obscenities.
- hubgearfreak
- Posts: 8212
- Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm
As it happens, when I violeted the one-way restriction on the road in Soho the only car moving down the street was a police car. The police ignored me.
Knowing RB K&C are looking into the issue is very encouraging! That borough has a lot of annoying one-way streets.
Rat running: I used to live on a road with a barrier across it to stop rat-running. It was possible to pass with a car, but you had to go very slowly, which discouraged almost all drivers. There were some similar barriers that were only possible to pass with a bike on another road. I've seen them in a few places in Fulham, but not anywhere else.
Knowing RB K&C are looking into the issue is very encouraging! That borough has a lot of annoying one-way streets.
Rat running: I used to live on a road with a barrier across it to stop rat-running. It was possible to pass with a car, but you had to go very slowly, which discouraged almost all drivers. There were some similar barriers that were only possible to pass with a bike on another road. I've seen them in a few places in Fulham, but not anywhere else.
- EdinburghFixed
- Posts: 2375
- Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm
Quite often there are essentially two way streets that have had a traffic order imposed to prevent rat-running, physically they may be perfectly suited to two way vehicular traffic, never mind cars one way, cyclists the other.
In *this* case (and not in the case of slip roads, etc!), I think hanging an 'except cyclists' sign is quite reasonable.
On a pragmatic note, what is safer? Cyclists riding up a one way street illegally, or legally- because that's the only real choice here. Given the complete lack of reported accidents (and you can bet the RAC/AA would jump on any such thing), it's hard to see what damage is being done.
After all, on the continent it is the exception, rather than the rule, to restrict bikes up one way streets. It works perfectly well, without the doom and destruction that the UK motoring lobby predicts here.
In *this* case (and not in the case of slip roads, etc!), I think hanging an 'except cyclists' sign is quite reasonable.
On a pragmatic note, what is safer? Cyclists riding up a one way street illegally, or legally- because that's the only real choice here. Given the complete lack of reported accidents (and you can bet the RAC/AA would jump on any such thing), it's hard to see what damage is being done.
After all, on the continent it is the exception, rather than the rule, to restrict bikes up one way streets. It works perfectly well, without the doom and destruction that the UK motoring lobby predicts here.
Where I live there are a number of one way streets which have been changed to allow cyclists to use against the flow. It works very well. There are lots of other that could similarly benefit. In my view this is one of the best adverts for cycling since it clearly demonstrates to motorists that cyclists have 'an advantage' at getting from a-b.
It's with amusement and some degree of horror that I read this thread.
I'm amazed that there is a point of view that argues that cycling is encouraged by fewer cycling facilities.
I fully support the right to ride on the road, but there are areas where exercising that right is daft (fast unlit dual carriageways with no shoulder for example). I wouldn't advise anyone to drive down it on a horse-drawn vehicle or a JCB either. It's just better to choose another route, at least at most times of day.
One of the biggest differences about the Netherlands is that most people cycle. This has a huge effect on motorists sympathy with cyclists. While Sustrans and similar routes are by no means perfect (ahem) they do encourage cycling. In due course people might, just might use their bikes more and even for domestic activities like commuting.
Leaving them in their cars and hectoring them will not encourage cycling one iota, and just further entrenches a 'them and us' polarisation of the matter.
I'm amazed that there is a point of view that argues that cycling is encouraged by fewer cycling facilities.
I fully support the right to ride on the road, but there are areas where exercising that right is daft (fast unlit dual carriageways with no shoulder for example). I wouldn't advise anyone to drive down it on a horse-drawn vehicle or a JCB either. It's just better to choose another route, at least at most times of day.
One of the biggest differences about the Netherlands is that most people cycle. This has a huge effect on motorists sympathy with cyclists. While Sustrans and similar routes are by no means perfect (ahem) they do encourage cycling. In due course people might, just might use their bikes more and even for domestic activities like commuting.
Leaving them in their cars and hectoring them will not encourage cycling one iota, and just further entrenches a 'them and us' polarisation of the matter.
-
- Posts: 36781
- Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm
hamster wrote:I'm amazed that there is a point of view that argues that cycling is encouraged by fewer cycling facilities.
I think the argument is that the typical cycling facilities provided in the UK do not encourage cycling, which is not quite the same thing.
(Courtesy of Leeds City Council, possibly advised by M Parris, not Sustrans.)