The Problem with Sustrans...

geocycle
Posts: 2177
Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 9:46am

Post by geocycle »

I think it's important not to equate sustrans with just the NCN or off-road paths. Sure these are some of their more visible and contentious activities, especially to us established cyclists. We can all think of good and attrocious sections.

In my local area Sustrans are also directly addressing the perception problem noticed by several posters through a programme called travelsmart where indivduals are coaxed into cycling through personalised trvael plans and also a system of bike buddies. They have targetted 50,000 homes and these may well help convert a small number of folk to travel more sustainably. I don't have data on how effective it has been. However, these carrots have to be backed up by government level involvement to provide the sticks to lower speeds, restrict parking, increase congestion charging, facilitate rail integration etc. The examples of London, York and cambridge where travel into the city by vehicle is nearly impossible and very expensive are relevant here.
glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Post by glueman »

GeoffL wrote:
However, even with that the roads are much, much safer than is generally perceived and it does cycling less disservice to make that point than to engage in the sort of scaremongering so prevalent on these forums IMO.

Geoff

I don't believe scaremongering is rife, I'd describe the cyclists' life as portrayed on this board as one of enthusiasm mixed with weary resignation. There can't be many non-cyclists who visit and are likely to be put off by such debates.
Like many I can pick and choose my destinations and route, which always tend to the quiet and traffic free but I've served time at the busy end and can honestly say I never felt 'safe' in the way some describe. Bike commuting was the lesser evil but nowhere near as pleasurable as touring.

For a start the penalties on the errant motorists are unlikely to change their driving mind set. It's confusing to hear people say we should be singing from the same hymnsheet when there's so few in the choir.
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Post by EdinburghFixed »

glueman wrote:That very few people cycle for transport so current approaches aren't working - but activists claim they are, in spite of evidence to the contrary. If something fails but you keep doing precisely the same thing over things never improve.


I agree in part. I think there are some very cheap and effective measures we could introduce, such as 20mph limits (almost free), lifting one-way street restrictions where possible (also virtually free), providing secure covered bike parking (get companies to pay through some kind of tax incentive, and by planning restrictions on new builds), and showers in offices (tax incentive again).

The government could take on direct ownership of the Cycle to Work scheme to offer it centrally (through Inland Revenue and PAYE) to broaden availability.

Schools should absolutely be forced to provide secure covered bike storage and maybe even some kind of incentive for riding to school (free lunches if you ride to school? Cash (offset against lower NHS costs)? Brighter minds than I could incentivise this).

Combined with an extensive training programme this would immediately boost cyclist numbers by normalising bike travel as a utility in the minds of future generations.

What is not helpful is token gestures like bike lanes which result in riders being squashed, segregated routes which have led to us being banned from the road, etc. etc. etc.
glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Post by glueman »

Agree on much of that but don't see how you could safely have bikes against one way traffic flow without road paint. I'd class ASLs as lanes too. IMO there's too much road engineering that either ignores or is positively dangerous for cyclists. At such places bikes need less integration/traffic Darwinism and more positive discrimination.
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Post by EdinburghFixed »

glueman wrote:Agree on much of that but don't see how you could safely have bikes against one way traffic flow without road paint.


With a 20mph limit, I think it would be pretty safe - drivers would habituate to two-way cycle traffic without needing lines. I mean, they are already able to handle pedestrians walking down a one way street, right?

(I'm also a bit biased here - I live next to a cyclist contraflow street where the painted line has long ago worn off. It's fine and I don't think it's the long memory of drivers having an effect!)


glueman wrote:I'd class ASLs as lanes too. IMO there's too much road engineering that either ignores or is positively dangerous for cyclists. At such places bikes need less integration/traffic Darwinism and more positive discrimination.


I think ASLs are fine, except for the ludicrous bit of cycle lane that invites cyclists up the inside to their death. I do think it makes junctions considerably safer by placing bikes out in front, where drivers are forced to deal with them - however I agree that in general, road engineering could be greatly improved.

Where cyclists are considered, the results are often worse than nothing (thin cycle lanes, cycle lanes that cut off at pinch points, or the "death lanes" around the edges of roundabouts).

Hmm, we seem to agree on something :? ;)
skrx
Posts: 188
Joined: 5 Jan 2009, 12:23pm
Location: South West Inner London

Post by skrx »

glueman wrote:Agree on much of that but don't see how you could safely have bikes against one way traffic flow without road paint.


That depends what kind of one-way road it is. Lots of one way roads are wide enough for a car + bike, and don't have much traffic. It should be fine, especially if the speed limit is lowered to 20mph.

Many roads are wide enough for two lines of parked cars + space for a car to squeeze through the middle. They'd need something done -- e.g. remove a line of parked cars (might not be popular, but personally I think on-street parking should be a rarity in city centres etc).
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Post by EdinburghFixed »

Well, we'd have to remove some on-street parking to make way for all the bike parking! :)
GeoffL
Posts: 1168
Joined: 28 Feb 2007, 7:47pm
Location: SE Cornwall

Post by GeoffL »

glueman wrote:I don't believe scaremongering is rife, I'd describe the cyclists' life as portrayed on this board as one of enthusiasm mixed with weary resignation. There can't be many non-cyclists who visit and are likely to be put off by such debates.

I was! However, I'm not talking specifically about this forum but the Internet cycling community in general.

After nearly twenty years away from cycling I asked an Internet forum for help to choose a bike. The background anti-motorist ranting was bad enough to put me off. It seemed that hardly a day passed without some "cager" or "moton" nearly wiping out yet another unfortunate cyclist. I concluded that the roads were far too dangerous for mere mortals like myself. So I bought the bike but carried it by car sometimes on sixty mile or more round trips to where I could cycle somewhere I perceived to be safe. Although I had the bike I used it less than a dozen times a year and entirely off-road.

FWIW, I'm not alone as chatting to people who were using the same Sustrans and other off-road routes revealed. Many I've spoken to tell me that the roads are just too dangerous - usually backed up by quoting one or more cyclists (sometimes second or third hand) who claim to have been nearly killed by some "lunatic" motorist or other. Even though I now happily use the roads, I also still use those off-road routes and the stories of dread, and apparent perception of danger, continue.

I see part of the problem to be those cyclists who treat riding in traffic as a combative activity and "get off on the joust". They gamble with their own safety by playing the odds and then, when the gamble doesn't come off, rant about the other guy's "dangerous driving". However, I suspect that the problem is mostly that people see what they expect to see. They've been conditioned to expect the roads to be dangerous and so they interpret events in line with that expectation.

Geoff
GeoffL
Posts: 1168
Joined: 28 Feb 2007, 7:47pm
Location: SE Cornwall

Post by GeoffL »

glueman wrote:Agree on much of that but don't see how you could safely have bikes against one way traffic flow without road paint.

You could provided the one-way street wasn't actually marked with those white-arrow-on-blue-background, one-way signs. If you marked each entrance against the flow of motorised traffic with "no motor vehicle" signs but had no signs (except perhaps "no U-turns") the other way, then motorists would follow convention and keep left.

In contrast, if the road was signed one-way with normal "one-way" signs, motorists would have the right to use whichever side of the road best suited their purposes, e.g. drive on the right if turning right ahead, which would not be safe for cyclists going the other way.

Geoff
2Tubs
Posts: 1272
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 8:35pm
Location: Birmingham
Contact:

Post by 2Tubs »

glueman wrote:
2Tubs wrote:No, they don't have a point.

If you want to potter with your kids do you do it on a road or a trail? They may fall off and at worst break a collarbone but they're unlikley to be flattened by a car or lorry.
Tracks may be a disaster for light injuries and standards of riding risible but people still believe they're safer. If we agree perceptions are the overriding reason people do or don't do things why throw stats at the problem?

I thought we were discussing our rights to the road and the damage that Sustrans are doing in promoting segregation?

I agree, leisure trails for carefree wobbling are best created away from traffic.

But if we want routes for commuting and utility cycling then we're going to have to share space.

The argument has been that sustrans have been damaging the reputation of cycling in claimin it's much more dangerous and that cycists are careless/lawless road users.

It was in that context I made my post and I thought you were addressing.

glueman wrote:EF claims Edinburgh is a safe place to cycle but an Edinburgh cyclist was involved in a serious collision yesterday. I hope it wasn't fatal.


Not sure what that adds to the debate.

Yes, there are cycling road casualties. But then there are drivers and pedestrians killed too.

Should they not be allowed on the roads either?

We all know that per mile travelled a pedestrian is more likely to be killed in a vehicle involving a motorised vehicle than a cyclist. Yet the same people who would bever cycle because "it's too dangerous" doesn't apply the same "logic" to walking.

They're quite happy walk to the pub/shops (even if it is just a short journey from the nearest car park) which carries a greater risk.

The risk in both cases isn't worth consideration of course.

Gazza
Why not Look at Sheila's Wheelers E2E Journal
Or My Personal Site
Or My Tweets
Whatever you do, buy fair trade.
And smile.
toontra
Posts: 1190
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

Post by toontra »

Going back to the "perception of danger" issue, I'm shocked and saddened by the amount of parents who drive their children short distances to school, clogging up the roads and the negative health message. If you ask them, they will say it's not safe for their kids to walk 500 yards. Much the same with the MMR scare.

These misconceptions need to be tackled head-on by the government, not pussy-footed around. Legislation needs to be put in place to encourage cycling and dissuade short car trips - legislation, not feeble PR messages and a few quid bunged to Sustrans to ease the collective concience.

The alternative is that we will develop into a society led by Daily Mail leader writers, where the only "facts" that matter are the opinion polls (shudder :shock: )
glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Post by glueman »

Clearly there is an everything-is-unsafe agenda as pedalled by the tabloids. That shouldn't lead cyclists to assume everything is rosy. Re. the injured Edinburgh cyclist - and any other riding crash I read - the first thought is was it a SMIDSY? (Read: tough mate you were in my way)

Urban riding is totally involving even for fit people with good eyesite, sound judgment and strong nerves. I used to ride a roundabout that was a competitive 4 into 3 lane drag race. The only way to negotiate it was with a Chris Hoy style sprint to avoid being squeezed or T-boned from the side.
It's been changed but there are still others out there that need re-engineering to give cyclists half a chance.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Post by meic »

"The argument has been that sustrans have been damaging the reputation of cycling in claimin it's much more dangerous and that cycists are careless/lawless road users"

However Sustrans have been saying no such thing.
The vast majority of the National Cycle Network as nominated and signposted by Sustrans IS ON ROADS.
There seems to be some propaganda going on here, why?

Also many people are choosing to ride on " Off Road" facilities and they are unaware that they have to justify themselves to anyone as to why they do so.
The fact is that they choose NOT to ride on the roads. They are not really interested in a debate about the relative safety of the roads as they intend staying on the paths if they can do so.

In the last survey at a local route in Blackpill it was 88% who had come to the route by bike leaving 12% who had come by motor.
The previous survey said 66% so maybe there is a slow build up of cycling confidence. However 1 route doesnt say much and to be fair Sustrans does more than just paths in that area, things that are made easier by the presence of the paths.
Yma o Hyd
Post Reply