The Problem with Sustrans...

Ru88ell
Posts: 76
Joined: 12 Jan 2007, 5:36pm
Contact:

Post by Ru88ell »

byegad wrote:
This is, I think, part of 'An Initiative' (Capitals intended.) to cut down on Yoofs on minibikes using cycle paths.



But.....it's easier to get a mini moto through the barriers than a bicycle, let alone one with a child on a seat, or panniers, or a tandem, et al. This very fact renders the barriers useless.
ed_o_brain
Posts: 102
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 5:32pm

Post by ed_o_brain »

I'm no fan of Sustrans - I'll admit they do some good work but I have problems with the marketing of the organisation; both the way they recruit rangers and secure funding.

Why is it that I've seen them primarily target new cyclists? Is it because they are enthusiastic or because they are easily influenced?

I was encouraged by a Sustrans Liaison Officer to go along to a local cycle forum, because it was being 'monopolised' by others. However, when I attended, over 50% of the attendees were advocates of Sustrans and suggestions or criticisms relating to 'on-road' cycling provision were lambasted.

I was deeply unhappy with the Connect2 project. I looked at a random selection of the schemes, and of about seven or eight I reviewed I could only see a genuine case for one of them.

But I echo Simon's sentements. I think A roads which are motorways in all but name should be a bigger concern. In fact even, just the increasing number of A roads on which cyclists are prohibited. There are a few in Greater Manchester which I have raised with the local cycling campaign. One of our other members has entered into correspondence with CTC head office.
It's not what you ride... it's how you ride it
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Post by meic »

I approached a local motorised wheelchair user (he even towed a trailer like I do) about the barriers on my bit of the route. He said that he could get through them OK!
I expected trouble when I got the trailer but I can actually get through all the barriers that I have met so far. However they should not be there, this route is the cyclists equivalent of the M4. Imagine barriers every 10 miles on that.
Yma o Hyd
byegad
Posts: 3232
Joined: 3 Sep 2007, 9:44am

Post by byegad »

Ru88ell wrote:
byegad wrote:
This is, I think, part of 'An Initiative' (Capitals intended.) to cut down on Yoofs on minibikes using cycle paths.



But.....it's easier to get a mini moto through the barriers than a bicycle, let alone one with a child on a seat, or panniers, or a tandem, et al. This very fact renders the barriers useless.


YOU now that and I know that but the muppets who put in the barriers DON'T know that.

However they have 'Done something' so everyting is alright for them.
I.E. Their boxes are all ticked. :D :D
drjones

Post by drjones »

IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE GOVERNMENT USING SUSTRANS THEN PLEASE DO ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. ASK THEM TO USE A DIFFERENT CYCLE-PATH FACILITATOR

2. SETUP A BETTER ALTERNATIVE FOR THEM TO USE

3. VOTE FOR A DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT

SUSTRANS HAS DONE SOME WONDERFUL WORK AND IT MAKES ME EXREMELY UPSET WHEN PEOPLE TEASE THEM.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Post by Mick F »

I am not doing, or have ever, teased them. And I find that nothing they have ever done is wonderful. That is my opinion, and you are welcome to yours. We have different opinions, obviously.
Mick F. Cornwall
Ron
Posts: 1384
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 9:07pm

Post by Ron »

Local Authorities must just love Sustrans as that organisation gets the blame for all sorts of cycle related failings which are in fact the fault of the local authorities. :)
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Post by meic »

The vast majority of complaints that I get are about a stretch of cycle track that is nothing to do with Sustrans. I am not saying the Sustrans track is generally better but agreeing how they tend to get blame for the Council's faults.

Only 1 mile of my 27 mile stretch is off road and that was not commisioned, designed or maintained by Sustrans. It merely is on the route just the same way as the 26 miles of road are.
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
Simon L6
Posts: 1382
Joined: 4 Jan 2007, 12:43pm

Post by Simon L6 »

meic - my problem is that the design of the routes is poor. Running NCN 1 around the back of a factory in Northfleet on a path that is three feet wide is just plain daft. It's off-road for the sake of it. NCN21 is impossible to follow east of the B2036 and there's a quiet road that does the job.

There are times when the routes have found little gems - the Military canal across the North Kent marshes is one such, and repays the additional time if you're not in a hurry, but for too much of the time it's obscurity for obscurity's sake. The Wimbledon Greenways project was a series of tortuous routes that doubled the length of the ride for no sensible purpose, and presented, in some cases, a greater risk to the rider than the direct route.

Too much Google Earth and not enough down to earth.
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Post by EdinburghFixed »

NCN1 is very special. After the notorious A90 section, it leads you up the road to Dalmeny which is fast, direct, and well signed. However for no particular reason it suddenly cuts off along a tortuous route which involves a muddy, kerby chicane (I've had to dismount before!), an unmaintained section of "tarmac", which drops you into a field, around a housing estate and past a school (both on the pavement), before rejoining the road.

After a month or two of commuting, I accidentally missed the NCN1 turnoff (daydreaming!) and to my astonishment, the road takes you to the same place in half the time, on a good surface, with no risk of getting lost or running over someone's dog.

I don't know what they were smoking when they did the route planning, but I want some!
PRL
Posts: 607
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 9:14pm
Location: Richmond upon Thames

Post by PRL »

EdinburghFixed wrote:
However we now have an unfortunate situation on my way to work where I cannot ride on the road, and the Sustrans "route" is very poorly maintained - or not maintained at all.

If a road was in a similar state (untreated, overgrown, broken and potholed surface with inadequate sight-lines at several points) you would have a good case to sue the local authority in the event of an accident.

Who should I sue - Sustrans? Or are you telling me that Sustrans should have responsibility for planning transport provision but not for the consequences of that planning?
.


Surely if the local council have decreed that cyclist must use the Sustrans route rather than the road then they have a stronger duty to maintain it to an equivalent standard. In the event of an accident you should still sue the local authority.
dave holladay
Posts: 284
Joined: 4 Apr 2007, 12:25pm

Post by dave holladay »

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 the neighbouring Hopetoun House estate has delivered a decent shoreline connection from Blackness (eventually) which makes for an excellent route from Borrowstones Ness to South Queensferry

Personally I too found the A90 an acceptable route - especially at rush hour when you could fly past queueing traffic from the Dalmeny junction Southwards.

Given that the A90 is a general purpose road, for which Edinburgh Fixed pays council and other taxes should he be demanding a refund, as he is being denied the use of something he is paying for :lol:

Working on the percentages given by our local council I reckon I'm paying over £600/year of my Council Tax for local roads maintenance, and frankly they are not delivering - many of the motorists who whinge about cyclists not paying are probably paying less than me.

WRT the Sustrans debate, there are I suspect many target driven compromises which should not have gone through have been allowed to slip in just to complete a route, and there is some merit in delivering a route which retains a pressure on those able to deliver to sort out the problems like these.

There remains a clear need to get an understanding of the distinction between Sustrans and CTC - as I understand it CTC is a membership organisation akin to the AA delivering member services and campaigning on issues for members and other cyclists. Sustrans is a good causes organisation offering deliverable projects in sustainable transport, but no member services, and often refers campaign and supporters' queries on public transport, and possibly other issues to CTC, as the more appropriate organisation. Several Sustrans Rangers are also active CTC members and recognise the difference.
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Post by meic »

Simon,

You say off road for the sake of it and you are right.

A lot of families make the (sensible in my mind) decision not to cycle their kids on the same roads as the nutters with motors.

There are lots of Sustrans "bits" that I have used once and never again as the roads give a better option for me. They even are sometimes better with the kids.

I think Sustrans biggest failure is that people in my area drive 30 miles to cycle on the Millenium path (Sustrans local flagship route) and then drive back another 30 miles. These people WILL NOT cycle on the roads, they tried and are not going to do it again.

We probably all agree that many Sustrans paths are good for leisure rather than travelling.
Yma o Hyd
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Post by thirdcrank »

meic

I for one don't object to leisure cycle routes which provide a place to ride in much the same way that swimming pools provide somewhere safe to swim, with the advantage of much better scenery at the former. (As you point out, there is an argument about roof rack cycling but travelling by car to excercise facilities is one of the ironies of our age.)

But if we are going to have more people cycling they need to be able to make useful journeys by bike - often exactly the same journeys as they are already making by car - the trip to work and shopping being the two most obvious (perhaps cycling to the leisure cycle route is another.)

To many of us who express doubts or criticism of Sustrans, the organisation would be a total non-issue if it were not for cases like this and a fear that the trend is to a lot more of the same.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Post by thirdcrank »

Si wrote:
Daniel Cadden won his case setting a precedent protecting our rights to use the roads, even if alternative cycle facilities are available.


Point of order....not quite right. He won the appeal. To set a legal precedent he would have had to lose the appeal and then win at the next appeal, further up the hierarchy of courts as the appeal was held at the county court IIRC.


The decision of the Crown Court hearing the appeal does not set a precedent in that courts in future are not bound by it. In any case, with something like this the facts of an individual case can vary quite a lot to allow a different decision in future. I've no doubt that the Crown Prosecution Service is quick to learn and I think that the Cadden case will have an effect on their future decisions whether to prosecute.

It has also had an effect on keen cyclists in that many are more confident of their right to be on the road, which was decided in the case Ellis v Nott Bower .
Post Reply