The Problem with Sustrans...

swansonj
Posts: 322
Joined: 18 Sep 2007, 9:53pm

Post by swansonj »

As ever when the subject of Sustrans comes up, we run into the problem of the difference between the INTENT of the organisation and its leaders and their EFFECT. Of course none of them intend to contribute to cyclists being driven off roads. You can see why they get offended when it's suggested that's what they're doing. But the issue isn't whether that's what they are setting out to do - the issue is whether that is, in practical fact, a consequence of what they're doing. And I think it is - by reinforcing the impression that cyclists belong on cycle paths not roads, and by creating the illusion there can be a viable cycle network (with the implcation that we won't need the road network). And yes, they create conditions - traffic free routes - that may entice current non-cyclsts to cycle more, which is a Good Thing. But how many of those new cyclists keep it up when they start finding routes that don't allow efficient A to B transport?
ianr1950
Posts: 1337
Joined: 16 Apr 2007, 9:23am

Post by ianr1950 »

I have never really figured out exactly what Sustrans has been trying to do.

I have never set out to ride specifically sustrans routes, I just go out and ride my bike where I want to go and I see the route signs on the way but they never influence where I go.

Commuting wise there is no sustrans route for the majority of my route and where I do meet any they are going in totally the wrong direction. When I have looked them up there isn't one that is any use to me and they seem to stop just anywhere and then start again as and when so what are you supposed to do when you get to where the route stops, Get of and walk :?
dan_b
Posts: 249
Joined: 12 Sep 2008, 2:46pm

Post by dan_b »

2Tubs wrote:It's simple. Ride on the roads. The law is very clear about that.

and then
2Tubs wrote:until we get all weather [sustrans] routes that take us where we actually want to go, anywhere we actually want to go they should be considered no more a highway than a bridlepath.

I haven't checked the relevant legislation directly (it may be a common law thing anyway), merely the Hughes guide "crib sheet", but I believe that a bridlepath is, in law, a highway

This is mostly pointless pedantry, but does perhaps indicate why I am reluctant to appeal to "The Law" as the arbiter of what is right or desirable. It's not necessarily what you think it is
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Post by meic »

As someone else pointed out, Sustrans Rangers are unpaid volunteers and NOT under control of Sustrans. The ranger in question was NOT speaking for Sustrans he was just giving his personal opinion. As I am doing now.

CTC members have been known to say things that CTC dont agree with, havent they?

Sustrans are no more government funded than the CTC is. There is no more justification for government interference in their boards than there is for interfering in CTC's board.
Both organisations get their funding through member's subscriptions and voluntary donations. Both organisations receive government money when working in a PARTNERSHIP with the government on INDIVIDUAL projects.

Those people who donate to Sustrans (and any other charity) are not demanding that it be "democratic" in nature, so anyone who is not donating to the charity has no business in whether it is democratic or not, let alone who is in charge. You could say that is the organisation's democratic right. :)

Any authority who suggests someone should be on a Sustran's route instead of the road or pavement (as Sustrans is not purely a cyclists organisation) should be treated to the same derision and rebuttal as if they suggested people walk through a park at night instead of use the public pavement.
To attack Sustrans after such a statement is as stupid as attacking the town park after the hyperthetical statement.

Cyclists are really in for a hiding, if after a case like Daniel Cadden and stupid comments from individual rangers and anti-cyclist town planners, they decide to fight among themselves instead of working together.

If you really think Sustrans are the baddies in the picture then set up your own organisation and get us a proper cycle infrastructure like Holland. In practice it isnt so easy and Sustrans have done a better job than could have been expected in the UK with its general attitude to cyclists.
If there was a better organisation I would move in a second.
Yma o Hyd
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Post by EdinburghFixed »

So Meic, if I am ever told by a highway planner that cyclists are not going to be considered in a road layout due to a nearby Sustrans "facility", what would you recommend I do?

What if the council (correctly) points out that government money paid for the "facility" so they consider their duty towards cyclists to be complete?

It's all very well saying that Sustrans has a "park-like" mandate but I'm not convinced that even a healthy dose of derision against road planners will actually deliver the results that cyclists need.

Famously in Edinburgh, it is impossible to cycle to Fife by road because the contempable NCN1 offering runs parallel and cyclists are actually banned from the road by by-law. However well-intentioned Sustrans may be, you'd think that if a "facility" was going to do this much damage to cycling as a whole, it would be better for it not to exist in the first place.

Unfortunately, even though my council tax (or general taxes) pays for Sustrans work in the Edinburgh area, and potentially it could result in road closures for cyclists by the dreaded by-law, I can't actually influence their decisions - and rightly you say!!? :?
User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Post by meic »

All those problems that you encountered would have occured in the abscence of the Sustrans routes. There are many A roads banning cyclists with no Sustrans routes as an alternative.

You have no say in the board of Tarmac Ltd either.
You do have a say in the Council though and look how much good that does you.
Yma o Hyd
2Tubs
Posts: 1272
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 8:35pm
Location: Birmingham
Contact:

Post by 2Tubs »

dan_b wrote:
2Tubs wrote:It's simple. Ride on the roads. The law is very clear about that.

and then
2Tubs wrote:until we get all weather [sustrans] routes that take us where we actually want to go, anywhere we actually want to go they should be considered no more a highway than a bridlepath.

I haven't checked the relevant legislation directly (it may be a common law thing anyway), merely the Hughes guide "crib sheet", but I believe that a bridlepath is, in law, a highway

This is mostly pointless pedantry, but does perhaps indicate why I am reluctant to appeal to "The Law" as the arbiter of what is right or desirable. It's not necessarily what you think it is

You out for my Pedant Crown?

Yup, you're right (as far as I'm aware).

The point I was making (quite poorly it turns out) is that in poor weather, NCN routes are as useful to cyclists looking for a daily route to somewhere useful as a muddy path down through a few fields.

In other words, by and large, not at all

Great leisure routes, but that's as good as it gets.

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

Post by 2Tubs »

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.

As a legal expert I make a fantastic software engineer.

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.
User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8212
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Post by hubgearfreak »

2Tubs wrote:You out for my Pedant Crown?


hehe, when did you win that gazza, and why wasn't i invited to compete? :lol:
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Post by EdinburghFixed »

meic wrote:All those problems that you encountered would have occured in the abscence of the Sustrans routes. There are many A roads banning cyclists with no Sustrans routes as an alternative.


Perhaps you missed the bit where cyclists were not adequately weighted in the planning process precisely because a Sustrans route does exist?

This is what worries me. To be honest I am not that fussed about A roads which are effectively motorways being legislated like motorways (since I'm not trying to campaign for cyclists to be allowed on motorways either!)

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?

meic wrote:You have no say in the board of Tarmac Ltd either.


No, but Tarmac Ltd. don't have responsibility for planning roads, or maintaining them. They aren't considered an authority on best practice which is definitely how Sustrans tries to sell itself.

meic wrote:You do have a say in the Council though and look how much good that does you.


Well I don't know. Recently there have been some significant improvements for riders (double yellow lines on the Mound, for example) as a result of lobbying the council.

Maybe you're right, and what we should really be doing is campaigning for an end to public funding for Sustrans schemes, rather than a say in the organisation.
glueman
Posts: 4354
Joined: 16 Mar 2007, 1:22pm

Post by glueman »

Sustrans exists, presumably, because creating cycling provision is cheaper if it's manned by volunteers than coming under government control. Would highways be monitored by well-intentioned locals? Hardly.

The divide in this discussion is between those who are philosophically inclined towards everyone using the road and those who think cycling lends itself to wider access through specialised provision.
I want to use the road but acknowledge that in cases like urban commuting fighter pilot style reactions are needed sometimes which inhibits take up*. I'd like to see Dutch style lanes everywhere. If people think that's unrealistic in the UK, and it may be, they have to follow the logic through and say road cycling is mainly for the fit, youthful (but not too youthful) and proactive rider.

To me Sustrans is well intentioned but neither fish nor foul as a provisionary body.

*I acknowledge London's roads have seen exponential cycle growth. This has been brought about by it's functional peculiarities but a look at the average capital cyclist suggests it's a limited demographic and one the city has plenty of.
drjones

Post by drjones »

I think the money should be spent on subsidised bikes for current non-owners, particularly from deomgraphics least likely to take-up cycling.
User avatar
hubgearfreak
Posts: 8212
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 4:14pm

Post by hubgearfreak »

drjones wrote:I think the money should be spent on .


IMHO any funds for cycling should be invested in policing motorists who blatantly ignore the highway code, there's 5% of them who think might is right, and will risk injuring us to save a second or two. if these could be re-educated / banned / made to behave for fear of being caught and punished, then the problems of cycling on the road wouldn't exist.
ianr1950
Posts: 1337
Joined: 16 Apr 2007, 9:23am

Post by ianr1950 »

Do you really believe that subsidising bikes for the area's you say will lead to an increase in people cycling?

As well as the (5%?) of cyclists who blatantly break the law.
User avatar
EdinburghFixed
Posts: 2375
Joined: 24 Jul 2008, 7:03pm

Post by EdinburghFixed »

I don't pretend to have an answer. The requirement cyclists have is a very simple one, to be able to ride from A to B directly, comfortably, quickly, safely. This caters for everyone from professional racer, commuter, shopper, Sunday pleasure ride.

We have an incredibly expensive road infrastructure that we pay for through general taxation, that seems eminently suitable for the job, albeit with tweaks to calm vehicular traffic. It's very seductive to suggest creating segregated facilities and I'm sure that many family days out etc. would not be possible without them.

But the bottom line is that Britain does not have room (or the money) to build a parallel road network beside the actual roads, and even if we did they would still be ignored in favour of the real McCoy so long as there are "cyclists dismount" signs at every intersection.

In my heart of hearts, I know Obama didn't become president because the black civil rights movement settled for special 'black buses' (driven by volunteers :roll: ). Before I'm taken to task, I'm not trying to claim any sort of moral equivalency here (and hey, at least I haven't broken Godwin's Law).

The only people who should be welcoming segregation in any form are motorists, not cyclists.
Post Reply