Cycling UK Forum

meic wrote:Do I detect some spin and bias here?

If I wish to improve my house and apply for a grant to undertake that work, am I just then "working for the Government"?

Probably not, but it depends, like would you have done it anyway and is the work a government function like highways?

Yes, I'm biased. I strongly prefer democratic organisations (CTC, BC, most CycleNation groups) to represent us. There's also a strong rose-tinted view of Sustrans as some sort of group mainly funded by cyclists, which simply isn't true any more. I view it now as a largely unaccountable, unresponsive, self-perpetuating body which gets most of its income from government grants and is very keen to stay on-side of government whenever possible. It is often helpful but it's usually doing things that good governments should do itself and it has also done a few things which expand its influence more than they benefit walking and cycling (for example: wiggly rural NCN routing, talking up road danger, moaning about road bikes).

That sounds a bit strange. The part of NCN 33 through Flax Bourton used to be the Flax Bourton Greenway not Festival Way. It was on-road or by-road from the Old Weston Road mini roundabout down past the coroner's court, around the edge of the new estate, onto the 5(?)-year-old cycle track by the railway and past the north edge of the old village. The Open Cycle Map still looks like that. Have they built some more cycle track through the middle of an estate, built houses the other side of the cycle route or something?

Si wrote:If you are just putting in a path for new cyclists round a much quieter residential area then you can get away with shared use and indirect routes with less fast surfaces - because those with more confidence will be happy on the quieter roads instead.

Nah, indirect routes with bad surfaces make us unhappy because it increases "get off the road" abuse from motorists on those quieter roads as they can't see that the surface is bad or that the route is indirect. It's also a waste of money, as direct routes with good surfaces often aren't significantly more expensive to build, especially as direct = shorter = less surface to put down.

I'm all for thinking about novices and we need to make cycling attractive to them: that means convenient which means direct and free-flowing when possible. They're probably going to be slower than in their cars at first anyway, so let's not handicap them further by making them ride the long way round on an uncomfortable surface.

OK, that's clear to me then: this isn't the countryside and any motor traffic foolish enough to go down there either could get in anyway (motos) or will be stopped by the bollards or trees on the other accesses.

andymiller wrote:Lots of people seem to think that Sustrans is some sort of Government Quango: it is a charity supported by donations from ordinary cyclists (and non-cyclists) who want to be constructive rather than moaning.

According to Sustrans's statutory accounts for the year ended 31 March 2013, only £3m of its £79m income came from donations from supporters - and fundraising costs them £1.2m. I suspect the majority of its income is from work for government, either directly for DfT or Scottish Government or indirectly through things like the Big Lottery fund, but I don't think that's stated exactly in the accounts.

andymiller's right that it's not a QuANGO, as it's not Quasi-Autonomous, but it's an NGO that seems to have become a delivery route for government, rather than constructive cyclists. All its donor cyclists could stop giving money tomorrow and the Sustrans zombie would probably keep on stomping forwards almost unhindered.

And even Sustrans does a fair bit of moaning - see its outbursts against people on road bikes on the congested Bristol and Bath Railway Path, amongst others.

I think that's Festival Way NCN 33 recently built so maybe not signed fully yet. The Bristol side of Ashton Road's junction with the A370 is the boundary between Bristol City Council and North Somerset Council as highway authority, so you probably need to complain to NSC and good luck if Elfan Ap Rees is still in charge of transport for them!

In general, http://www.fixmystreet.com/ will report things to the right highway authority just by pointing and clicking at the map, as well as publishing it for others to see what's happening.

MartinC wrote: As long as someone's provided you with a 2x5m part of the country to leave it in. We spend a fortune providing car parking for all but blanch at the idea of providing anything for cycle parking. I expect there's no demand.

Well, I try to suggest demand. Today I asked one shopkeeper who had nowhere to park bikes (not even a usable fence - only overgrown chicken wire) and he was pretty against the idea, bizarrely suggesting he'd be liable if someone crashed into the bike park. I did ask why it'd be any different to someone crashing in his car park. I don't think I'll go back there if I can get similar products in a shop that has bike parking.

My bike's almost as easy to lock up as my car, as long as there's parking provided. I've usually got my lock looped from the centre of handlebars and between top tube and down tube. Locking it to a Sheffield stand is simply a key turn to unlock it from the handlebars, drop the two ends down around the stand and click them back together through the front wheel.

That doesn't work on wheelbenders - or these infernal streetpods, which seem to be designed for D-locks, which I thought were fairly insecure: have they found a way to stop D-locks opening easily if you freeze and hammer them?

Are those pods the only "Secured by Design" ones simply because Cyclepods is a SbD member while Broxap and so on aren't?

Si wrote:I was talking of the numbers who voted from the whole club rather than the numbers that went to the AGM.

2658ish of 70,000ish? So about 3.8%? Wow, that's low, especially when people are paying good money.

Reports from a ride: the Spenser Road crossing currently has Give Way markings on all arms except from Hamburg Way. The cycle track is level across it with ramps down to the road each side, red-coloured and fairly busy and most vehicles on Spenser Road seem to give way, contrary to the road markings.

There is a maybe 30cm square wooden post with reflectors in the middle of the track a little way south of the crossing which seems to serve no useful purpose.

Rob's memory seems consistent with the measurements I took: it's 3m width, with 1m of vegetation cut down to about 20-30cm high either side, but vegetation has been allowed to encroach 10cm or so onto the path in places. Lights are a bit sparse but at least they're in the verge, not the path. In a couple of places, it seems to narrow to 2.8m for a while, but on the other hand, it widens to 4m as it enters the Lynnsport leisure centre grounds. The only obstructions beside the path are fences level with the wooden post and a fence on the entry to Lynnsport, so the full 3m is often available, unlike most paths. I think it could probably be widened to 4m almost throughout without any loss of wildlife habitat.

If you want to talk about jokes instead of serious transport infrastructure, consider the proposed diversion, which would be a new drainbank path. I've attached a photo of a nearby typical drainbank path. The one pictured is beside a retail park - the proposed one is alongside an industrial estate, so I expect it to be similar. 1.8m built width most of the time (most drainbank tracks are just wide enough for the mini-diggers that scoop stuff out of the drains), lampposts inside that, undulating (the land here settles, and more so by drains), tight between a retaining wall and often a fence to catch your pedals and help you down the slope into the water, with copious vegetation sprouting from every possible crack (it's very well-nourished by the drain) and even concealing the wall in this example. You can't even pass a single pedestrian unless they're feeling very co-operative.

Of course, there will a road, but I expect provision of the drainbank path will be used as a reason not to cater for on-road cycling, arguing that bikes have a ghetto and shouldn't be encouraged to hold up cars on a straight drag strip.

I had reason to ride through this today with cargo which prevented me using the slalom (my alternative would be Gaywood Road and Tennyson. The lock has gone, but the gate had been closed and so most users were queuing to squeeze through the slalom wall. Is there any reason the gate shouldn't be left open?

Si wrote:...cause your average CTC member (at least in my MG) just wants to pay their subs and go ride their bike safe in the knowledge that someone is doing all the campaigning on their behalf. I think the turn out levels in recent AGM votes sort of back this up, with most apparently only interested in the politics of the CTC when they stand to win a jacket.

What was that turn out? http://www.ctc.org.uk/about-ctc/ctc-nat ... rds-dinner has one voting report for download, which shows a Stalin-esque series of 99% votes in favour of motions, but no mention of what the total electorate is.

What I think it could be saying is that only about a quarter of people actually at the AGM voted (just under 50 meeting votes, with 150+ abstentions on the first three motions, then falling away - as people left the meeting, perhaps).

Is some defect in CTC's democracy why it supports the Nice Way Code?

I'm rather conflicted. I've still not joined the local CTC group since moving last year and it feels like each time I get the forms, CTC does something I disagree with, so I leave it a bit longer... is CTC asking potential members why they're not members?

Pete Owens wrote:

mjr wrote:but at the moment, this section is basically a road open only to people walking and cycling,

And unless they plan to prohibit it then it still will be open to people walking and cycling with the added bonus of sufficient width to pass each other.

And the major added drawback of motor vehicles and a parallel cycle track that will encourage drivers to shout "get off the road".

with no gates,

Then what on earth is this thread about:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=76492

That's further south down NCN1.

well-surfaced (until the last few months - I suspect we're being punished), with equal priority with the only side road it crosses.

Really?
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=King's ... 1,,0,23.13
and I bet those nasty looking posts won't feature in the replacement road either.

I don't know what you're looking at on Google Maps - that link shows me a map of the Spenser Road crossing with a big red F on the crossing.

I bet there will be posts in the replacement track and the crossings will have lots of metal fences on the approach to "encourage" riders to use the track and to obstruct turning movements between road and track, which is what's been built elsewhere in the town.

Nor will the next junction north consist of a fence:
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=King's ... .74,,2,3.7

The current plan shows that next junction north still being quite well to the east of the north end of the track, so I'd expect that fence to remain unless something changes.

So this is no second-class off-road space.

Judging from the photo the width looks to be about 2.5m - slightly wider than the pavement it is crossing - and unlit. This is (just) wide enough for 2 cyclists to pass each other with care but nowhere near enough for a 2-way shared use facility. It may just about scrape through the absolute minimum width that the crap UK standards permit. It may be adequate for daytime recreational use so long as it fails to attract any significant volume of pedestrian or cycle traffic. But as serious transport infrastructure it is a joke.

Which photo? The one on my page shows cycles 2 abreast easily passing a line of pedestrians. There's a few lights along it, which aren't the greatest.

I'll try to remember to measure the different sections next time I'm there, but based on group rides, the threatened section is just about 3 cycles wide. It does need widening because of the volume of traffic it handles, but that could still be done without the hedgerow removal that a road would need.

Pete Owens wrote:At least as a road they are considerably less likely to install "helpful" features such as locked gates, it will be well surfaced, it will maintain priority over side roads.
If you are "taking cycling seriously" then you you need to be campaigning about conditions for cycling on the road itself rather than letting them brush you off with off-road alternatives.

You may notice that the Take Cycling Seriously manifesto doesn't really distinguish. A route is either good enough or not, whether on-road or off-road: of course, a far higher proportion of the off-road ones to date are rubbish, so it's vital to make sure the roads are rideable too.

If the road goes ahead, then I will push for it to be 20mph as in the manifesto and have whatever other features are appropriate for the obvious desire line of the cycle route, but at the moment, this section is basically a road open only to people walking and cycling, with no gates, well-surfaced (until the last few months - I suspect we're being punished), with equal priority with the only side road it crosses.

So this is no second-class off-road space. It's proper continental and I really feel that it should be defended as a non-motorised corridor and the existing parallel roads used for motor vehicle access instead.

If you don't want to lean your bike on the stand and maybe scratch it, get some sort of propstand and/or a suitable lock.

All this is all well and good, but how do we get people to install anything like Sheffield (or maybe Sheffield Extra) instead of these horrible streetpods if pods are the only police-recommended ones?

We've had some of these appear at "Lynnsport" instead of nice covered Sheffield stands on the grounds that these horrible streetpods are the only ones approved the police. The on-pod advert says they're the only Secure By Design bike parking. Is that true and how do we counter it?