Sustrans no good for touring

[pete75]

In other words a council leader who cycles knows that it isn't the very dangerous activity that little Johnny's parents and, apparently, you perceive it to be.

Where did that come from? I don't perceive it to be dangerous, but I know that others do and it stops them riding and decades of advertising-based encouragement has not changed that perception. If you have to invent views for me, then your argument is probably too weak to survive.

Also, do you really think that the likes of making the B1359 max 40 mph, removing the centre line and marking wide advisory cycle lanes wouldn't reduce danger at all? Or they could create a cycleway with kerbs or new tarmac but LCC would probably stuff it up and put it on the south side across the industrial entrances - and make it lumpy to boot!

The B1359 is fine as it is. There's not a vast amount of traffic using it and the vast majority consists of motor vehicle so why make it worse for them?

Even if you don't perceive cycling to be dangerous you certainly give the impression by your remarks here and in other posts.

[Mike Sales]

Is the problem that Sustrans routes are expected to serve too many different purposes?
Roads are categorised and serve different purposes, residential streets, local roads, trunk roads, motorways, and are designed accordingly.

[Vorpal]

In other words a council leader who cycles knows that it isn't the very dangerous activity that little Johnny's parents and, apparently, you perceive it to be.

Where did that come from? I don't perceive it to be dangerous, but I know that others do and it stops them riding and decades of advertising-based encouragement has not changed that perception. If you have to invent views for me, then your argument is probably too weak to survive.

Also, do you really think that the likes of making the B1359 max 40 mph, removing the centre line and marking wide advisory cycle lanes wouldn't reduce danger at all? Or they could create a cycleway with kerbs or new tarmac but LCC would probably stuff it up and put it on the south side across the industrial entrances - and make it lumpy to boot!

The B1359 is fine as it is. There's not a vast amount of traffic using it and the vast majority consists of motor vehicle so why make it worse for them?

Even if you don't perceive cycling to be dangerous you certainly give the impression by your remarks here and in other posts.

I think he said that that *parents* don't think they are safe for children to ride on.

If we want more people to cycle, it's very much easier if they start young, and parents often won't let them. Ensuring that a young person has a safe route to school will help to encourage their parents to let them.

[Thehairs1970]

I know the leader of Lincs CC who lives in my village. He's a keen cyclist.

But what does he do for it? Derek Murphy, former leader of Norfolk CC, is a keen cyclist, but NCC were still pretty poor for cycling under him. Unless the leader is willing to make the case for decent space for cycling (of any type, even speed limited wide minor/B roads) in their party and their council, them being a cyclist themselves doesn't seem to be sufficient.

It can even be unhelpful, if they reply that it's good enough for them when someone complains that little Johnny has no safe route to school or their tricycle doesn't fit through the illegal cycle track barriers.

In other words a council leader who cycles knows that it isn't the very dangerous activity that little Johnny's parents and, apparently, you perceive it to be.

Maybe you live somewhere where the roads are safe but as a very keen and confident cyclist, I would be very concerned about little Johnny setting off on the roads around me. High hedges, narrow lanes with 60mph limits, no verges or paths to chicken out on and some drivers who seem to take on the challenge of how close they can pass. My wife, who cycled to work everyday has been knocked off by a passing vehicle. The Dutch brought in a cycle system BECAUSE they were concerned about the number of deaths of young people on the roads. Our cycle systems may not be perfect but at least it gives those who are no the happy to use the roads, a safe, quiet and stress free alternative.

This group should be all inclusive and that should include those who see cycle routes as being a positive thing, belittling people because they see roads as unsafe is unnecessary.

[mjr]

Also, do you really think that the likes of making the B1359 max 40 mph, removing the centre line and marking wide advisory cycle lanes wouldn't reduce danger at all? Or they could create a cycleway with kerbs or new tarmac but LCC would probably stuff it up and put it on the south side across the industrial entrances - and make it lumpy to boot!

The B1359 is fine as it is. There's not a vast amount of traffic using it and the vast majority consists of motor vehicle so why make it worse for them?

So should nothing be done to help cycling if it makes it worse for motorists and they currently heavily outnumber cyclists on a route? That sounds like a good way to preserve barrier roads almost in perpetuity and suppress cycling across and along them.

Also, a significant minority of that vast majority drive too fast and pass too close to cyclists on the B1359, making it a very low-quality experience and that's why it should change. A further 10mph top speed reduction or a slight narrowing would not make it significantly worse for motorists - it might even persuade some of them to use the far better parallel A17 as part of longer journeys - and it would make cycling much better.

A north side cycleway could also avoid conflicting movements with HGVs and other vehicles turning into and out of Princes and neighbouring sites.

Further west, the "cycleway" between Long Sutton and Gedney is a lumpy substandard bad joke (looks like a possible paint+signs conversion of a footway) which should be brought up to standard or replaced by a similar rehabilitated road... and so on west but that's just what a count(r)y that had a positive attitude to cycling would do.

Even if you don't perceive cycling to be dangerous you certainly give the impression by your remarks here and in other posts.

I think someone would only conclude that if they incorrectly assumed that all preferences not to ride among fast motorists unnecessarily is motivated by danger.

[mjr]

The Dutch brought in a cycle system BECAUSE they were concerned about the number of deaths of young people on the roads. Our cycle systems may not be perfect but at least it gives those who are no the happy to use the roads, a safe, quiet and stress free alternative.

This group should be all inclusive and that should include those who see cycle routes as being a positive thing, belittling people because they see roads as unsafe is unnecessary.

Amen. And I'd extend that to belittling people who accept that others see roads as too unsafe, stressful or just no fun to cycle on.

Rather than build things to reduce the number of deaths and injuries of young people on the roads like in real Holland, the local government in Holland Part of Lincolnshire seems to prefer to blame the young.

Almost returning to the main topic of this thread, I notice that as well as being rather sparse on Sustrans cycle routes (just the North Sea Coast Route, the Fosse Way Route and a couple of spurs), the National Byway cycle touring network mainly avoids Lincolnshire, only popping in once around Grantham and again on its way to the Humber Bridge. To be fair, the NB doesn't come into Norfolk either, but Lincs haven't got Norfolk's excuse of already having six or more Sustrans routes and two National Trails and not actually being on the way anywhere. I think the lack of national routes is a pretty good indication of how unsupported cycling is by Lincs CC, sadly.

[wearwell]

Seems that Sustrans is rethinking too. Maybe over ambitious to start with? The need for safe cycle routes is on the increase so more analysis and bigger investment must be the way forward? https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020 ... ty-grounds

[mjr]

Seems that Sustrans is rethinking too. Maybe over ambitious to start with? The need for safe cycle routes is on the increase so more analysis and bigger investment must be the way forward? https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2020 ... ty-grounds

I've replied about this in the campaigning board thread. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=139403

[mikeymo]

TBH, if someone just did a map of the routes cyclists actually use, they'd have a really good route planner for both long distance, and local routes.

That's sort of what Garmin is doing with Trendline:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzViup0Whh0

[Bmblbzzz]

And Strava Heatmap, of course.

[mjr]

And Strava Heatmap, of course.

The unrepresentativeness of that has often been discussed on here.

Is the Garmin data visible online? That may represent tourists better.

[mikeymo]

Is the Garmin data visible online? That may represent tourists better.

I don't think so. And I think riders have to "opt-in" by uploading their rides.

There's potential for rides to be recorded and centrally collated and then a national/global database of actual routes ridden to be built up. But I'm not hopeful that it will happen anytime soon, for a variety of reasons.

Cheers.

PS. If wonder if that should be "Are the Garmin data..." There are some forum members who are particularly keen on the correct use of latin plurals

[Bmblbzzz]

Strava Heatmap is representative of the type of cyclists who use Strava. These are rarely tourists but it does at least show that something is cyclable. Whether the Garmin version is more representative of tourists, I don't know.

[PaulaT]

Strava Heatmap is representative of the type of cyclists who use Strava. These are rarely tourists but it does at least show that something is cyclable. Whether the Garmin version is more representative of tourists, I don't know.

Cycle-able for whom though? A steeply-graded route favoured by an ultra-fit young rider on a lightweight road bike looking to test themselves to the max probably isn't the sort of route the average middle-aged person on a laden touring bike would want to attempt. We have no way of knowing the ability or motivation of those uploading their tracks.

[Oldjohnw]

Strava Heatmap is representative of the type of cyclists who use Strava. These are rarely tourists but it does at least show that something is cyclable. Whether the Garmin version is more representative of tourists, I don't know.

Cycle-able for whom though? A steeply-graded route favoured by an ultra-fit young rider on a lightweight road bike looking to test themselves to the max probably isn't the sort of route the average middle-aged person on a laden touring bike would want to attempt. We have no way of knowing the ability or motivation of those uploading their tracks.

That is true of every map and every guide ever produced. It is the responsibility surely, of the cyclist to read the map and study the terrain etc and make the best decision they can with the most available information. This usually involves using a number of sources.