FOTPT Appeal

[pete75]

OK so now we understand each other - the apologists for this c**p are not even aspiring to anything approaching basic transport infrastructure.

Remember we are not talking about some mountain bike adventure park here, but the NATIONAL CYCLE NETWORK - ie it should be the most high profile route in the towns it passes though - the spine of their local transport networks. It passes within a a few hundred yards of my house so it should be THE obvious choice of route for me whenever I travel to Liverpool or Manchester - which I can assure you that it isn't.

To get the idea of what the minimum expectation should be take a look at:
https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/58840/
This isn't some fancy dutch installation but a local route through a park in Warrington. Nothing special, but suitable for a low volume of year round cycle traffic for ordinary people wearing ordinary clothes on normal bikes.

We're talking about a route that crosses the Pennines , fairly wild open moorland.

Actually I am talking about the strategic cycle route supposedly connecting the largest conurbations in NW England running through mostly urban terrain and not getting above 10m in altitude, but I don't see how the altitude should be an excuse for poor construction.

What do you expect? Perhaps we're looking at it in different ways. I see it as a long distance route crossing , for England, relatively high land and open moorland.

It is perfectly possible to construct wide, smooth, lit tarmac long distance routes across the Pennines:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.6292056,-2.0358455,3a,75y,93.37h,108.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdwM4tJ1fm5_pR3j1P-qr-Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Where is the funding coming from? I don't see the government coming up with it anytime soon do you? Meanwhile volunteers and charities are doing their best with the limited funds available to them. It ill behoves you to criticise them for this rather you should support their efforts.

[gaz]

TPT user survey, seems as good a place to park it as any.

[Pete Owens]

Where is the funding coming from? I don't see the government coming up with it anytime soon do you? Meanwhile volunteers and charities are doing their best with the limited funds available to them. It ill behoves you to criticise them for this rather you should support their efforts.

First it is claimed that this is "a fantastic achievement" - an obviously ludicrous claim to anyone who lives near it.

But when I point out an example of what the reality of the trail is like:https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/83858/ The OP denies all responsibility for it. (Though publishes a map showing a large number of similar obstructions in Sheffield, and an apparent enthusiasm to see such things reported so that pressure can be put on the public authorities who are actually responsible for the farcility)

Then you pop up and claim that this is somehow unrepresentative and that most of the trail is good.

So I point out a large collection of examples of c**p to show that it is in fact typical.

At this point the OP loses his enthusiasm for the reporting of reality - and complains that I am carping at the side lines (rather offensive to an active long time cycle campaigner) And you now admit that while it may be crap in my part of the World (the low lying Mersey Valley) It is a good ride East of Stockport. But you rather spoil your case by making it clear that axle deep mud is consistent with your idea of a good surface.

You ask us to explain what a normal cyclist needs so I post an example from Warrington (not noted for its cycle provision) of what a basic minimum would be - and then you claim this would be impossible to achieve in high moorland terrain. (without noticing the contradiction that the high moorland terrain is the bit East of Stockport that you were previously claiming to be good!) Again a claim easily disproved by pointing at the number of high quality routes that do indeed traverse the Pennines.

So now we are all agreed that the trail is rubbish - but now the excuse is that is "all we should expect" from a voluntary charity - which is as powerful argument as any to NOT support that charity. However well meaning the outcome (by your excuse) is bound to be rubbish - so further support for that charity will just result in more rubbish.

But even this excuse is untrue - as evidenced by the OPs denial of responsibility earlier in the thread. The trail is in fact funded by large dollops of public money and implemented by local councils - to specifications dictated by that charity. While local cycle campaigns were pushing highway authorities to up their game, those authorities were only too happy to be able to set us against lobby groups who were championing muddy paths.

[reohn2]

Do you think The RNLI ....... should be funded by charitable donation?

Yes I do. It means it's avoided being ****** over by government ministers trying to save money.

So the problem is government,on that we agree.
A charity is therefore needed to fulfil what is the government's job to provide funding for,which should come out of taxes,which we either a)don't pay enough of,or b)what we do pay is being squandered on unneccesarys elsewhere.
It seems to me that cycling in the UK has to be a charity affair,along with sea rescue and certain aspects of health care.
Something seems fundamentally wrong with the way things are structured in the UK,no?

BTW,I tried to fill in the TPT survey and fell at the first obstacle/fence(sorry)in that it wanted a specific date when used,and wouldn't allow a more general answer like "been using it regularly since 2005 approx" ,so I gave up.

[pete75]

Do you think The RNLI ....... should be funded by charitable donation?

Yes I do. It means it's avoided being ****** over by government ministers trying to save money.

So the problem is government,on that we agree.
A charity is therefore needed to fulfil what is the government's job to provide funding for,which should come out of taxes,which we either a)don't pay enough of,or b)what we do pay is being squandered on unneccesarys elsewhere.
It seems to me that cycling in the UK has to be a charity affair,along with sea rescue and certain aspects of health care.
Something seems fundamentally wrong with the way things are structured in the UK,no?

BTW,I tried to fill in the TPT survey and fell at the first obstacle/fence(sorry)in that it wanted a specific date when used,and wouldn't allow a more general answer like "been using it regularly since 2005 approx" ,so I gave up.

The RNLI is a very well respected and effective institution which has been run as a charity since 1824. What do you think is wrong with it and how would it be improved by being taken over by the government?

[pete75]

Where is the funding coming from? I don't see the government coming up with it anytime soon do you? Meanwhile volunteers and charities are doing their best with the limited funds available to them. It ill behoves you to criticise them for this rather you should support their efforts.

First it is claimed that this is "a fantastic achievement" - an obviously ludicrous claim to anyone who lives near it.

But when I point out an example of what the reality of the trail is like:https://www.cyclestreets.net/location/83858/ The OP denies all responsibility for it. (Though publishes a map showing a large number of similar obstructions in Sheffield, and an apparent enthusiasm to see such things reported so that pressure can be put on the public authorities who are actually responsible for the farcility)

Then you pop up and claim that this is somehow unrepresentative and that most of the trail is good.

So I point out a large collection of examples of c**p to show that it is in fact typical.

At this point the OP loses his enthusiasm for the reporting of reality - and complains that I am carping at the side lines (rather offensive to an active long time cycle campaigner) And you now admit that while it may be crap in my part of the World (the low lying Mersey Valley) It is a good ride East of Stockport. But you rather spoil your case by making it clear that axle deep mud is consistent with your idea of a good surface.

You ask us to explain what a normal cyclist needs so I post an example from Warrington (not noted for its cycle provision) of what a basic minimum would be - and then you claim this would be impossible to achieve in high moorland terrain. (without noticing the contradiction that the high moorland terrain is the bit East of Stockport that you were previously claiming to be good!) Again a claim easily disproved by pointing at the number of high quality routes that do indeed traverse the Pennines.

So now we are all agreed that the trail is rubbish - but now the excuse is that is "all we should expect" from a voluntary charity - which is as powerful argument as any to NOT support that charity. However well meaning the outcome (by your excuse) is bound to be rubbish - so further support for that charity will just result in more rubbish.

But even this excuse is untrue - as evidenced by the OPs denial of responsibility earlier in the thread. The trail is in fact funded by large dollops of public money and implemented by local councils - to specifications dictated by that charity. While local cycle campaigns were pushing highway authorities to up their game, those authorities were only too happy to be able to set us against lobby groups who were championing muddy paths.

Yeah yeah yeah. . . . . . .
As far as I'm concerned the parts of the TPT I've ridden are fine . Ok it isn't all a ride in the park.

[reohn2]

Yes I do. It means it's avoided being ****** over by government ministers trying to save money.

So the problem is government,on that we agree.
A charity is therefore needed to fulfil what is the government's job to provide funding for,which should come out of taxes,which we either a)don't pay enough of,or b)what we do pay is being squandered on unneccesarys elsewhere.
It seems to me that cycling in the UK has to be a charity affair,along with sea rescue and certain aspects of health care.
Something seems fundamentally wrong with the way things are structured in the UK,no?

BTW,I tried to fill in the TPT survey and fell at the first obstacle/fence(sorry)in that it wanted a specific date when used,and wouldn't allow a more general answer like "been using it regularly since 2005 approx" ,so I gave up.

The RNLI is a very well respected and effective institution which has been run as a charity since 1824. What do you think is wrong with it and how would it be improved by being taken over by the government?

Pete
I don't think there's anything wrong with it,it does a very fine job.My point isn't about the role it fulfils but how it and other services are funded,cycling provision being just another