Bmblbzzz wrote: Sustrans is supposed to be about transport, so its routes should be usable by anyone who's capable of riding the cycle of their choice, as long as that cycle meets safety standards (brakes etc; there are some Sustrans routes you could ride a track bike on but none where it would be safe or reasonable). You shouldn't have to need a mountain bike; a road bike, roadster, trike, tandem, trailer, etc should all be usable on these routes (this is especially applicable to barriers but also concerns surfaces, bends and gradients).
And also the various varieties of cycle, tricycle or quadricycle for the disabled.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Roads are generally suitable for buses, trucks etc Cycleways should be suitable for long tandems, wide trikes, tall people sitting high etc One imagines many family groups want to cycle to the pencil museum
Entertainer, juvenile, curmudgeon, PoB, 30120 Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott We love safety cameras, we hate bullies
pwa wrote:I would use the A66 for a different reason to using that path.
Ill take that as a "No" then
If I were on that path it would probably be to enjoy the countryside and the company of the people I was with, taking in the trees, the birds, the sound of rushing water, and that sort of thing. If I were in a car on the A66 I might enjoy some of the scenery but my main goal would be more to do with just getting to my destination.
So what you are really saying that as a driver you consider yourself more important than mere cyclists. You are trying to get somewhere whereas cyclists are just playing.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if I were on that particular track it would be as a recreational rider. I don't live or work up there so would not be commuting on it.
And presumably you would take your bike there in your car along the A66 in which case you would be using the A66 as a recreational driver.
I remember a narrow winding Welsh lane with high hedges which has been rebuilt to new standards for the fifty yards where it bridges over the dualled A55. It widens to two lanes with dashed centre line, and pavements over the bridge, low field boundaries. It would now fit well in a suburban setting, but is completely alien where it is. It then reverts. I'm not quite sure what the moral is here, except that roads and cycle tracks are treated very differently.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
I’m not sure what the alternative could be to that broad walk. I do wonder if any alternative might well have washed out in the floods. At least despite it not meeting some people’s criteria it at least survived.
Whatever I am, wherever I am, this is me. This is my life
Bmblbzzz wrote: Sustrans is supposed to be about transport, so its routes should be usable by anyone who's capable of riding the cycle of their choice, as long as that cycle meets safety standards (brakes etc; there are some Sustrans routes you could ride a track bike on but none where it would be safe or reasonable). You shouldn't have to need a mountain bike; a road bike, roadster, trike, tandem, trailer, etc should all be usable on these routes (this is especially applicable to barriers but also concerns surfaces, bends and gradients).
And also the various varieties of cycle, tricycle or quadricycle for the disabled.
Yep: "the cycle of their choice". Deliberately cycle not bicycle.
pwa wrote:No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if I were on that particular track it would be as a recreational rider. I don't live or work up there so would not be commuting on it. If it was used by commuters I would like to hear that and if I did hear that my views about the boardwalk section would be influenced. Quirky features that are entertaining for recreational cyclists could be a tiresome pain for people who cross them twice each day on a commute.
It shouldn't matter. It should not matter one iota whether the people using it are 3 mile a day commuters, long distance touring cyclists, club cyclists, or families. It should not matter if they are couriers or leisure cyclists. It should not matter if they are disabled or able bodied. It should not matter if they ride road bikes, mountain bikes, hand cycles, or recumbents. It should be fit for all of these and more.
While that's an impregnable argument in general, it becomes a little foggier when, as in this case, the route is not a Public Right of Way. It's a permissive path on a former railway line, and the landowner(s) can reasonably impose conditions on that permission concerning surfacing as well as usage. I don't know who the landowners are: but if any of them are public bodies, then your general statement obviously holds good.
Not entirely does that work, for how many miles of motorway or strategic roads network are permissive? Is it only walking and cycling routes that get left to the whim of landowners?
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
pwa wrote:No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if I were on that particular track it would be as a recreational rider. I don't live or work up there so would not be commuting on it. If it was used by commuters I would like to hear that and if I did hear that my views about the boardwalk section would be influenced. Quirky features that are entertaining for recreational cyclists could be a tiresome pain for people who cross them twice each day on a commute.
It shouldn't matter. It should not matter one iota whether the people using it are 3 mile a day commuters, long distance touring cyclists, club cyclists, or families. It should not matter if they are couriers or leisure cyclists. It should not matter if they are disabled or able bodied. It should not matter if they ride road bikes, mountain bikes, hand cycles, or recumbents. It should be fit for all of these and more.
And some here who have ridden it say it was fit. Personally, just going off the images, I would say it was okay but not ideal. On a very difficult bit of ground. I live in a part of the world where many of the roads are single file for cars, vans and lorries, so for me the notion of having to wait a moment to let someone pass is not confined to cycling. And it doesn't spoil my day when it happens.
So what you are really saying that as a driver you consider yourself more important than mere cyclists. You are trying to get somewhere whereas cyclists are just playing.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if I were on that particular track it would be as a recreational rider. I don't live or work up there so would not be commuting on it.
And presumably you would take your bike there in your car along the A66 in which case you would be using the A66 as a recreational driver.
As a driver definitely not enjoying driving, which I see as a chore and just want to get to the end of. Cycling is something I actually enjoy most of the time I am doing it.
I am not saying that the width and twistiness of that boardwalk is completely fine. I have constructed many timber structures outdoors including a couple not dissimilar to that but for walking only, and if I had made that one I would feel that I missed an opportunity to make it better. My feeling is that there are bends on that boardwalk that might have been ironed out by cantilevering longer support timbers out, and that would have helped with a general widening. What I would not have wanted is to come in with heavy machinery to make a road, taking out trees and requiring the introduction of lots of new concrete to spoil the location.
pwa wrote: What I have been trying to elicit is whether that track, when it was in use, was of much use for utility purposes.
Given the location, it would be reasonable to assume that the only likely utility use would be for residents of Thelkeld commuting into Keswick. Although that would mean first crossing the A66 and heading south to the mine buildings before turning towards Keswick.
No, anyone from Threlkeld could access this route direct from the northern side of the A66, as well as direct from the southern side.
Paulatic wrote:I’m not sure what the alternative could be to that broad walk. I do wonder if any alternative might well have washed out in the floods. At least despite it not meeting some people’s criteria it at least survived.
The only resonable alternative to the boardwalk would be to re-instate the tunnel through the rock that was deemed to be dangerous when the route was established.
Also more concrete would perhaps detract from the A66 bridge over the river that won an award for its asthetic beauty.
John1054 wrote:The only resonable alternative to the boardwalk would be to re-instate the tunnel through the rock that was deemed to be dangerous when the route was established.
So in one breath you claim proper infrastructure is impossible at that location...
Also more concrete would perhaps detract from the A66 bridge over the river that won an award for its asthetic beauty.
and in you next you give us an example of exactly that!
It is perfectly possible so long as you give a toss about the users.
