Page 2 of 3

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 11 Oct 2009, 9:38pm
by Swizz69
The 4 miles should be an undeniable fact

Thats it in a nutshell. 4 miles is a fact, 20 minutes is a guess.

Does anyone on here find any of this 'special treatment' (routes/signage/lanes) necessary? Okay, some farcilities may come in handy, but if getting rid of the bad ideas meant living without all of them could you (caution: extreme sarcasm) cope without???

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 11 Oct 2009, 11:17pm
by meic
Personally I dont need either distance or time on the signs. All I want is the NCN route number and the direction. I know before I leave where I am going and how far it is and can guess how long it will take.

I imagine most people on the forum will be the same. So yet again I say that I dont think we are the target that Sustrans are aiming for.

These signs are probably aimed at "non-cyclists."

Most people havent even heard of Sustrans (or the CTC either :lol: ).

That is the situation they are working on.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 12 Oct 2009, 1:53pm
by Si
Would be nice if those routes along side major commuter routes had times such as "City centre 10mins" next to the bike picture, so all those sat in cars in a queue of traffic would look up and think, "hang on, it's normally takes me 30mins in the car - how come a bike can do it in 10? I'm going to have to try the bike out".

But the rest of the time (which is 99.9 out of 100) I agree that distance (and some guide to surface) would be best.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 12 Oct 2009, 6:35pm
by Flinders
I've seen these signs for walkers in Shropshire. they are, without exception, complete small round things, and are the most misleading and useless signs I have ever seen anywhere.
One suggests, if memory serves, a time for a distance and height even a fell runner on speed couldn't manage. As for suitable for novices- this sort of nonsense is more likely to get them into trouble and/or the sort of frustration that causes people to give up.
If Sustrans really are using them, then that really puts the tin lid on Sustrans for me.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 12 Oct 2009, 6:49pm
by sirmy
skrx wrote:My concern is that "Paddington 4 miles" will become "Paddington 20 minutes", and I won't know if that's 20 minutes at 4:30 on Sunday, or 17:30 on Thursday with the shopping.


Not really a problem as, legally, road signs have to show distances in miles. In Darlington, one of the cycling demonstration towns, permission had to be obtained from the DfT before putting up signs with timings rather than distance.

The reasoning for the signs is simple, someone new to cycling may be put off by the thought of having to riding 3 miles but not if they thought t would take 20 minutes. If Sustrans are putting up signs with timing they will be limited to their off road routes on which it should be possible to obtain fairly reliable timings.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 12 Oct 2009, 7:27pm
by DaveP
sirmy wrote:
skrx wrote:The reasoning for the signs is simple, someone new to cycling may be put off by the thought of having to riding 3 miles but not if they thought t would take 20 minutes. If Sustrans are putting up signs with timing they will be limited to their off road routes on which it should be possible to obtain fairly reliable timings.


No, the mileage is unambiguous and common to all users, times and purposes.
New cyclists may be daunted by reading that they have three miles to go, but surely most of them will be reassured by a glance at their bike computer - if youve done two already then three aint so bad, now, is it? etc. etc.
What will be demoralising is to find out that they have taken half an hour to cover a journey that is supposed to take ten minutes. To be honest, that would bother me too after a while - you know how it is - been trying for a month, cant get it below twelve minutes, I'm useless...

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 12 Oct 2009, 7:59pm
by skrx
sirmy wrote:Not really a problem as, legally, road signs have to show distances in miles.


What I linked to is the Department for Transport's proposal to change this requirement.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 12 Oct 2009, 8:37pm
by thirdcrank
skrx wrote: ...
The actual proposal is on page 52 of Annex A.


I'm not sure that many people are going to download a 3mb pdf file just to wade to p 52 ..........

I've downloaded it on my other computer for the CYCLISTS DISMOUNT thread and I'll have a look. In the meantime, I assume that is so metric distances can be sown, rather than encouraging innovative mileposts. (FWIW I don't think imperial is compulsory - direction signs often omit distance altogether - it's just that if it is shown, it must be imperial.)

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 12 Oct 2009, 10:51pm
by skrx
thirdcrank wrote:I'm not sure that many people are going to download a 3mb pdf file just to wade to p 52


Sorry, I didn't realise 3MB might take a while for some people. The blog post covers the proposals for the direction signs, reading the PDF isn't really any benefit unless you want to write to the DFT about it.

In the meantime, I assume that is so metric distances can be sown, rather than encouraging innovative mileposts.


The only metric/imperial thing they're proposing is to force bridge height and width restrictions to be in both ft/in and metres, at the moment the metres are optional -- this is to help foreign (and presumably British but born after 1970...) drivers.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 13 Oct 2009, 8:43am
by byegad
Why not both? I think the times help new cyclist decide on whether or not they should extend their ride, to the rest of us the distance is more informative.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 13 Oct 2009, 11:06am
by swansonj
Does anyone know, in the places where this has been trialled, what speed they actually use to calculate the times?

BTW, you've all missed the most important proposal in the whole consultation on road signs - in future, it is proposed, the sign "migratory toads crossing" may be posted between January and May, not just between February and May as at present, to take account of changing toad migration patterns.

John

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 13 Oct 2009, 2:32pm
by meic
From my experience of working rides with Sustrans, it will be done by riding the route, not by calculation and the riding speed will be torturously slow.

Unless it has delays from things you can not control you can probably expect to complete the distance a lot quicker.

I have no inside knowledge but anything else would surprise me.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 14 Oct 2009, 10:01am
by Richard Fairhurst
Signs are put up by local authorities, not Sustrans.

For details of the Aylesbury pilot scheme, see http://www.cycleaylesbury.co.uk/index.php?id=9 . It says "The signs show an estimate in minutes of the journey time based on the national average cycling speed. Obviously, if you’re a confident and experienced cyclist you will be able to do it faster."

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/sustainable/c ... future.pdf also says "Cyclists in Aylesbury who may be deterred by a sign which tells them their destination is two miles away are now encouraged by a sign that says it should take fifteen minutes instead." I can't argue with that. It wouldn't work in rural areas (so citing the 'Mendip Cycleway' as an example in the new regulations is daft), but Aylesbury isn't exactly rural.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 14 Oct 2009, 1:00pm
by meic
Richard said

"Signs are put up by local authorities, not Sustrans."

It wont stop them getting the blame though. :lol:

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 14 Oct 2009, 6:52pm
by sirmy
DaveP wrote:
sirmy wrote:
skrx wrote:The reasoning for the signs is simple, someone new to cycling may be put off by the thought of having to riding 3 miles but not if they thought t would take 20 minutes. If Sustrans are putting up signs with timing they will be limited to their off road routes on which it should be possible to obtain fairly reliable timings.


No, the mileage is unambiguous and common to all users, times and purposes.
New cyclists may be daunted by reading that they have three miles to go, but surely most of them will be reassured by a glance at their bike computer - if youve done two already then three aint so bad, now, is it? etc. etc.
What will be demoralising is to find out that they have taken half an hour to cover a journey that is supposed to take ten minutes. To be honest, that would bother me too after a while - you know how it is - been trying for a month, cant get it below twelve minutes, I'm useless...



Most cyclepaths, the most obvious place to post signs with timings, have a design speed of between 10 and 12 mph so timings would be based on these speeds. Of course the whole point is that it's all in the head, if I asked you to run for 10 mins or 1 1/2 miles, which would you prefer? Most new cyclists, who wold probably be using their new steed to go to the shops or something wouldn't have a computer, look at the pictures on Copenhagen cycle chic a guilty pleasure) and see how many of them have computers. These signs aren't aimed at CTC members or people in training for LEJoG but the mother who drops her kids off at school and the pops down to Asda for a pit of milk.

Another point on distances, having recently done the wording for some footpath and bridleway signs, they are only accurate to a couple of hundred metres, a 1/4 mile could be anything from 350m to 600m. Distances over a mile need only be done to a half mile