Page 3 of 3

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 14 Oct 2009, 7:05pm
by Flinders
It still seems crazy to me to use timings. As everyone cycles at different speeds, they are by definition useless. Most people who walk at all know what a mile is, and you soon learn when you cycle how much faster on average you go than that in any case.
Sound to me like a solution to a problem we haven't got that will create a lot of other problems, and waste time and money better spent on other things as well.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 14 Oct 2009, 9:57pm
by PRL
Flinders wrote:It still seems crazy to me to use timings. As everyone cycles at different speeds, they are by definition useless.


Yebbut ... when I read a distance I automatically convert that to a time, as what I want to know is when I will arrive. Now I don't know what the conditions will be so my estimate won't be much better than that on the signpost. A stated time of 15 mins that might in reality take 10 or 20 looks like a fair estimate and not "useless" at all. :wink:

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 14 Oct 2009, 10:21pm
by Mick F
I was out for a longish ride today, and phoned home when I knew Mrs Mick F would be back in from work.

I told her where I was, "Just left Altarnun" and she replied, "About an hour then."

She was spot on.

She is usually geographically inept, but she could appreciate where Altarnun is and how long it would take me to get home. Perhaps she's not inept after all!

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 14 Oct 2009, 10:34pm
by thirdcrank
It's dawned on me that this is another cunning plan, this time to improve the fitness of the nation, especially the cycling team, in preparation for the Olympics. Initially, the standard times on sign posts will be easy to encourage everybody to try to beat them. Then they will be gradually reduced until we can all average 30 mph.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 14 Oct 2009, 10:37pm
by EdinburghFixed
It seems to be taken as read that because walking times are useful for pedestrians, the same principle can easily be applied to cyclists. But it seems to me that this is a very naive / even simplistic perspective.

However, since there are some circumstances where I can agree with the attraction of advertising cycling by effectively saying "town centre - 10 minutes quicker than driving", I think we should support the idea of timing on signs provided distances are also given. That way, the fundamental factual basis of signage is retained, but they get 'value added'.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 3:03pm
by Flinders
In my experience they aren't useful for pedestrians either.
I'd go for both time and distance if we MUST have times. how about ascent as well? (Joke)

I too convert time to distance, but my conversion wouldn't be the same as anyone else's, and might vary even for me according to the load I had on the panniers or how grumpy/tired I felt, or how windy it was and in which direction the wind was blowing.

Distances, however, are the same for everyone all the time- therefore, more useful.

Re: Proposed new NCN signs -- without distances

Posted: 17 Oct 2009, 8:29pm
by reohn2
"They've"started this "time" thing in my area too,bonkers,whats wrong with miles? its nothing only more dumbing down.Are we so inept and fearful of distance on a bike that we need it wrapping up in time so we don't know the truth?
Distance is a constant,time/distance isn't.
Beam me up!