Does helmet abuse vary where you live in the UK?

[Steady rider]

Just to mention, my local Parish Council has approved 3% of their budget to improving walking and cycle tracks.
If government made it a clear requirement for all parish/town/cities to allocation 3% of their budget to improving walking and cycling tracks, that could be helpful, in getting more people cycling.

Sustrans used bridleways as their basis for off road routes, meaning more suitable routes, specifically for cycling, Cycleways, where not promoted as they could have been. This often resulted in poor quality cycle routes and making it much harder to deliver other improvements, when a near by bridleway provides the cheaper option.

[Nearholmer]

Do you mean that:

- they adopted routes of historic bridleways to become parts of their routes (in fact I know that in tiny snippets they did, what I’m ignorant of is whether that was done wholesale); or,

- they used the legislative provisions around bridleways as the vehicle to protect some of the new routes they created?

The two things are very different, but while they are different neither actually dictates the physical form of the way. Maybe that lack of definition is what you are disturbed by …… I can’t quite tell.

[Steady rider]

From what I can see they decided on main routes and used minor roads where possible. Ex rail lines where suitable. or canals. Some main roads needed to be avoided, so they explored the options either side perhaps. In some cases they may not have had an existing right of way for cyclists, and that mainly leaves existing bridleways. They probably did not have sufficient funding to surface, so used existing bridleway and perhaps some improvements.
Cycleways could have been used, perhaps more direct, better surface for cycling, but costs and gaining planning approval issues may have been problems.
I do not know of any old Sustrans routes using newly made cycleways, but there may be some now. (greenways)

they adopted routes of historic bridleways to become parts of their routes (in fact I know that in tiny snippets they did, what I’m ignorant of is whether that was done wholesale); or,

- they used the legislative provisions around bridleways as the vehicle to protect some of the new routes they created?

Using bridleways where cyclists have a right to use was the easier option to follow than trying to introduce a new cycleway route, where landowners could object and costs would probably be much higher.

[Nearholmer]

But, did they use a lot of bridleway sections, that’s what I don’t know?

I’ve not trundled over huge lengths of Sustrans routes, but where I have been I don’t recall much that looked like “recycled bridleway” (the local bit where the surface has been progressively upgraded is one, oddly enough, and also locally we have an “off road alternative” section that is frankly bordering on MTB territory in places).

[pjclinch]

For the realities of the NCN Laura Laker's "Potholes and Pavements" is worth reading. Exec summary is, "far from perfect, a long way to go, but pretty damn good all things considered, and there's a lot to be considered".

But read the book, don't just take that very very brief précis for it.

(Further précis, they used whatever they could that might reasonably suggest a national scale network.)

Pete.

[Steady rider]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Cycle_Network

The data on the proportion made up from bridleways I have seen previously, but will provide if it comes to hand.

interesting about a quarter was scraped on safety grounds.
Most of the funding via the Lottery.

I think councils can support bridleways but how many pay for improvements on a regular basis? My guess is a vary small proportion.

A Cycleways Bill could be an options detailing changes needed to enhance cycling conditions.

does the Potholes and Pavements book list the changes needed to make improvements?

[Nearholmer]

I think councils can support bridleways but how many pay for improvements on a regular basis? My guess is a vary small proportion.

Wherever I’ve been there have been signs of maintenance, although whether you would call that improvement I don’t know.

I’ve come across many gates that have obviously been renewed fairly recently, many small bridges ditto, and some quite good waymarking. Coming across truly “dead” gates and bridges is rare these days. I think most of this stuff is paid 25% landowner, 75% council. Locally, we also get good maintenance of surfaces, which are regularly “top dressed” with wood-chippings in heavily used areas, but that is a quirk of much of the relevant land being owned by a charitable trust dedicated to public access; elsewhere surface maintenance is largely absent, or what amount to repairs after neglect.

On the other hand i sometimes come across the opposite.

The worst landowner by far for widespread bridleway neglect is National Highways. Where a bridleway crosses a trunk road, the bits between NH fence-lines and the carriageway are often in truly terrible condition, heavily overgrown, far worse than most I’ve come across on farmland or woodland!

Extreme example of lack of surface maintenance. The bridleway runs from where my bike is to the tall tree in the background, and continues in the same lack-of-way for another half mile. I was pausing for breath! This way really needs to be re-routed, because very strangely it runs direct across what amounts to a bog, while either side is fairly dry-floored woodland.

[Steady rider]

Thanks for those details.

The example perhaps shows that the local parish or town council is not taking responsibility for maintaining the route.

If the responsibility is unclear between landowners/councils/ highways that is part of the issue. If councils take full
responsibility, and could charge others as appropriate, that may work OK.

[Nearholmer]

TBH, I think that bog section is some very strange quirk of history, maybe down to incorrect recording of the route donkey’s years back. It’s not as if the bog is new, it’s a spring complex that forms one of the several headwaters of The Great Ouse, and I can’t believe that people routinely rode through it on horseback in days of yore.

[pjclinch]

The worst landowner by far for widespread bridleway neglect is National Highways.

"Looking after England's motorways and major roads" as their website says...

So they don't obviously think that wee horsey stuff is actually part of their remit. Which isn't surprising with the transport priorities of UK government and governance.

Pete.

[pjclinch]

does the Potholes and Pavements book list the changes needed to make improvements?

Yes.
But don't take my word for it, read it. Laker is a good transport journalist and knows her stuff. If you're genuinely interested in the NCN it needs to be on your reading list.

Pete.

[TrevA]

The worst landowner by far for widespread bridleway neglect is National Highways.

"Looking after England's motorways and major roads" as their website says...

So they don't obviously think that wee horsey stuff is actually part of their remit. Which isn't surprising with the transport priorities of UK government and governance.

Pete.

And yet, according to Laura Laker’s book, National Highways are the biggest funders of the NCN.

It’s a wonder that the NCN got built at all. Using odd bits and pieces of Active Travel funding from various sources, when and where available. Very much done on a piecemeal basis.

[pjclinch]

And yet, according to Laura Laker’s book, National Highways are the biggest funders of the NCN.

It’s a wonder that the NCN got built at all. Using odd bits and pieces of Active Travel funding from various sources, when and where available. Very much done on a piecemeal basis.

With NH funding of the NCN it seems much the case that while what they do is welcome one can't be sure it'll continue or at what level. Cycle provision remains very much bolted on afterthought in terms of much of what we get on the ground but also at national policy level, and while the Department for Cars may deign to do a good job somewhere at some time it may not be bothered somewhere else next year.

As you say, piecemeal, and that makes a coherent strategy much harder to formulate or deliver

Pete.

[Steady rider]

My suggestion is for local cycling facilities ( bridleways and cycle tracks), to be funded via parish/town councils and set out in law.
A minimum of 3% of their income. Standards to be defined.
Extra requirements for NCN routes.
Possible CTC AGM motion for next year.

[pjclinch]

My suggestion is for local cycling facilities ( bridleways and cycle tracks), to be funded via parish/town councils and set out in law.
A minimum of 3% of their income. Standards to be defined.
Extra requirements for NCN routes.
Possible CTC AGM motion for next year.

It's certainly something that needs statutory teeth behind it.

I wouldn't place a narrow definition of "bridleways and cycle tracks" as that's far too inflexible: what is needed for active travel somewhere might be something like an LTN, which doesn't have any cycle tracks because it doesn't need any because of the low/slow traffic levels. There is more to cycling infrastructure than cycle tracks/bridleways.

We have standards as it is, e.g. LTN 1/20 and Cycling By Design Update 2021 and they're pretty good: we don't need more, we need them to be actually used. I can't see any particular reason to need more than what these standards already suggest if it's an NCN route as the existing standards take in what is needed according to the context they sit in.

Pete.