Sustrans signs showing time instead of distance

[mjr]

If the signposted routes are on shared-use paths I can understand the timings - they don't want cyclists riding too fast. Some cycle paths in Europe have maximum speed limits (e.g. 10 kph) although no-one seems to stick to them.

Where? I don't recall seeing any except for the oft debated Richmond park ( which is higher than 10kph) and one in bike-hating Spain (now abolished AFAICT) and I've ridden in most western European countries now.

[Tiggertoo]

If the signposted routes are on shared-use paths I can understand the timings - they don't want cyclists riding too fast

That's just plain silly.

[mjr]

If the signposted routes are on shared-use paths I can understand the timings - they don't want cyclists riding too fast

That's just plain silly.

Especially as, if anything, it encourages faster riding by some who see the time as a challenge, a par score.

[Phil Fouracre]

Well! after four pages of ‘discussion’ nobody’s persuaded me that’s it’s anything other than a completely pointless daft idea

[mjr]

Well! after four pages of ‘discussion’ nobody’s persuaded me that’s it’s anything other than a completely pointless daft idea

Daft, possibly, but the point has been explained, hasn't it?

[awavey]

I thought timings on signs were used to show either total newbie cyclists or those not riding at all how quick it is to cycle between places, as one of the psychological barriers to cycling is always people badly overestimate how long it takes to cycle anywhere and how larger mileage numbers really impact negatively on their thinking.

Like one of the things when I discuss with work colleagues who live within an easy cycling commute distance of the workplace why they drive it instead, and once you break it down and get past all the normal weather,hills,sweaty clothes excuses you hit but it takes too long, and thats because they estimate it will take them at least an hour to cycle 5 miles, so even if it takes 30mins to drive it stuck in traffic, driving is quicker, and you have to go no unless youre cycling up a very big hill, it wont take that long to cycle 5 miles actually youll probably do it quicker than your 30mins drive, then they go ah but you're fit and used to it...and so it goes on.

but if there were signs that said hey from here its only 20mins to get to the railway station, or the town centre shops, instead of those are 5-10miles away, which to be fair with cycling infra you arent always going the most direct route anyway, it psychologically helps people think actually maybe I can do that.

[rareposter]

Well! after four pages of ‘discussion’ nobody’s persuaded me that’s it’s anything other than a completely pointless daft idea

I explained it towards the bottom of the previous page and "awavey" has just covered in again in the post above ^^

[horizon]

If you go on say, a campsite website, they often trumpet nearby attractions in terms of times not distance (a beach 10 miles away becomes 20 minutes for example). I often hear friends and colleagues talking about something being ten minutes away. When I ask them how many miles and by what means of transport, they are clueless. I even wonder whether most people even know what a mile is.

[horizon]

but if there were signs that said hey from here its only 20mins to get to the railway station, or the town centre shops, instead of those are 5-10miles away, which to be fair with cycling infra you arent always going the most direct route anyway, it psychologically helps people think actually maybe I can do that.

I sympathise with your point but distance is measured against an agreed standard - a mile is a mile. Time taken isn't, as far as I know. Having said that, Sustrans routes are so unpredictable in terms of surface, access and directness that mileage isn't the best indicator in any case. What I always wanted to see was a wiggly line under the bicycle symbol to show what the surface might generally be like: a straight line might indicate tarmac while a wiggly line gravel. Two wiggly lines might indicate mud and potholes and so on.

[Psamathe]

but if there were signs that said hey from here its only 20mins to get to the railway station, or the town centre shops, instead of those are 5-10miles away, which to be fair with cycling infra you arent always going the most direct route anyway, it psychologically helps people think actually maybe I can do that.

I sympathise with your point but distance is measured against an agreed standard - a mile is a mile. Time taken isn't, as far as I know. Having said that, Sustrans routes are so unpredictable in terms of surface, access and directness that mileage isn't the best indicator in any case. What I always wanted to see was a wiggly line under the bicycle symbol to show what the surface might generally be like: a straight line might indicate tarmac while a wiggly line gravel. Two wiggly lines might indicate mud and potholes and so on.

As you say, miles is an agreed standard, time isn't so Sustrans sign might say 20 mins to "B" and on the same post a local cycling organisation say 30 mins to "B" whilst your mates say 15 mins to "B" so you really have no idea what the distance is. And all would be based on the same route and number of miles.

Ian

[Ron]

Well! after four pages of ‘discussion’ nobody’s persuaded me that’s it’s anything other than a completely pointless daft idea

And despite the thread title no one has persuaded me that the signs were erected by/for Sustrans. The vast majority of cycle route signs are the responsibiity of local authoriities.

[rareposter]

As you say, miles is an agreed standard, time isn't so Sustrans sign might say 20 mins to "B" and on the same post a local cycling organisation say 30 mins to "B" whilst your mates say 15 mins to "B" so you really have no idea what the distance is. And all would be based on the same route and number of miles.

Yes to a certain extent but as discussed up thread, who knows what a mile is?

Time is a fairly universally understood concept (and contrary to your comment, it IS an agreed standard, the second is a very precisely defined interval which is then extrapolated up to minutes, hours etc), even to small kids who know when it's bedtime and know how long their favourite cartoon lasts and how long the trip to school takes.
10 mins (to a novice cyclist, child etc) means a lot more than saying it's 2 miles.

The other point of note is that if it's on a shared use path (ie not a road) then the speed differentials are lower still; you're not going to have hardcore roadies tearing it up in 6 minutes for example. The type of path and the usage it attracts will mean a much less variable range of speeds - the highest you're likely to see is about 15mph (top end of e-bike assistance, about as fast as most riders will do on a shared path anyway) so the "quoted time" becomes a bit more accurate to most people.

It's actually easier to define this in cycling terms than it is in walking terms. A doddery old person might take an hour to walk those 2 miles compared to a young fit person who can do it in half that. Put both those folk on e-bikes though and chances are they'll cover that 2 miles with only a few seconds difference in about 10 mins. Bikes are fantastic levellers.

[cycle tramp]

If you go on say, a campsite website, they often trumpet nearby attractions in terms of times not distance (a beach 10 miles away becomes 20 minutes for example). I often hear friends and colleagues talking about something being ten minutes away. When I ask them how many miles and by what means of transport, they are clueless. I even wonder whether most people even know what a mile is.

Absolutely - while a mile can be measured, you need something to measure it by. That's either going to be an app or trip metre or something. Personally speaking I couldn't measure a mile in a place I didn't know if I was cycling without one or the other.
However, everyone's got a watch or something to measure the time. Follow that sign for that amount of time and you should get to that destination..

[cycle tramp]

If you go on say, a campsite website, they often trumpet nearby attractions in terms of times not distance (a beach 10 miles away becomes 20 minutes for example). I often hear friends and colleagues talking about something being ten minutes away. When I ask them how many miles and by what means of transport, they are clueless. I even wonder whether most people even know what a mile is.

Absolutely - while a mile can be measured, you need something to measure it by. That's either going to be an app or trip metre or something. Personally speaking I couldn't measure a mile in a place I didn't know if I was cycling without one or the other.
However, everyone's got a watch or something to measure the time. Follow that sign for that amount of time and you should get to that destination..

[cycle tramp]

Well! after four pages of ‘discussion’ nobody’s persuaded me that’s it’s anything other than a completely pointless daft idea

And despite the thread title no one has persuaded me that the signs were erected by/for Sustrans. The vast majority of cycle route signs are the responsibiity of local authoriities.

Are they? Did they tell you that?
Directional signs with miles on a refective white background are local authority. Cast metal finger posts have now fallen to parish councils to maintain. Brown tourist signs are funded by the tourist attraction which they serve. With all local authorities being strapped for cash, any funds for additional signage may come from other organisations.