Sustrans signs showing time instead of distance

[Tiggertoo]

Having just cycled in the US they have lots of separate cycle routes

Please tell me where that is. I ride in the US all the time and I don't see any.

[Ron]

Utterly stupid idea giving possible times - why can't they show miles like a normal signpost.

Ask for kilometres then the sign will not need to be changed when we eventually go metric.

[simonhill]

The Aussies usually use time as a measure of distance. I found it very annoying.

I was in a small tourist office somewhere. Clad in obligatory helmet, hi Viz shirt, cycle mitts, lycra shorts, etc and was asking about accommodation. I then asked how far and the reply was (something like) 2 hours. I asked, "on a bike?" "Oh no she said, in a car". She had no idea of how far it was only that it took about 2 hours to drive there. That was the 'distance' there.

As it turned out, when I did the calculations this was only possible by breaking the speed limit most of the way.

[Pebble]

Utterly stupid idea giving possible times - why can't they show miles like a normal signpost.

Ask for kilometres then the sign will not need to be changed when we eventually go metric.

I need it done in "Points" as that has more meaning to cycling, but since I'm possibly the only person in britain to use that system then I doubt it wil happen

(points being a combination of ascent and distance)

Seriously though, miles will have the most meaning to the most people, keeps it consistent will all other road signs. At a glance whilst cycling by 20 minutes may well register in the mind as 20 miles.

But first things first, key the signs into the post to stop them being twissled around (edinburgh pass time for some)

[rareposter]

The Aussies usually use time as a measure of distance. I found it very annoying.
...
She had no idea of how far it was only that it took about 2 hours to drive there. That was the 'distance'
...
As it turned out, when I did the calculations this was only possible by breaking the speed limit most of the way.

Since everything in Australia is "absolutely bloody miles from anywhere", time is kind of logical.

For middle distance stuff (like "2hrs by car"), that's again not a bad way of doing it. For me to drive to my sister's house is "2hrs". That doesn't mean it takes exactly 2:00:00, it just means it's roughly that time. Distance varies depending on which way the sat nav sends me which depends on time of day, traffic, congestion etc but it's always "about 2hrs".

I don't tell her I'll be there in 1:54.36 or 2:05:24, it's just "see you in 2hrs".

[freiston]

Reading through this thread, almost everything I've wanted to say has already been said. I can see the pros of using time but imho it is fraught with so many variables, methodology and arbitrary decisions that those pros soon become problems - compounded by the possibility of folk having different agendas when deciding whether "30 minutes" is too long or too short.

I have on a couple of occasions used Google Maps to plot a route (iirc when plans have been scuppered and I've had to replan on the hoof); on those occasions, ignoring the Google duration and working it out myself with the distance and terrain data available was imperative to getting a realistic ETA.

I have recollections of conversations with colleagues when I was working, my "20 minutes away" (walking) would be met with queries and disagreement which could not even be settled with reference to me actually having walked the trip - if we switched from minutes to distance, any disagreement was soon settled with phones/computers.

At least distance is pretty much a fact and most people that ride bikes who would actually use such signs have enough experience, knowledge and nous to assess the conditions and make their own estimations. I would take much longer to do 5 miles at the end of a long day with the wind against me on my fully loaded touring bike than I would to do a 5 mile trip to a friend's house with the wind behind me - even if both 5 miles were on the same road in the same direction.