Sustrans demonstrates ‘street kit’ for trialling changes in street layout

crikey wrote:

Quote:

This is a brilliant idea and could potentially shift the car-centric viewpoint that society has had for several decades

Professor Jim Royle, earlier today; "My Arse".

I am always surprised by the huge negativity on this site towards anything that might help the cycling and active travel cause or improve our living space, plus the scale of the negativity towards Sustrans. Just cause they don't build things that suit you (presumably an experienced cyclist that rides at speed and is comfortable with and confident about riding on the roads), does not mean that what they do is pointless and stupid.

What are you doing to help change things (apart from riding your bike)?

joules1975 wrote:

crikey wrote:

Quote:

This is a brilliant idea and could potentially shift the car-centric viewpoint that society has had for several decades

Professor Jim Royle, earlier today; "My Arse".

I am always surprised by the huge negativity on this site towards anything that might help the cycling and active travel cause or improve our living space, plus the scale of the negativity towards Sustrans. Just cause they don't build things that suit you (presumably an experienced cyclist that rides at speed and is comfortable with and confident about riding on the roads), does not mean that what they do is pointless and stupid.

Actually, it sort of does. Cycling needs to be for ALL. Infrastructure needs to cater for everyone, not just the slow and timid. Why should I be put in danger because I'm "an experienced cyclist that rides at speed and is comfortable with and confident about riding on the roads"? Sustrans are the people who are rubber-stamping 'cycle routes' on which you are not allowed or able to cycle. They are the ones installing barriers to prevent cycling on bike paths, effectively banning anyone with a non-standard bike (or wheelchair).

This 'initiative' isn't new, and doesn't require fancy 'clip together' plastic seating. Just political will.

joules1975 wrote:

I am always surprised by the huge negativity on this site towards anything that might help the cycling and active travel cause or improve our living space, plus the scale of the negativity towards Sustrans. Just cause they don't build things that suit you (presumably an experienced cyclist that rides at speed and is comfortable with and confident about riding on the roads), does not mean that what they do is pointless and stupid.

What are you doing to help change things (apart from riding your bike)?

The thing in the news item itself does strike me as a marginally interesting gimmick - I just bet it will have no noticable effect on the world, and certainly not on my life. On the other hand, I'm sure it doesn't cost much either, so it doesn't much matter.

The main thing is I just think your comment has it back-to-front.

I don't fit your parenthetical description. I am not at all comfortable or confident about riding on the roads as they are, I frankly greatly dislike it (I'm not very fast either) but have to do it as its my only way to get anywhere in reasonable time.

I just find Sustrans does very little for me. It seems they mostly build low-quality, obstructed, shared and not-very-useful leisure routes in places I mostly don't want to go, and which are so awkward that I might as well go back to walking (as I used to). Leaving me stuck on those roads I dislike.

Were I an experienced cyclist of the type you describe I'd probably be fine with Sustrans, because I wouldn't need them to do anything for me. Its precisely because I'm not the type you describe that I find annoying that Sustrans don't do much that is useful.

I mean, I dare say they do have a function, but it doesn't seem to be one that is relevant to me. Why is that their name? What do they do for _sustainable transport_?

As for what am I doing - well give me Sustrans' budget and I'll have a go!

(OK, I can't absolutely promise I won't just blow it all on a round-the world holiday trip and a nice big house, but I might have enough left to pay for a good segregated cycle route on at least one nasty A road - probably the one leading to my new luxury abode).

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

joules1975 wrote:

I am always surprised by the huge negativity on this site towards anything that might help the cycling and active travel cause or improve our living space, plus the scale of the negativity towards Sustrans. Just cause they don't build things that suit you (presumably an experienced cyclist that rides at speed and is comfortable with and confident about riding on the roads), does not mean that what they do is pointless and stupid.

What are you doing to help change things (apart from riding your bike)?

The thing in the news item itself does strike me as a marginally interesting gimmick - I just bet it will have no noticable effect on the world, and certainly not on my life. On the other hand, I'm sure it doesn't cost much either, so it doesn't much matter.

The main thing is I just think your comment has it back-to-front.

I don't fit your parenthetical description. I am not at all comfortable or confident about riding on the roads as they are, I frankly greatly dislike it (I'm not very fast either) but have to do it as its my only way to get anywhere in reasonable time.

I just find Sustrans does very little for me. It seems they mostly build low-quality, obstructed, shared and not-very-useful leisure routes in places I mostly don't want to go, and which are so awkward that I might as well go back to walking (as I used to). Leaving me stuck on those roads I dislike.

Were I an experienced cyclist of the type you describe I'd probably be fine with Sustrans, because I wouldn't need them to do anything for me. Its precisely because I'm not the type you describe that I find annoying that Sustrans don't do much that is useful.

I mean, I dare say they do have a function, but it doesn't seem to be one that is relevant to me. Why is that their name? What do they do for _sustainable transport_?

As for what am I doing - well give me Sustrans' budget and I'll have a go!

(OK, I can't absolutely promise I won't just blow it all on a round-the world holiday trip and a nice big house, but I might have enough left to pay for a good segregated cycle route on at least one nasty A road - probably the one leading to my new luxury abode).

I take your points and understand your frustration, however if Sustrans could do exactly what they wanted, then the routes created would be brilliant, without obstruction and would have right of way at crossings. Unfortunately Sustrans cannot do what they want because they often have to work in partnership (due to funding streams) and all routes need planning permission. As a result, Sustrans approach is to compromise to get the best they can get under the particular circumstances - i.e. something is better than nothing, even if that something isn't ideal.

Also, a big part of what Sustrans now do has little to do building routes. They are now heavily involved with 'Soft Measures' where its about promotion and assistance to businesses, schools and people as it is about building anything.

Finally, Sustrans big mistake (but maybe at the time the only way to get it's purpose promoted and funded) was to brand up the 'National Cycle Network' as a Sustrans project. It is, sort of, but it's mostly local routes created by local authorities etc that are then signposted and mapped into a network.

I too find Sustrans routes for the most part pointless for me personally, but they definitely have their place for people who will not go near a road (at least not initially). Other things they do though I think are very positive and pro-active (particularly their involvement with schools).

joules1975 wrote:

I take your points and understand your frustration, however if Sustrans could do exactly what they wanted, then the routes created would be brilliant, without obstruction and would have right of way at crossings. Unfortunately Sustrans cannot do what they want because they often have to work in partnership (due to funding streams) and all routes need planning permission. As a result, Sustrans approach is to compromise to get the best they can get under the particular circumstances - i.e. something is better than nothing, even if that something isn't ideal.

Also, a big part of what Sustrans now do has little to do building routes. They are now heavily involved with 'Soft Measures' where its about promotion and assistance to businesses, schools and people as it is about building anything.

Finally, Sustrans big mistake (but maybe at the time the only way to get it's purpose promoted and funded) was to brand up the 'National Cycle Network' as a Sustrans project. It is, sort of, but it's mostly local routes created by local authorities etc that are then signposted and mapped into a network.

I too find Sustrans routes for the most part pointless for me personally, but they definitely have their place for people who will not go near a road (at least not initially). Other things they do though I think are very positive and pro-active (particularly their involvement with schools).

Something is not always 'better than nothing' if the something is not actually usable. It's simply wasted money that could and should be spent on something that actually helps people. When the cycle infrastructure is so crap that people won't use it, non-'cyclists' will use this as a reason to not invest. "What's the point - people don't want to use the cycle paths anyway".

As we well know there's very little point in telling people that cycling is really safe and enjoyable when the route from home to work/school/shops in on a duel carriageway. Promotion does not change the fact that people can see what the environment has to offer and conclude that a couple of blue signs does not make a safe, enjoyable, direct route. Soft measures has never prevented conflict on the road anywhere in the world.

Quote:

Professor Jim Royle, earlier today; "My Arse".

It would be worth thinking about this positive idea, and testing it out in practice, rather than dismissing it in a cynical way.