Walking and Cycling: an action plan

The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...el_029200.hcsp

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I think
we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes) and little talk of people getting to work via the roads,
and little talk of making main roads safer.

Yes, there is talk of Home Zones and Quiet Roads in rural areas,
so it does deserve praise.

One phrase stands out to me:"Although
most walking and cycling takes place on the local road networkthere is
scope for improving the safety of pedestrians and cyclists around national
roads"No-one would advocate cycling on the M1, or indeed big roads like
the A34. But this phrase smacks to me of "get those walkers and cyclists
offonto their own paths where they can pottle along and not get in theway
of ministerial Jaguars"
Sorry if I'm sounding cynical.

John Hearns wrote:

The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...el_029200.hcsp

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I think
we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes)

I've said it before, but in general Sustrans paths == nice
not-too-challenging surfaces suitable for MTBs, so the family can hang
the bikes on the back of the car, drive to the start, ride 5 miles then
come home again. They have very little to do with sustainable
*transport*. Try commuting on one, unless you like arriving at work
covered in dust/slime (delete according to weather conditions).

Problem I find with cycle paths is that there's all sorts of junk strewn all
over them, from dog **** to broken bottles and stones. Whilst I applaud the
principle of installing these cycle paths, in reality you need IMO to be on
the road IMO.
KM

"John Hearns" wrote in message
news
The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at


http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group.../page/dft_sust
travel_029200.hcsp

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I think
we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes) and little talk of people getting to work via the roads,
and little talk of making main roads safer.

Yes, there is talk of Home Zones and Quiet Roads in rural areas,
so it does deserve praise.

One phrase stands out to me:"Although
most walking and cycling takes place on the local road networkthere is
scope for improving the safety of pedestrians and cyclists around national
roads"No-one would advocate cycling on the M1, or indeed big roads like
the A34. But this phrase smacks to me of "get those walkers and cyclists
offonto their own paths where they can pottle along and not get in theway
of ministerial Jaguars"
Sorry if I'm sounding cynical.

Zog The Undeniable wrote:

John Hearns wrote:

The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...el_029200.hcsp

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I think
we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes)

I've said it before, but in general Sustrans paths == nice
not-too-challenging surfaces suitable for MTBs, so the family can hang
the bikes on the back of the car, drive to the start, ride 5 miles then
come home again. They have very little to do with sustainable
*transport*. Try commuting on one, unless you like arriving at work
covered in dust/slime (delete according to weather conditions).

They also allow those whose function is to meet road safety targets, to
claim that accidents have fallen and cycle use has increased.

John B

Problem seems to be that, while transport is becoming more and more
polarized between walking and cycling and any other means of getting about
on your own steam and locomotion through the use of internal combustion
engines, most of us - at least those of us who use both methods - know that
it is possible to mix the two - the Dutch can do it
"Katanga-Man" wrote in message
...
Problem I find with cycle paths is that there's all sorts of junk strewn
all
over them, from dog **** to broken bottles and stones. Whilst I applaud
the
principle of installing these cycle paths, in reality you need IMO to be
on
the road IMO.
KM

"John Hearns" wrote in message
news
The Government's Action Plan itself can be viewed at



http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group.../page/dft_sust
travel_029200.hcsp

http://tinyurl.com/35qx5

Sorryto sound a bit negative, but I've just skim read this report.I
think
we should all have a close look at it.In my opinion, it is yet another
"cyclists should be on cycle paths andwe'll provide them" report.Lots of
talk about cycle routes, and the National Cyclingimproving rt Network(ie
Sustrans routes) and little talk of people getting to work via the
roads,
and little talk of making main roads safer.

Yes, there is talk of Home Zones and Quiet Roads in rural areas,
so it does deserve praise.

One phrase stands out to me:"Although
most walking and cycling takes place on the local road networkthere is
scope for improving the safety of pedestrians and cyclists around
national
roads"No-one would advocate cycling on the M1, or indeed big roads like
the A34. But this phrase smacks to me of "get those walkers and cyclists
offonto their own paths where they can pottle along and not get in
theway
of ministerial Jaguars"
Sorry if I'm sounding cynical.

Zog The Undeniable wrote in message
news:40d56e28.0@entanet...
I've said it before, but in general Sustrans paths == nice
not-too-challenging surfaces suitable for MTBs,

But don't they also put their nice blue signs on roads I've been riding on
for 40 years (and me Dad) and claim them as cycle friendly routes to polish
their figures?

Pete

Peter B wrote:

But don't they also put their nice blue signs on roads I've been riding on
for 40 years (and me Dad) and claim them as cycle friendly routes to polish
their figures?

Yeah, to link up the gravel bits.

I *know* that planning permission and finances stop them laying tarmac
in most cases, but tarmac is what road bikes are designed for, and MTBs
are too slow on the road bits (unless you fit clicks, then they can't do
the gravel bits). Some people will tackle these paths on touring bikes,
and I have, but (a) you never know in advance whether it will be smooth,
well-crushed stone, sand (yes really) or neat railway ballast and (b)
even the well-crushed stone throws up gloop in the wet.

I'd be interested in a study of whether these paths actually increase or
decrease vehicular traffic.

"Zog The Undeniable" wrote in message
news:40d5a6a1.0@entanet...
Peter B wrote:

But don't they also put their nice blue signs on roads I've been riding
on
for 40 years (and me Dad) and claim them as cycle friendly routes to
polish
their figures?

Yeah, to link up the gravel bits.

I *know* that planning permission and finances stop them laying tarmac
in most cases, but tarmac is what road bikes are designed for, and MTBs
are too slow on the road bits (unless you fit clicks, then they can't do
the gravel bits). Some people will tackle these paths on touring bikes,
and I have, but (a) you never know in advance whether it will be smooth,
well-crushed stone, sand (yes really) or neat railway ballast and (b)
even the well-crushed stone throws up gloop in the wet.

I'd be interested in a study of whether these paths actually increase or
decrease vehicular traffic.

Surely it'd be an increase?

After all, the idea is (for the sake of argument) to get people out of cars
onto bikes. For every car there is a driver (who will ride one bike), and 0
or more passengers, who will need a bike each. So unless only
single-occupancy drivers make the switch, then you are going to increase
vehicular traffic.

Don't forget bikes are vehicles too :-)

P.S. anyone who attempts to out-pendant me by bringing up tandems or
rickshaws gets KFed ;-)

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 15:55:00 +0100, Zog The Undeniable
wrote in message 40d5a6a1.0@entanet:

I *know* that planning permission and finances stop them laying tarmac
in most cases, but tarmac is what road bikes are designed for, and MTBs
are too slow on the road bits (unless you fit clicks, then they can't do
the gravel bits).

It's worse than that: some bits have blacktop surfaces, and they've
gone back and covered them with gravel! Gits!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Nathaniel Porter" wrote in message
...

[snip]

After all, the idea is (for the sake of argument) to get people out of
cars
onto bikes. For every car there is a driver (who will ride one bike), and
0
or more passengers, who will need a bike each. So unless only
single-occupancy drivers make the switch, then you are going to increase
vehicular traffic.

Don't forget bikes are vehicles too :-)

P.S. anyone who attempts to out-pendant me by bringing up tandems or
rickshaws gets KFed ;-)

Then I'll just mention kiddie-seats and trailers, since any discussion of
spelling would be pedantic.

Ben