[Closed] In Praise of Sustrans and Traffic-Free Cycle Paths (photos)

duplicate post

But as illustrated on this thread some of us have direct experience of those paths encouraging non-cyclists to come out for a ride.

As a recreational activity, or as a substitute for driving?

The former is good, but there's a big big jump to the latter.

Imagine if we felt safe on the roads - you'd be able to cycle ANYWHERE you fancied, instead of just where the cycle routes go...

As a recreational activity, or as a substitute for driving?

The former is good, but there's a big big jump to the latter.

Both. I ride to work, as a substitute for driving, because I have access to this path. And I did a 22 mile recreational ride on that path with the missus and little un at the weekend that we wouldn't have done on the road.

Imagine if we felt safe on the roads - you'd be able to cycle ANYWHERE you fancied, instead of just where the cycle routes go...

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

Imagine lots of new riders using these paths, and finding they get fitter and actually this cycling lark isn't as hard as they thought. Some of them will move on to riding on the road, others will stick to the paths.

We all benefit.

A rather selective reading. There's a more detailed piece on the MK redways here

Yep, and the article was also rather subjective. The Redways were from a blank sheet of paper and avoid many of the problems we see from poor facilities elsewhere. Yet people still don't use them.

Some impact from the superhighways, sure, but far more from tube strikes (how Katie started riding) but it's still a MAMIL dominated environment. It doesn't feel safe and it's not safe. The whole helmet argument is about saying that it's dangerous.

The accident statistics say you're wrong about the danger of cycling in London.

I think that it's also worth remembering what Dutch infrastructure actually means - segregated facilities are one small part of a much larger picture. We know from their experience that segregation didn't increase cycling, so why not focus on all the other stuff?

Closer to home, London has seen a significant increase in cycling without much segregated infrastructure. What's the explanation?

Some impact from the superhighways, sure, but far more from tube strikes

The odd 1 day strike wasn't a problem but what was effectively 4 days strikes was extracting the urine.

I think that it's also worth remembering what Dutch infrastructure actually means - segregated facilities are one small part of a much larger picture.

Is that true? What percentage is segregated?

According to a seemingly well-informed commenter on [url= http://karlmccracken.sweat365.com/2012/03/02/dutch-infrastructure-cripples-their-sports-cycling-baselessrumourfriday/ ]this page[/url]:

In reality, only [b]about 22% of the total kilometrage of public highways in the Netherlands has segregated cycle tracks[/b] running parallel to it: mostly arterial roads and busy routes in towns. The rest is either dual-use with a cycle lane painted down each side, or cyclists-and-pedestrians only in town centres.

So nearly a quarter, with other roads having cycle lanes (segregation-[i]lite[/i]) or cyclist-and-pedestrian only (total segregation).

That seems like a lot to me. No idea if that figure is accurate though - I'd like to see an official source.

That seems like a lot to me. No idea if that figure is accurate though - I'd like to see an official source.

In other words, 78% of their roads do not have segregated facilities... that seems like a lot to me.

Their cycling rate is many times higher than ours, and was so before they built all the dedicated tracks. Why is that?

Suspect a significant majority of Dutch roads is going to be shared space, narrow streets in town, streets alongside the canals in town, streets that are effectively devoid of traffic but open for loading/access etc.

Just from my experience living there - a ride across town en route to work I would guesstimate about 80% any of the above, and 20% street with a stripe (and half of that was street for bus+taxi only). Then proper segregated paths (with bike path mostly taking a different route to the main road heading in the direction I was going).

In other words, 78% of their roads do not have segregated facilities... that seems like a lot to me

Okay.. so your definition of "one small part" is over 1-in-5 roads, with additional roads made cyclist/pedestrian only or marked with cycle lanes?
I think we just differ on the definition of "small" then 😀

Have you read the [url= http://lec.lancs.ac.uk/research/society_and_environment/walking_and_cycling.php ]Lancaster University study "Understanding Walking and Cycling"[/url]?

It's quite an important piece of relevant, recent research surveying peoples attitudes to walking and cycling. It's worth a read.

This is quite telling:

Table 3: Attitudes to cycling (1= strongly agree; 3= neutral; 5= strongly disagree Neutral scores are in the range of 2.8 to 3.2)

If I make, or were to make, journeys by bicycle:

• I would find cycling enjoyable: 2.3 / 2.3 / 2.5 / 2.3

• It would be a be a bad experience using the existing roads: 2.5 / 2.5 / 2.3 / 2.4

• It would mean I have to negotiate difficult road junctions: 2.3 / 2.4 / 2.0 / 2.3

• [b]More cycle lanes would make me feel safer: 1.8 / 2.0 / 1.9 / 1.9[/b]

And their policy recommendations cover a lot of what we have talked about:

First, it is essential that the urban environment is made safe for cyclists and pedestrians. This [b]requires the provision of fully segregated cycle routes on all arterial and other busy roads[/b] in urban areas. [b]It is clear from the research that most non-cyclists and recreational cyclists will only consider cycling regularly if they are segregated from traffic[/b], and that pedestrians are hostile to pavement cyclists.
..
there need to be effective restrictions on traffic speeds, parking and access on all residential roads and other routes without segregated cycle and pedestrian paths so that both cyclists and pedestrians feel that they have a safe and convenient environment in which to travel
..
the system of legal liability on roads used by the public should be changed to protect the most vulnerable road users (cyclists and pedestrians).

We are really lucky in County Durham to have loads of really good Sustrans and off road cycleways.

There are loads of old railways that have been converted to cycle/walking routes. Great for family rides - had a lovely ride on Saturday with the family from Wynyard Country Park up to Hurworth Burn Reservoir - 100% off road on a former railway so perfect for the kids as there are no steep climbs and no traffic to worry about.

There are similar routes all over Durham and Darlington.

In other words, 78% of their roads do not have segregated facilities... that seems like a lot to me.

We're talking about hundreds of thousands of miles of road networks here. 22% is nothing to sniff at. In fact I'd say it's massive. In comparrison, I'd guess we probably have something like 0.01% in the UK, unless you were to count bridleways, etc, which aren't always a practical means of getting from A to B.

Their cycling rate is many times higher than ours, and was so before they built all the dedicated tracks. Why is that?

The way I have come to understand it is that cycling grew massively [i]because[/i] of the infrastructure that was put in place.

I'm with Graham. I have a number of Sustrans tracks nearby and they were a vital part of me using a bike as a means of transport through all my teen years. That and pavements.

I'd never have even considered going straight out on the roads. The few times I was led out onto them with friends it scared the life out of me. I'd love to see the roads safer too, but without a system to keep the traffic well away from you - i.e. well planned cycle lanes, it doesn't do a lot to encourage new cyclists.

As it happens, 80% of my commute is on Sustrans networks. Without which I'd probably take the car.

It doesn't have to be one or the other.

That's what I've been saying all thread!

People seem to be campaigning for segregated facilities like it's the main desirable outcome. I disagree, I would rather integrated facilities including SOME separate paths as arteries. I don't like the focus on separate paths because they must surely cost a lot more.

I'd never have even considered going straight out on the roads. The few times I was led out onto them with friends it scared the life out of me.

Which is why I am in favour of education and understanding. If we could come up with a successful campaign to help motorists and cyclists live together, it would work across the whole country at a stroke. Rather than benefiting the locals whose journeys can use a particular cycle route.

People seem to be campaigning for segregated facilities like it's the main desirable outcome.

For me the "main desirable outcome" is to get more people cycling, either recreationally or commuting.

Studies like the Lancaster Uni one back up my personal experience that the best way to achieve that outcome this is to build segregated cycle paths.

I don't like the focus on separate paths because they must surely cost a lot more.

They cost more than asking motorists to be nicer to us, yes.

If we could come up with a successful campaign to help motorists and cyclists live together, it would work across the whole country at a stroke.

I'm not sure such a campaign could [i]ever[/i] be devised. One look into a driving thread on here reveals that even [s]overweight IT geeks[/s] "keen cyclists" have hugely differing views about how bikes should behave on the road, and even if they should be allowed on the road at all.

The roads will [u]never[/u] be as safe as a segregated path. You could halve the casualty rate and it would still be "too risky" to a large part of the population.

The Redways were from a blank sheet of paper and avoid many of the problems we see from poor facilities elsewhere. Yet people still don't use them.

I've not been to MK and ridden them but from what i've read about them I've picked up that:
- were designed as leisure not transit routes
- were an afterthought on what were designed as pedestrian paths
- don't have priority at junctions
- are poorly maintained and signposted.

People seem to be campaigning for segregated facilities like it's the main desirable outcome. I disagree, I would rather integrated facilities including SOME separate paths as arteries.

Then we're arguing for the same thing - that is what the Dutch do. Segregate on major/arterial/through roads where speeds are high. "Tame" minor roads by removing through traffic and lowering speed limit (30kmh)

I don't think any amount of training or education will make a difference on major roads - you can't expect cyclists travelling at 10-20 mph to mix and merge safely with motor vehicles travelling at higher speeds.

One look into a driving thread on here reveals that even overweight IT geeks "keen cyclists" have hugely differing views about how bikes should behave on the road, and even if they should be allowed on the road at all.

Well why not come up with better rules. To be honest the highway code doesn't really answer our questions properly. I think that people are essential nice to each other - just look at our everyday interactions in the supermarket or elsewhere. We behave badly in cars because we're allowed to, and we allow ourselves to. I don't think it would be as hard as you imagine to prick people's consciences.

The roads will never be as safe as a segregated path.

Of course. But holding out for the safest possible solution at the cost of a less safe but much more workable one is counter productive, imo.

Cycling on the roads isn't all that dangerous as it is. Most of us still do it, as do many others.

Out of interest, I wonder if anyone has stats for how many busy city cycling fatalities could be considered to be partly or wholly the cyclist's fault?

you can't expect cyclists travelling at 10-20 mph to mix and merge safely with motor vehicles travelling at higher speeds

You can, you should, and personally I do. As do a lot of people. I ride on major roads all the time, as do most cyclists. Drivers MUST expect to come across slower traffic at all times - horses, tractors, stopped traffic, sheep, obstructions etc etc etc. Very important, that!

Of course. But holding out for the safest possible solution at the cost of a less safe but much more workable one is counter productive, imo.

As is giving politicians mixed messages and conflicting views. We all need push together for the most effective change.

A politician asks: [i]"What can I do to help cyclists?"[/i], one group responds [i]"Give us more safe direct useful traffic-free paths."[/i], while a second group responds [i]"No, we don't want segregation."[/i]

It's no wonder that nothing ever gets done.

Cycling on the roads isn't all that dangerous as it is.

10 times more likely to be injured and 22 times more likely to be killed than someone covering the same distance in a car.

That is sufficient risk to convince most people to stay in cars.

(2010 casualty rates per billion vehicle miles - Cyclists: KSI 889 All:5,516; Car occupants: KSI 40, All 546)

I ride on major roads all the time, as do most cyclists.

I rarely see any cyclists on the major dual carriageways on the way to work. Ironically today was the first one I've seen in at least a year and I was scared for him.

[i]*glitch bump*[/i]

I like sustrans style routes. I like to think of myself a relatively confident and competent road cyclist. I’ll happily go out on the road bike and mix it with traffic. But after I was knocked off my bike commuting to work in March I started using off road routes to get my confidence back, and it’s just so much nicer to commute along them than it is to mix it with rush hour traffic. I have to go a bit out of my way and I end up going a bit slower, but I’ll happily do that for the much more pleasant experience it gives me, particularly in summer. It’s so much nicer to commute along a canal towpath or on a signed cycle path that cuts through parks and woodland, and actually get to see some greenery rather than just exhaust fumes. I used to commute on a road bike. I now have a cross bike and I’ve even fitted a bell to it.

I do think that cycle paths would help to get new people into cycling and build up their confidence to attempt the roads. Existing cyclists will cycle anyway, it's the new people who need encouragement. It doesn’t have to be one or the other (indeed most people will have to do at least short distances on the road to link up off road routes and get to them in the first place). And the cycle paths I use are *far* better than most of the on road cycle provision round here.

It's not the answer everywhere, but as far as I can see it's more likely to get beginners on a bike than the other alternatives.

Just did the LEJOG - and my experience of UK cycle paths is somewhat mixed. From the worst (forest road at Dunkeld ) to ace cycling in Bristol/Liverpool/Cumbria and most of Scotland. The main issue is signposting - total rubbish everywhere. Tied in with a lack of due diligence monitoring everywhere, we appear to have a long way to go. It's not all bad though, in general terms Sustrans have done a fantastic job of managing indifferent town planners to meet minimum standards at least.

Slightly off-topic, and I dont want to hijack the thread, but its kind of relevant and the OP will be familiar with the route I'm talking about.

On the other side of the tyne there's a cycle route that takes you to Gateshead quayside. Its mainly terrible, using narrow busy footpaths, going around bus stops and taking you over side streets and junctions. It gets better as you get towards the quay and it runs parallel to a wide stretch of road that is only open to the bendy bus shuttle service between gateshead and the metrocentre.

This route is part of my 15 mile commute and I just use the roads as its a pain in the arse having to swerve around peds and stop for junctions.

Several times now I've been passed far too close by said bendy bus and its terrifying having something that big going 40 mph past your elbow. Yesterday, despite having the full width of the road on which to overtake me I was buzzed with cm's to spare, almost as if the driver was trying to scare me. I'm starting to think that the drivers of this bus service are trying to bully me onto the cycle path and I'm going to start taking details of exact times in case its one particular driver with a grudge.

I'm interested in the opinions of those on this thread, should I allow myself to be bullied off this route and take the much slower cycle path or stick to my guns and keep on riding this stretch

10 times more likely to be injured and 22 times more likely to be killed than someone covering the same distance in a car.

Silly statistics again. Can't remember the last time I nipped up to the other end of the country on my bike for a weekend.

My point remains, I go on a bike ride, I don't expect to die; I suspect most people don't expect to die, and they don't.

To be honest, if you are a nervous beginner then as long as you can physically ride a bike then I don't think cycling on a cycle path actually helps. You're not actually learning anything about how to ride with traffic, which is what you really need to gain confidence with. Mrs Grips has been on plenty of cyclepath rides and mtb rides, but is still no closer to being confident on the road.

I think a good network of integrated facilities would really help that.

I'm interested in the opinions of those on this thread, should I allow myself to be bullied off this route and take the much slower cycle path or stick to my guns and keep on riding this stretch

Stick to it, and try and look over your shoulder when you hear a bus coming - make eye contact. Also get one of those continuous loop cameras to get the bus numbers and talk to the depot.

You have the right to be there. I'd complain to the bus company ASAP.

its kind of relevant and the OP will be familiar with the route I'm talking about.

Yeah, I've ridden that route as well. I stuck to the cycle path (NCN14?) though, but it is poorly signed in places and not nearly as complete as the NCN72 the other side of the river (though there is some work ongoing on it). Didn't seem to be too many peds, but I guess it depends on the time of day.

Have you consider raising the issue on http://www.gatesheadcycling.org.uk/ ?
It is an open forum for cycling issues in Gateshead and is read and responded to by folk on Gateshead council.

sangobegger - Member - Quote
Just did the LEJOG - and my experience of UK cycle paths is somewhat mixed. From the worst (forest road at Dunkeld )

You have the right to be there. I'd complain to the bus company ASAP.

I emailed them after yesterday's incident stating my concerns and asking if they could educate their drivers's as to how much room is needed to safely pass a cyclist. I know I have a right to be there but its no good being right and squished under a bus.

Silly statistics again. Can't remember the last time I nipped up to the other end of the country on my bike for a weekend.

Not silly at all. That's how you sensibly compare the risk: mile for mile.

If you want people to replace a 5 mile car commute with a 5 mile bike commute on road then it is a perfectly fair measurement.

I go on a bike ride, I don't expect to die; I suspect most people don't expect to die, and they don't.

Meantime lots of people DON'T go on bike rides and DON'T let their children ride bikes, because they DO expect to die.

As I keep saying, you are not the target audience, you already cycle despite the conditions.

I think a good network of integrated facilities would really help that.

So what does a network of "integrated facilities" look like?

Have you consider raising the issue on http://www.gatesheadcycling.org.uk/ ?
It is an open forum for cycling issues in Gateshead and is read and responded to by folk on Gateshead council.

Thanks for the link. I'll see how I get on with the bus company then take it from there.

I emailed them after yesterday's incident stating my concerns and asking if they could educate their drivers's as to how much room is needed to safely pass a cyclist. I know I have a right to be there but its no good being right and squished under a bus.

Answered your own question there. It be easy for a bunch of people on a forum to encourage you to ride amongst a herd of badly behaving buses, but ultimately the decision is yours!

Good on you for reporting them though, badly driven buses are one of my pet hates, and that's not even from cycling. I just find it irresponsible, they're supposed to provide a public service, not a detriment.

Another survey to chew on. [url= http://www.brake.org.uk/latest-news/commuters-call-for-safer-streets-for-cycling-to-enable-more-to-get-on-their-bikes.htm ]This one from the road charity Brake[/url].

The survey of 1,550 commuters revealed many would be persuaded to cycle if roads were safer. A third (35%) said they would switch to cycling their commute if the route was less dangerous. A huge 46% would be persuaded to make other local journeys by bike given safer roads...

The majority of those surveyed said 20mph limits and other safe cycling measures were needed in their area...

Of those who don’t already have them, three-quarters (73%) would back widespread 20mph limits and [b]83% would back measures like cycle paths being introduced in their community[/b].

Mrs Grips has been on plenty of cyclepath rides and mtb rides, but is still no closer to being confident on the road.

Imagine starting work in a factory where conditions meant that a 1/2 tonne object whistled past your ear at 30-40 mph every 30 seconds, with no means of separating you from it other than the skill of the operator.

There's no industry left in the Western hemisphere that would allow these sorts of working conditions, yet people who use urban roads face them daily.

Now imagine that almost every week brought news of someone working in similar conditions being killed or seriously injured, often spun to imply how irresponsible the victim was for not wearing some thoroughly inadequate PPE that they had to purchase at their own expense, or perhaps just how irresponsible they were for being there in the first place.

Your wife isn't irrational for not wanting to cycle on the roads, and nor is anyone else.

Mr Agreeable: the Health and Safety viewpoint is an interesting analogy:

[url= http://www.hse.gov.uk/construction/cdm/acop.htm ]ACoP Risk Mitigation Hierarchy[/url]:

[b]Eliminate[/b] (separate cyclist from risk with traffic-free routes)
[b]Reduce[/b] (lower speed limits and reduce the numbers driving)
[b]Inform[/b] (education for drivers and cyclists)
[b]Control[/b] (protective gear: helmets and safety vests).

More at http://katsdekker.blogspot.co.uk/2012_08_01_archive.html

Credit where it's due, the health and safety metaphor isn't mine - I first heard it in a recent talk by transport psychologist Dr Ian Walker (which you can hear via the link below):

http://bristolcyclefestival.com/2012/07/ian-walker-speaks-at-bristol-cycle-festival/

The safety records of various modes of transport are interesting. At the top you've got aircraft (a systematic approach to safety at every level, right down to carrying a spare pilot - very safe), then rail (dead man's handles and what have you - fairly safe), then cars and other road traffic (airbags, seatbelts and, oh what the heck, it'll be fine).

I don't think walking or cycling fit into that hierarchy for most people because they're not even considered modes of transport.

Your wife isn't irrational for not wanting to cycle on the roads

Who's saying she's irrational?

There's no industry left in the Western hemisphere that would allow these sorts of working conditions, yet people who use urban roads face them daily.

Quite, through lack of any practical alternative really.

Out of interest, I wonder if anyone has stats for how many busy city cycling fatalities could be considered to be partly or wholly the cyclist's fault?

2009 report from the independent Transport Research Laboratory showed that – when a cyclist over the age of 25 sustained serious injuries – the motorist was entirely at fault between 64 and 70 per cent of the time, with the cyclist at fault in 23 to 27 per cent of incidents.

And in cases when a cyclist over 25 died in a crash, the motorist was deemed entirely at fault in 48 to 66 per cent of incidents and the cyclist 33 to 43 per cent of the time

I've seen the very legitimate concern raised that this is very likely to overstate cyclists being to blame in deaths since they're not around to defend themselves.

Regardless, it's the implications of a mistake that are out of kilter. if you're in with the Lions.....

Today's links -

[url= http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/blackfriars-cyclist-collision-last.htmlhttp://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/blackfriars-cyclist-collision-last.html ]Blackfriars bridge. [/url]

[url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/dangerous-lorry-driving-is-not-taken-seriously/ ]Dangerous Lorries[/url]

The blogger writes that "Human beings are not infallible, and even with higher standards of driving (and cycling), mistakes will happen. The consequences of those mistakes should not be fatal. Structural separation allows people, particularly cyclists, to make mistakes with only minor consequences."

and someone makes the point in the comments that "achieving changes in driver behaviour is probably an even more ambitious project than building wide-scale Dutch style infrastructure"

I suspect not. Wanting to kill people is not an ingrained behaviour for human beings, and I think people could be prompted into responsibility.

But no-one's even tried, have they? Loads of campaigns against drunk driving (from which we all benefit of course) and speeding, but where's the campaign for cycling respect? Now would be the perfect time.

Erm, have you been living under a rock? This year has seen a massively high profile campaign from a national newspaper which has prompted debates in Parliament, amongst other positive developments:

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/

where's the campaign for cycling respect? Now would be the perfect time.

I'm all for that by the way.

Especially if it explained some cycling myths ("road tax", gutter vs primary position, right to use the road) possibly balanced with some cycling advice (undertaking, blind spots).

BUT...

That'd be for existing cyclists. I don't think it would do much to get new people cycling. If anything it would highlight what a battleground the roads are.

Erm, have you been living under a rock? This year has seen a massively high profile campaign

Too wordy for 99% of the population. You need something simple and memorable, like "Clunk-Click Every Trip" or the "Summertime" drink/drive campaign.

Well, it's got a snappy one-word hashtag... but anything that focuses on "cyclists" (2% of the population and a despised law-breaking out-group to boot) is probably not going to bring about a mass transport revolution.

The Sustrans "Free Range Kids" campaign (which focuses on safe walking and cycling routes, lower speed limits for residential areas and the like) is far better thought-out:

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/freerangekids/about-free-range-kids

On the current scale of "things you can say without your workmates considering you to be a sociopath", "I hate cyclists" is much more acceptable than "I hate children". Sadly.

I think people could be prompted into responsibility

but not into infallibility

No obviously not. But the two are linked!

The blogger writes that "Human beings are not infallible, and even with higher standards of driving (and cycling), mistakes will happen. The consequences of those mistakes should not be fatal. Structural separation allows people, particularly cyclists, to make mistakes with only minor consequences."

and someone makes the point in the comments that "achieving changes in driver behaviour is probably an even more ambitious project than building wide-scale Dutch style infrastructure"

I don't think you can sum it up much better than that.

Butcher, it's nice but it's a pipe dream, isn't it?

Are you proposing an entirely new network of cycle only paths? Really? Roads simply have to feature in the life of someone who cycles for transport, and where there are roads there's the risk of being run over.

Are you proposing an entirely new network of cycle only paths? Really? Roads simply have to feature in the life of someone who cycles for transport, and where there are roads there's the risk of being run over.

I think we're all proposing pretty much the same thing:

- plenty of useful, well designed, well maintained, traffic-free cycle paths covering arterial routes and giving cyclists the choice of avoiding the most dangerous roads (NSLs, dual carriageways)

- physical separation where practical along other major roads

- other changes to road layout to protect cyclists where physical separation is not possible.

- other facilities such as 20 zones, cycle lanes, traffic restrictions, priority changes etc in residential areas and towns.

I'm not sure how, or if, this differs from your vision of an "integrated network" which you haven't really explained yet?

The budget for the creation of cycle routes in the Netherlands is about £25 per head annually. Sounds like a lot, but going from one mode of transport to the other, that's a similar level of subsidy to the funding that Concorde received. And who got to ride on that?

The budget for the creation of cycle routes in the Netherlands is about £25 per head annually.

UK budget is 70p per cyclist per year!

Hembrow reckons the Uk budget for infrastructure is actually a lot less, once you take into account all the "soft" measures like promotion and training (which, worthy as they are, have been going on for quite a few years now with little discernible effect on cycling levels).

http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2010/05/487-million-euros-for-cycling.html

Butcher, it's nice but it's a pipe dream, isn't it?

Are you proposing an entirely new network of cycle only paths? Really? Roads simply have to feature in the life of someone who cycles for transport, and where there are roads there's the risk of being run over.

It's certainly not going to happen overnight. Not on that scale. I can only hope it will happen in my lifetime and I maintain the health to enjoy it.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't start. And even beginning projects on such a large scale sends out positive messages about cycling and its potential importance in modern society.

In contrast, modifications to roads and routing to support integration could happen in a few years.

Yay for cycle routes...
[url= http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6209/6116847775_c71010e529.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6209/6116847775_c71010e529.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/6116847775/ ]Exif_JPEG_PICTURE[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/matt_outandabout/ ]matt_outandabout[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6187/6117011397_785867898a.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6187/6117011397_785867898a.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/6117011397/ ]Exif_JPEG_PICTURE[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/matt_outandabout/ ]matt_outandabout[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6062/6117121213_60fabdde19.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6062/6117121213_60fabdde19.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/6117121213/ ]Exif_JPEG_PICTURE[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/matt_outandabout/ ]matt_outandabout[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3481/3896945153_8097c58845.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3481/3896945153_8097c58845.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/3896945153/ ]Glen Ogle, Killin[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/matt_outandabout/ ]matt_outandabout[/url], on Flickr
[url= http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3440/3897713550_912afef1a2.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3440/3897713550_912afef1a2.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
[url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/matt_outandabout/3897713550/ ]Glen Ogle, Killin[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/matt_outandabout/ ]matt_outandabout[/url], on Flickr

That'll really help ease the morning commute!

In contrast, modifications to roads and routing to support integration could happen in a few years.

What sort of modifications are we talking about molgrips? You still haven't really expanded on what you meant by an "integrated network"?

Do you mean the same kind of things I'm suggesting in my last two points above (20 zones, improving junctions for cyclists etc)? Cycle lanes? Or something else?

That'll really help ease the morning commute!

Yep. Three kids cycling and having fun, who may well indeed develop a lifelong enjoyment of it and choose bike over car for their commutes later in life. That's a long term approach. That's what it is all about.

[i]*glitch bump again*[/i]

In contrast, modifications to roads and routing to support integration could happen in a few years.

I'm all for it. Anything that improves cycling. But I'm not entirely sure what you mean either, and I don't see why you can't modify and improve existing infrastructure [i]and[/i] build new infrastructure.

Wanting to kill people is not an ingrained behaviour for human beings, and I think people could be prompted into responsibility.
But no-one's even tried, have they? Loads of campaigns against drunk driving (from which we all benefit of course) and speeding, but where's the campaign for cycling respect? Now would be the perfect time.

And right on cue ....a much better argued and researched case than I made.

"The idea that somehow physical engineering is difficult and expensive and unpopular, while changing human behaviour is quick, easy, cheap and effective, is one that the British are remarkably strongly attached to"

[url= http://waronthemotorist.wordpress.com/2012/08/08/the-definition-of-madness/ ]"the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. For eighty years or more the answer to motorists playing nice has been just a little bit more education and awareness raising"[/url]

And yet more Sustrans evidence that traffic-free cycle routes get people cycling (and walking) to work:

Cyclists made 40 million more journeys by bike on a national network of cycle routes, bucking a trend of falling traffic volumes on the roads, the study by Sustrans transport charity found.

Cyclists and pedestrians made 484 million journeys along the National Cycle Network — 13,600 miles of signed routes on traffic-free paths or quieter roads — last year. A third of cyclists said that they could have chosen to drive instead, which would have resulted in an additional 52 million car journeys on the roads.

The report, Cycling Revolution, calculated that the health benefit of the network was worth £442 million a year.

-- http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3448897.ece

Does anyone know if the NCN Route 8 South from Dolgellau towards Llanegryn is rideable on a road bike? the OS map shows an white "other road or track" marked with broken lines rather than solid lines so I'm guessing its likely to be hard packed gravel not tarmac? The area i'm interested in is 656133 to 611061 following the "cwm-llwyd"