[Closed] Sustrans Design Manual "Handbook for cycle-friendly design"

[i]if they use it.[/i]

and more to the point if it's actually making sensible suggestions.

if it it contains crap advice we'll get crap infrastructure.

It's from Sustrans, they are on our side.
Only skimmed through it so far, but it looks pretty good.

Sustrans do generally offer some very good advice about infrastructure and design. And they also offer consultancy work and training.

Sadly it largely seems to be ignored by councils who still regard cycling as a pest and a drain on the budget, rather than a viable transport option that could actually save them money. 🙁

[i]It's from Sustrans, they are on our side.[/i]

mostly, although they are also in bed with a lot of LA's and tend to take a slightly 'low budget' approach to the introduction of cycling infrastructure at times.

Take this, as an example;

[img] [/img]

The most dangerous point for cyclists and when those lacking confidence feel most vulnerable is junctions.

This design basically spits them out into whatever traffic is there at the worst point for their safety. They're somehow expected to find their own way to the point ont he road they should be at for a right turn. Motorists will be cutting into the left as the 'cycle lane' has ended abruptly too.

The worst thing is that by condoning this type of approach Sustrans make it ok for road engineers to introduce more of it as it's 'by the book' and approved by a 'cyclist friendly' body.

If there isn't a right and safe way to manage cyclists at a junction then maybe we have to live with it but documenting the wrong way to do it makes it worse for everyone.

wwaswas that seems like a reasonable approach to me for the type of roundabout it is dealing with: "single lane Compact/Continental roundabout with single lane approaches"

Also note that this measure isn't alone, as your screenshot presents it, they have also recommended wider cycle lanes in the uphill direction, "over-runs" to stop vehicles squeezing cyclists, zebra crossings on the approaches and traffic signals to control flow.

They even suggest replacing it entirely with traffic lights or providing segregated routes.

Really there is only so far they can go.

If they said "Every small roundabout must look like this:"

[img] [/img]

then they simply wouldn't be taken seriously.

Why do we need a sustrans guide?

The DfT already produce a guide, that is widely ignored!

After liking this on Facebook I was told by some time-trialling roadie that:

Graham: You are the problem, you believe 11 miles is a long way to ride, you no doubt wear as many fluorescent items as possible whilst on your brompton (or other sustrans approved "bike") while you pootle to work at a speed slow enough to prevent annoyances like breaking a sweat and being out of breath. Hence, this pace will allow yourself 15-20 mins to manoeuvre around the dog on its stretchy lead or the gaggle of mums with prams blocking the whole of the path at 8am in the morning, not to mention the lovely omnipresent patch of broken glass found as the 'cyclepath' skirts the rough estate. However, some of us can't afford the massive house prices that are required to live 11 miles from work or the time to spend 4 hours a day commuting.

Entirely wrong, but amused me none the less.

A nice example of blinkered thinking. [i]"Sustrans don't make dual carriageways safe to do my time trials on, so they are clearly doing it all wrong because that's what everyone wants."[/i] 😆

Why do we need a sustrans guide?
The DfT already produce a guide, that is widely ignored!

I've not read the DfT guide, but multiple authoritative sources saying the same thing and pushing similar ideas is no bad thing!

And setting themselves up as such an authority means Local Authorities etc are more likely to consult Sustrans - which is good too.

[i]If they said "Every small roundabout must look like this:"[/i]

I didn't say they should, I said that by condoning bad design that gives cyclists the illusion of being 'safe' right up to the point they actually need to be it really doesn't help. Either having cyclists segregated from traffic is a good thing (hence cycle lanes) or it isn't (cyclists 'mix with traffic'). It shouldn't change just because you're within 30 metres of the type of infrastructre that is where 75% of cyclists killed or seriously injured accidents occur.

In that specific example it looks like the roundabout was resurfaced and not repainted as the cycle lane markings cut off where the road surface changes, in any case?

This was launched today, too;

[url= http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/ ]http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/[/url]

I think I prefer their approach, on the whole.

condoning bad design that gives cyclists the illusion of being 'safe' right up to the point they actually need to be it really doesn't help

Actually it does - because making cyclists feel safe is key to getting more people riding on the road, and having a cycle lane as a visual reminder to look out for cyclists helps too.

I agree that the roundabout isn't perfect - but there really isn't a cost effective solution there. What they suggest is current "best practice" which is exactly what the guide purports to be.

I'd certainly feel happier approaching that roundabout than one without any cycle provision on it - so they've got [i]something[/i] right I think.

Either having cyclists segregated from traffic is a good thing (hence cycle lanes) or it isn't (cyclists 'mix with traffic').

Not even the Dutch segregate [i]everywhere[/i].

There's a conference on today, in Leeds, hence the flurry of publicity. Free entry tomorrow afternoon if you can make it.

[url= http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/free-entry-to-end-of-cyclecity-leeds/016312 ]http://www.bikebiz.com/news/read/free-entry-to-end-of-cyclecity-leeds/016312[/url]

[url= http://www.landor.co.uk/cyclecityleeds/home.php ]http://www.landor.co.uk/cyclecityleeds/home.php[/url]

This was launched today, too;

http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/

I think I prefer their approach, on the whole.

Yep - and (as a CTC member) I've already pledged support and written to my local councilor about that. And my local cycle campaign are pushing it too.

But that's a much longer term vision IMO.

Sustrans, as ever, are doing the pragmatic, practical, right-now stuff.

Sustrans, as ever, are doing the pragmatic, practical, right-now stuff.

This is where i have a real issue, compromise, if councillors can say well a cycling organisation says it is ok it must be then how do you get a real improvement?

To me shared use is a joke and should never be offered as a solution, it simply isn't. All it means is get bikes off the road and take space from pedestrians. The cyclists don't benefit, pedestrians certainly loose out, the only people who get benefit are car drivers because there is one less thing for to bother worrying about as they take selfies and post them on Facebook...

Any path that ends before the junction should be banned, It ether takes you through the junction or it has failed. Junctions are where accidents happen, so get them right!

The cyclists don't benefit

Compared to what?

I regularly use my local shared use path to enjoy a pleasant traffic-free commute to work. So I'd say I "benefit".

And it is very well used by other commuters, leisure riders, tourers, families, accessibility bikes, pedestrians, school children etc - so they "benefit" too.

Yes, it's not a perfect, lit, well-surfaced, heated, Dutch-style fully segregated, bikes only, "bike-road".

[img] ?w=500&h=375[/img]

If you compare it to that then okay, we're not benefiting as much as we could be, but it is certainly a good thing.

Any path that ends before the junction should be banned, It ether takes you through the junction or it has failed.

How would you engineer a path to take a cyclist through a small roundabout like that without building bridges or underpasses?

Closest I've seen is something like this:

[img] [/img]

which [url= http://cyclelondoncity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/transport-for-london-nails-it-full.html ]last I heard was in testing[/url] to see if British drivers could cope with it.

It's great. But I'm not sure that design is very suitable for small or mini single-lane roundabouts.

Compared to what?

What you get is a sop, it'll do, it does actually make the roads safer for cycling, it brings conflict with pedestrians. There are better solutions that can be enacted but they take effort. IF Sustrans and councils are happy to provide crap then crap is what they will provide. I have a short section of multi user path i regularly use in preference to the A46, but regularly it is home to dogs on extender leads joggers with head-phones, and it isn't very wide. It is also noisy making it difficult to alert other users of your prescence. Last thing i want is a jogger to jump sideways and dump me onto a 60mph single carriageway trunk road!

As for roundabouts, bring traffic speeds down in urban environments, big multi lane roundabouts where drivers don't have time to consider all the traffic only cause accidents. One local to me was open for a couple of days before the first cyclist was killed because a driver didn't bother to look. The idea of maintaining traffic flow isn't always a good one. There are times when lights make more sense, or give ways, or stops. create a real path that takes riders around the roundabout. Basically anything but abandoning them just when they need most help.

There are times when lights make more sense, or give ways, or stops. create a real path that takes riders around the roundabout.

Agreed. But to be fair, the handbook does say that too:

"Large conventional roundabouts pose problems for cyclists.

Options to consider are:
1. Re-design to Compact/Continental design
2. Replace roundabout with traffic signals
3. Provide segregated cycle tracks with Toucan or Zebra crossings of busy arms, or cycle priority crossings/raised tables
4. Signal control of the roundabout
5. Shared space solution. "

[quote=GrahamS ]Actually it does - because making cyclists feel safe is key to getting more people riding on the road, and having a cycle lane as a visual reminder to look out for cyclists helps too.

Except design like that doesn't actually make cyclists feel safe. It makes stupid road designers think it makes cyclists feel safe, but that's an entirely different thing.

[quote=GrahamS ]Not even the Dutch segregate everywhere.

No, but where they don't segregate, is generally where vehicle speeds are limited and cyclists have priority, not at the most dangerous parts of the network. Cyclists are always segregated at junctions.

Here's what David Hembrow has to say on this particular issue:

Bizarrely, their diagram to illustrate "good street design" shows that roads on which there was space for a cycle lanes should lose those lanes as they approach a roundabout which itself has no clear markings. This will generate conflict and danger just as it does at similar designs which have been tried in the Netherlands.

I would trust him to know about good cycling infrastucture far more than Sustrans - lots more on this document at http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/

[quote=GrahamS ]I agree that the roundabout isn't perfect - but there really isn't a cost effective solution there.

Except that study after study shows that Dutch solutions are cost effective if measured properly. Properly designed solutions would cost a fraction of the amount being spent on futile new road schemes (near here they're spunking millions on road widening which everybody agrees won't help - the same money could have been spent on fabulous cycling infrastructure which would have made more difference by getting people out of their cars).

Yeah I've read a lot of Hembrow's stuff (and I know Sustrans folk that have been on his tours).

But I think the point of this handbook is to record the best current UK practice. Note that the photos all say where they were taken.

By doing that Sustrans immediately counter the standard local authority fob off, which is [i]"Oh that's fine for the Dutch but we can't do that in the UK, we're not allowed".[/i]

It's that pragmatism thing again. The reason I like Sustrans, but also the reason that many people dislike them.

[i]It's that pragmatism thing again. The reason I like Sustrans[/i]

endorsing 'solutions' that don't work isn't pragmatic, it's dangerous.

[quote=GrahamS ]It's that pragmatism thing again.

Your time trialling mate could quite reasonably argue that he's pragmatising - TBH I have quite a lot of sympathy with his attitude when this is a handbook of "best practice". I don't see that this handbook - with it's endorsement of (you could go so far as to suggest recommendation for) shared paths - does anything to allay his concerns about UK cycling infrastructure when proper Dutch stuff just might convert him.

[quote=GrahamS ]Yeah I've read a lot of Hembrow's stuff

Have you read today's blog entry at the link I gave? Would you like to quote a single positive thing he has to say about this manual?

In that photo:

[img] [/img]

I think stopping the lane before that roundabout is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I agree that busy city roundabouts need better, more involved, solutions.

But in the situation pictured, a small quiet single-lane roundabout, I think it is reasonable.

Ask yourself, if they spent a few hundred thousand digging an cycle underpass, or making a bridge, or adding traffic lights and multiple cycle lanes to that roundabout then would you actually use them?
And would you think that was a good use of the limited budget for cycling provisions?

Here's a Hembrow post regarding what to do with a roundabout like that http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2011/09/connecting-roundabout-with-cycle-paths.html

Your time trialling mate could quite reasonably argue that he's pragmatising ... proper Dutch stuff just might convert him.

He was just a random FB bloke - but my impression was he would hate "proper Dutch stuff" as he saw normal people using normal bikes for normal transport as "the problem".

Have you read today's blog entry at the link I gave? Would you like to quote a single positive thing he has to say about this manual?

I haven't yet but I promise I will (I'm supposed to be working).

But it doesn't surprise me at all that Hembrow dislikes it. He's an idealist and idealists hate pragmatism.

Personally I think we need both: an idealist vision and pragmatic steps to get us there.

Here's a Hembrow post regarding what to do with a roundabout like that

Cross five lanes of traffic, giving way at each one.

You'd rather do that than just go around that small roundabout like a car?

[quote=GrahamS ]He was just a random FB bloke - but my impression was he would hate "proper Dutch stuff" as he saw normal people using normal bikes for normal transport as "the problem".

He might have said you were the problem, but what he actually described as the problem was rubbish UK cycling infrastructure of the type promoted by this manual. The thing is I also have sympathy with him as I used to be almost exclusively a "serious" competitive cyclist, with the attitude that cycling infrastructure is bad as we need to maintain the right to use the road. I now have children and ride a unicycle for transport so make a lot more use of cycling infrastructure, and see little to suggest my former attitude was all that wrong - I find it intensely frustrating that if I'm running late I end up on the busy roads as it takes 50% longer using the traffic free route (not only is it further, it's also got a lot more bends, poor surfaces shared paths etc.) Yet even with a lingering attitude the same as the time triallist I know that I would be extremely happy never to need to go near a road if we had Dutch style facilities - the only reason he might think he would hate that is that he's only ever seen UK stuff and doesn't know what it's like. My personal enlightenment only came after reading a lot of Hembrow's blog after it was linked on here.

But it doesn't surprise me at all that Hembrow dislikes it. He's an idealist and idealists hate pragmatism.

You write "idealist" as if what you mean is "unrealist", despite utopia actually existing...

[quote=GrahamS ]Cross five lanes of traffic, giving way at each one.

Aha!

[quote=David Hembrow]Some may quibble at having to give way at the crossing of the other roads joining the roundabout itself.

😆

He goes on to point out:

However, consider that if I didn't give way where I do in the video, I'd otherwise have done so to the same car on the roundabout itself.

Though more pertinent to your "giving way at 5 lanes of traffic"

The only way to have to give way twice is to ride around the roundabout in order to make a video.

...which I think is the only way to give way to 5 lanes.

In reality if you applied that solution to the roundabout pictured in the Sustrans doc, you'd end up with one route with no give ways (1 less than Sustrans) and one route with one give way (the same as at present) from the pictured orange dashed lines.

I am admittedly a big Hembrow fan - the thing is I do see no reason why his* ideas couldn't be implemented here, the only thing which is stopping them is a lack of will. In plenty of cases it would actually be no more expensive to do it properly.

* not actually his

You write "idealist" as if what you mean is "unrealist", despite utopia actually existing...

I don't mean to.

I think idealism is great and is required. But to me it is a vision for where we should be heading. It is a long term thing. It is only "unreal" in that it is not something we could achieve tomorrow, or this year.

We need to change the thinking of a huge majority of the UK population before we get close to that.

Meantime, I'd still like to cycle to work.

(I've mentioned before I support 3 groups: my local cycle campaign who are idealists, CTC who are good on national political pressure, and Sustrans who get dirty, practical and pragmatic - I believe all three are valuable and that in-fighting about exactly how [i]ideal[/i] we want things is very destructive)

I am admittedly a big Hembrow fan - the thing is I do see no reason why his* ideas couldn't be implemented here, the only thing which is stopping them is a lack of will.

On that I completely agree.

And we try to build that will. [url= http://newcycling.org/news/20131107/lcgd-presentations ]We've recently had the Dutch over to talk to local councilors in Newcastle[/url] and we encourage them to look at Dutch-style designs and even go on the Hembrow tours.

But as I say, there is a [i]lot[/i] of car-centric thinking to change in this country, especially in local and national government.

I've had a quick look through> http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/ It's all very well having safe junctions and segregated routes, but it's no good if you finish work, or come out of the supermarket, to find your bike, or parts of it, missing.

Interesting take on the Sustrans 'manual' here:

[i]The Sustrans' handbook effectively endorses and legitimises much of the substandard provision that many councils are will [sic] be tempted to employ[/i]

[url= http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/news/2014/05/02/sustrans%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98cycle-design-handbook%E2%80%99 ]http://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/news/2014/05/02/sustrans%E2%80%99-%E2%80%98cycle-design-handbook%E2%80%99[/url]

There's shared use and shared use though.

There's a 2-3m wide shared use route.
And then there's one of my local sections which is a "Sustrans National cycle route" which is under a meter in width with potholes everywhere with narrowing's and obstacles left right and centre.

Why on earth Sustrans adopted that is absolutely beyond me.

Why on earth Sustrans adopted that is absolutely beyond me.

I think that's what people find difficult with sustrans, they seem to compromise [i]too[/i] much so they can claim a 'route' is complete.

There's a 'fast road' hill near me with a 50cm wide path at the side - the 50cm path is the cycle route. It's breaking up so badly I struggle to get traction on it on my mtb on the steep bits.

Riders are directed to it like it's suitable for use by all. Anyone on a road or touring bike ends up riding up the road in with the traffic.

There are safer routes into the city but if I worked off the Sustrans route maps I'd pick the hill because they've endorsed it.

I'd seen this handbook was out, but hadn't had chance to look at it properly yet. However, when I saw this:

But I think the point of this handbook is to record the best current UK practice. Note that the photos all say where they were taken.

I thought I'd do a ctrl+f to find what example are in there from Darlington. After all, they were a Cycling Demonstration Town twice so there must be loads. There's one photograph of a sign to show the way to the train stations.

Perhaps they will have a second handbook showing individual travel planning, jute bags, water bottles and slap bands 🙄

As a cycling campaign, we spent 8 years asking for decent infrastructure. They spent 8 years suggesting people ride more without really building any decent infrastructure. There are a couple of relatively good bits, which really highlight how little they did everywhere else.

These 'good' bits are of the compromised type that GrahamS is suggesting, and they [i]do[/i] work. My mam, who hadn't ridden a bike for 30 years, bought a sensible bike with a dymano hub, mudguards, chainguard and a rack and she regularly cycles into town or to our house along the shared use paths. We're very lucky to live in the one bit of the town where this was made possible, but it shows what they should have done elsewhere.

Why on earth Sustrans adopted that is absolutely beyond me.

1.What was the alternative ?
2.Not to adopt it and have a gap in a longer route ?

1.No other particularly good alternatives no, not along that bit. Bar building some proper infrastructure, which obviously isn't an option.
2. Yes! people use these maps to plan routes, many non locals and they might plan to use that. Where if it wasn't adopted, they might look for the best on road option near by and have a far nicer ride.

Further up the same "National route" it goes off and wiggles around the houses on an on road route (not even any markings, bar the odd blue sticker on existing street furniture) with junctions and parked cars left right and centre to get between town and village when there's a good 3m wide shared use cycle route in a dead straight line which they seem to have completely ignored?

By adopting rubbish imo they approve it as ok! and the council see it as ok! and we go round again.

The local council put in an utterly pointless dotty white line on a road near my Mums a few years ago. I asked my Father in law who's a councillor what they were thinking it was for and I was told they had some money which they had to spend on cycling stuff so they did and that's what you've got. I know that's not Sustrans fault but if\when they get asked to adopt it they say no it's pointless and not good enough then maybe next time they might think (but probably not 😥 )

I'd rather they spent what little money they have for cycling on one bad junction than 30 miles of pointless carp!

oh and when I say "good 3m wide shared use cycle route", that's permanently shared with parked cars too, often blocking it completely when I've got my son in the Croozer anyway 👿

local + county council and police will do sod all about it 👿

In case I've come across as such, I'm not anti Sustrans at all.

I appreciate they have limited resources and there only so much they can "do" but I really would rather they just adopted good stuff not the rubbish and had a patchwork thing if that's the reality of it. Making the country look like some big joined up network of lovely off road cycling routes is just not reality, yet! Maybe one day, I hope I can still ride a bike then, 'cos I'm not holding my breath for it.

I think that's what people find difficult with sustrans, they seem to compromise too much so they can claim a 'route' is complete.

Yep that definitely does happen - but I [i]think[/i] it is also part of their tactics.

They take whatever scraps they can get and then try to get it improved (which is often a painfully slow process).

Bear in mind that normally Sustrans don't [i]own[/i] the route and they can't normally go in and make big changes like re-surfacing or widening the route, even though they'd like to.

What they/we [i]can[/i] do is maintain the route (make sure it is clearly signed, clear litter and glass from it, cut back overhanging vegetation, etc) and promote the route (map it, encourage people to use it etc).

Issues with the route itself like potholes, drainage, poor surfaces etc get reported to the local authority by Sustrans, who will apply gentle pressure to get these things fixed and offer limited funds, consultancy and manual labour to assist.

I agree that all this does mean that Sustrans routes vary A LOT in quality, which is really bad for the "brand" as a whole. I've suggested in the past that they need to openly grade the quality of route sections on their mapping and signs. Be honest about it. If they published summary figures it might actually help spark a bit of competition between LAs ("Councillor, why have we only got 5 miles of grade C shared use track when our neighbours managed 30 miles of grade B segregated track?")

I know that's not Sustrans fault but if\when they get asked to adopt it they say no it's pointless and not good enough then maybe next time they might think (but probably not )

Doesn't work sadly.

Newcastle council have happily routed and signed Route 725 with nice red Sustrans-style NCN signs.

It's a crap route with all kinds of wiggly crapness and dangerous bits. Sustrans weren't consulted till after it was done!

I used to take the default position that Sustrans were pro-cycling and therefore must be a 'good thing' but the more of their work I see the more I'm convinced that they're part of the problem.

I can't help but agree with the Cycling Embassy and David Hembrow that "The Sustrans' handbook effectively endorses and legitimises much of the substandard provision that many councils are will be tempted to employ, when things get difficult."

It's not good enough, it won't bring about mass cycling and it will lock in bad infrastructure for decades more.

The sad thing is that the "substandard provision" that the handbook "endorses" is actually a pretty big step up from much of what is already out there.

As I said earlier, I [i]think[/i] the purpose of that handbook is to record genuine examples of real [i]better-than-average[/i] UK infrastucture.

If it helps drag all local authorities up to the same level of mediocrity then that would be a big step forward.

Then (hopefully) in the next revision of the handbook you can raise the bar a little more by doing the same thing again.

It's a typical Sustrans [i]softly, softly, catchy monkey[/i] approach. So people hate it. But while folk are screaming for complete revolution, Sustrans are quietly doing their thing and getting more people cycling to add to the pressure.

[quote=simons_nicolai-uk ]it won't bring about mass cycling and it will lock in bad infrastructure for decades more.

This. TBH most of what Sustrans is doing does nothing at all to advance the cause of proper infrastructure which will bring about mass cycling. If anything they provide endorsement of the status quo of rubbish.

Surely we* all agree that the target is proper infrastructure which will encourage mass cycling, in which case I'm less than convinced that the Sustrans pragmatic compromise route is the best way to get there.

* well apart from time triallists

I'd recommend everyone reading the link that waswaswas put up from the Cycling Embassy. It's a pretty good summary of why the Sustrans guidance isn't very good.

This. TBH most of what Sustrans is doing does nothing at all to advance the cause of proper infrastructure which will bring about mass cycling.

I commute by bike [b]because[/b] I have a nice safe Sustrans route that lets me do it safely and stress-free in nice surroundings.

[img] [/img]

I probably wouldn't commute by bike if I had to do it all on road.

I take my wife and young children out for nice pootles along that route. I wouldn't do that on the road.

The same route is used by a lot of families, commuters, accessibility riders and tourers (it's part of the C2C). It regularly features on the social rides organised by [url= http://www.thecyclehub.org/ ]the local bike cafe[/url] and [url= http://www.theguardian.com/travel/2012/may/06/newcastle-tyne-valley-brewery-bike-ride ]featured in The Guardian's "Britain's Best Bike Rides" series[/url].

How is that NOT helping bring about mass cycling?

And reading [url= http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/2014/05/sustrans-handbook-for-cycle-friendly.html ]David Hembrow's critique[/url] for a more in depth view

TBH most of what Sustrans is doing does nothing at all to advance the cause of proper infrastructure

But who does?

And of those, who are actually big enough, int eh public eye enough and have the ear of local councils enough to actually be listened to?

I don't think any of use (even Graham as is obvious) think Sustrans are perfect, but they ARE trying, and we can't get the overnight revolution we would all love so in the man time small changes are an improvement, perhaps what Sustran's need if anything is [b]more [/b]support from people that can help to improve what they do?

They are already in a reasonably privileged and unique position of having [i]some [/i]influence, especially with local councils, I think it could be more productive to support Sustrans and slowly help them improve what they do, rather than hope for some other body/group/person to get it 100% right straight away from a relatively unknown position.

It's already been touched on but Sustrans routes do vary massively, there are some fantastic examples, and some very poor ones, and of course our views are tainted by our experiences, but then there are very few other groups with as much widespread activity going on, and some more joined up co-operative work would help Sustrans, CTC, TFL and all the individual and local campaign groups*

One good thing that does come from this is we are talking about it, and so are other people, and anything that gets it on the radar is potential progress.

*I say all this as a Sustrans, CTC, and British Cycling supporter as well as being a volunteer with local inclusive cycling charity.

[quote=amedias ]

TBH most of what Sustrans is doing does nothing at all to advance the cause of proper infrastructure

Which is no excuse at all for Sustrans doing such a poor job from their position of influence. Some of the advice in that manual is downright wrong.

TBH the majority (if not all) of the good Sustrans routes are more a matter of luck than judgement, and some of those could and should be a lot better. For example the "flagship" Bristol/Bath path which only exists because it kind of already existed and had/has the potential to be so much better than it is.

Surely we* all agree that the target is proper infrastructure which will encourage mass cycling, in which case I'm less than convinced that the Sustrans pragmatic compromise route is the best way to get there.

Of course I agree with that.

But I'm not going to stand and shout [i]"Give me a comprehensive network of proper Dutch-style infrastructure with fully-segregated cycle paths otherwise I'll jolly well give up cycling and take the car"[/i] because I just don't think that is effective.

Likewise I'm not going to say [i]"Right then, if you won't provide proper safe routes then I'll just get crushed by this HGV instead. See how you like that."[/i] because that is likewise ineffective.

Instead I'm going to keep riding my bike and encourage others to do so, in the hope that more people cycling means more votes, so the politicians start listening. (Which seems to be working at the moment)

I don't think many of us think Sustrans is all bad by any means.

I just wish they'd do what they can do with the resources they have really well. Get the Advice right! and only accept routes which are actually any good.

I don't see how publishing a document eding in the right direction but not there or adopting a thoroughly substandard route and telling everybody it's part of your national cycle network helps anything. btw it's been part of the national route for years and hasn't improved in anyway shape or form to my knowledge.

If your going to do it, do it well! or not at all! I would see value for money then even if that meant the scale and reach was reduced at least what was there would be good.

How is that NOT helping bring about mass cycling?

That's an example of where they've done something well - and there are some - but there are also a great many that are poor or downright dangerous. They're very proud of the 'National Cycle Network' but it's an inconsistent mess and there is no way of knowing what the quality will be like until you get to it. I can see a point in it being there for 'cycle touring' which would also meet the needs of commuters in many places.

The 'old railway' routes are good but most of the rest is crap. The section through the Surrey Hills is partly on muddy bridleway, partly on rutted sand, some dirt track and then throws you unprotected onto the A25 when they run out of other ideas. You'd not want to ride it on a touring bike with panniers nor use it for your daily commute (it's not direct either). The Taff Trail in Wales takes you over "the Gap" south of Brecon. That's a fine mountain biking route but the couple I saw pushing hybrids with panniers looked far from happy. GrahamS - your daughter wouldn't be happy on much of that.

When Andrew Gilligan started as Cycle Czar he said things would be 'done properly or not at all' (far from clear he'll deliver on that) but that's the approach we should be taking and that Sustrans document is a long way from properly. They shouldn't be highlighting 'good examples' which are poor by international standards and in places downright dangerous - they should be setting out world class best practice .

[quote=simons_nicolai-uk ]The 'old railway' routes are good

But as I pointed out above, still not up to the standards of Dutch infrastructure. Not even as good as old Dutch infrastructure which is being replaced as sub-standard.

For example the "flagship" Bristol/Bath path which only exists because it kind of already existed and had/has the potential to be so much better than it is.

Okay so let's take that as an example. I'm assuming that, as I outlined earlier, Sustrans don't own that land or the route, so they just do monitoring, signage and maintenance, and are reliant on the local authority for things like route surface, drainage, lighting, etc?

If that route isn't [i]perfect[/i] and Sustrans refused to adopt it then how would that actually improve the situation?

Do you think the local authority would be terribly ashamed and immediately start improving the route to try and get Sustrans blessing? Or do you think they'd just say [i]"F** em then"[/i] and ignore it?

Without Sustrans monitoring and maintaining the route it would be up to other route users to do this themselves independently, reporting issues and pushing the local authority for improvements. Reckon that'd happen?

And if it did do you reckon they'd have more impact than Sustrans?

Which is no excuse at all for Sustrans doing such a poor job from their position of influence

I totally agree with you there aracer, what I don't want to happen is for us to pour scorn and damnation on Sustrans and risk discrediting them in the public eye and with councils.

I think that there need to be improvements in what they do, and this latest publication has plenty of evidence of that, but what needs to happen is more support, and more co-operation between groups to make those improvements.

It often feels like in-fighting between cycling groups when what they need is to learn from each other, as whether they get it right or not they all want to improve cycling.

One of DH's common frustrations is that there is great knowledge out there of how to do it right, but not enough willingness to learn from it, it's almost as if we (in the UK) are hell-bent on making our own mistakes and will (hopefully) get there in the end when we could easily use the knowledge and skip a lot of the mistakes, but I think this resistance stems from the fact, as Graham pointed out, there's too much resistance from establishment for us to make big changes quickly, so what we are left with is small, and often substandard solutions or nothing at all.

You can argue the toss about do it right or don't do it at all, but arguably something is better than nothing, we can all support and improve on something, but it's next to impossible to go from nothing to perfect.

We need to turn this energy into positive change (yes that means improvements in Sustrans too), and not let it turn into negative slagging off of groups that ultimately do want to improve cycling, even if they're not getting it quite right all the time.

New Sustrans blog post about the handbook and comparing/contrasting it to the "Making Space for Cycling" and Cambridge Cycling Campaign guidance.

Reading between the lines I think this suggests they are more than aware of the criticism.

http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/space-different-cycling-design-guides

but arguably something is better than nothing, we can all support and improve on something, but it's next to impossible to go from nothing to perfect.

I'm not sure that's right. The cost of doing infrastructure badly is often not far off the cost of doing it properly (overheads/consultation/etc etc) and there are very limited budgets available. Poor, discontinous infrastructure doesn't get used and is then used as an argument for not doing more ("we spent £x on **Sustrans approved** infrastructure and no-one used it - there's obviously just no demand in the UK for cycle facilities").

I'd take 10 miles of current Dutch standard infrastruture each year over 20 miles of crap any day. In 10 years time we'd have 100mile of good.

But currently in those 10 years we'd have done Xhundred miles of good, Y hundred of bad, and Zthousand of mediocre

Which I think is better than your 100miles of perfect a decade, if your 100 even got done, as really, why would they bother if there's nothing already out there?

The pragmatic approach is:

Do something, and improve it.

Vs

The ideal approach:

Do nothing until you can get it all perfect (and paid for).

Which in reality won't happen, but that doesn't mean we don't keep striving for getting it right, and getting the ideal that we want, and should be pushing for which is:

[b]try to do it all right[/b] and keep going and fix the mistakes and mediocrity, but not the somewhat harder [b]do it all right or don't bother[/b].

Because we all know the reality of that is that you'll get nothing.

It's the try bit we are failing at really, we need more joined up action and more willingness to learn and use the available knowledge of how to do it right.

Personally I don't think the lack of willingness to use that knowledge comes from Sustrans, I think it's the resistance of the establishment (governemnt and local council) to do so that forces the compromise upon them, and only with more support can organisations have a stronger voice and reduce the compromise.

I think this is the key bit from the blog post above and this is the context within which the handbook should be judged:

[b]Cycle campaigners are right to be aspirational in their ambition[/b] and Making Space for Cycling will be a useful tool in negotiating high quality provision in new developments. Whilst being of similar scale, these are [b]two distinct documents aimed at different audiences[/b].

Of course, the vast majority of cycling takes place on existing, often very constrained, urban infrastructure, and [b]Sustrans’ Handbook aims to address the immediate need for realistic and accessible technical guidance for scheme designers in local authorities and consultancies dealing with the practicalities of implementing improvements for cyclists in the existing UK environment.[/b]

ie: they know it's not perfect, they know we need to do better, but for the right now, they're trying to improve what they can.

Some might see this as complicit in encouraging poor infrastructure, some might see this as a pragmatic approach.

As in all areas of life the reality is probably many shades of grey and far less binary than the opposing views would have you believe.

It's the try bit we are failing at really, we need more joined up action and more willingness to learn and use the available knowledge of how to do it right.

Fully agree. So we return to my original point - why are Sustrans putting out a guidance manual full of stuff that's patently not how to do it right?

The Dutch have worked out the best solutions, the knowledge is there, but this Sustrans guide is not it. New stuff in the existing environment doesn't need to be as bad as what's gone before - their statement doesn't make any sense.

The Dutch have worked out the best solutions, the knowledge is there, but this Sustrans guide is not it.

Agreed, that is what is so frustrating in general, the knowledge is there but nobody will use it!

But I think this guide is their attempt at a bridge between the reality and the ideal, they know that if they go straight for the ideal, with the current state of affairs then they will be even more ignored than they already are.

the knowledge is there but nobody will use it!

No, the knowledge isn't there - where are our transport engineers meant to get it from? There isn't a UK cycle infrastructure manual the implements dutch quality infrastructure in the UK environment - that's what the Sustrans manual *should* have been.

Someone puts it far more succinctly than me in the comments on that Sustrans blog post -

The existing infrastructure is only that way because it's been designed like that. A few jack hammers and diggers and it can look like the best infrastructure the Netherlands has to offer. Don't allow people in my profession (civil engineers) a get out clause of a bit of paint painted in the gutter... Just allow them to say 'the budget isn't there, you will have to wait until it is', because clients aren't so bothered about anything other than budget.

[quote=GrahamS ]New Sustrans blog post about the handbook and comparing/contrasting it to the "Making Space for Cycling" and Cambridge Cycling Campaign guidance.

You need to post a comment on there, Graham - the 6 so far all appear to have come from people who agree with me.

I accept we can't have it all now and something is better then nothing.

But! there has to be a minimum standard where they can so "no [council] that's just awful and not suitable for bikes" ime the part of the national route near me should fall into that category.

GrahamS's example photo above would be a delight to cycle on compared to some of the carp I commute on. Yes it's not Dutch but that'd be good enough in my book. I don't agree with the bad advice though. I doubt the proper advice would cost any more to produce.

You need to post a comment on there, Graham - the 6 so far all appear to have come from people who agree with me.

Nah, they are capable of defending themselves there if they want and I do think it is important that they realise people are upset at this.

I don't think they've handled it well so far.

But! there has to be a minimum standard where they can so "no [council] that's just awful and not suitable for bikes" ime the part of the national route near me should fall into that category.

[b]If[/b] the result was that the council then couldn't legally sign it as a bike route or claim the mileage on their "alternative transport" target - then yes, an agreed minimum standard approved by Sustrans, CTC, DutchEmbassy, space4cycling etc etc would be great.

But the reality is if Sustrans say it isn't up to standard then the council will just sign it anyway. 🙁

No, the knowledge isn't there

I mean in the wider sense, the knowledge exists (outside the UK) but it is not being used by the UK, and there seems to be an unwillingness to accept that we can learn from it.

Goes back to my earlier point, we (the UK) seem to be hell bent on making our own mistakes, and refusing to believe that we can skip them by learning from others who have already made them.

Don't know whether this is deliberate, or a legacy of 'we know best' or what but it's a real thing, we [b]could[/b] learn from the Dutch, but something is stopping us, either an unwillingness to believe that they are right, or a belief that we have to go through the motions or something, but there is massive resistance somewhere...

we could learn from the Dutch, but something is stopping us

See that weird looking roundabout on page 1:

[img] [/img]

That is a Dutch-style roundabout being tested by Transport for London at the Transport Research Laboratory in Bracknell.

That knowledge [i]is[/i] filtering through. There are some people in transport that understand it well.

But the public and political will just isn't there. Yet.

But the reality is if Sustrans say it isn't up to standard then the council will just sign it anyway.

True, but imo Sustrans shouldn't rubber stamp it and put it on their map, which to me says "This is an acceptable cycle route for people to use every day\touring etc" when it isn't.

[quote=amedias ]But currently in those 10 years we'd have done Xhundred miles of [s]good[/s] mediocre, Y hundred of [s]bad[/s] complete rubbish, and Zthousand of [s]mediocre[/s] bad

FTFY

and let's be honest, it would actually be preferable for a start to do X hundred miles of mediocre, 0 of complete rubbish, and Z thousand of bad (you could probably make a good case that you're better off only doing the X hundred of mediocre). Given the amount which is spent on complete rubbish and bad, if that money was instead diverted to doing it properly then you might actually get X hundred of good.

The point you're missing here - despite it being spelled out in the post you replied to - is that it's not actually that much harder or more expensive to do the job properly than to do it badly. It's just the knowledge and the will which is lacking - the former will be a problem so long as poor design is put forwards by organisations such as Sustrans as "UK best practice" (sic).

Which is strange, and I'm a bit confused, as in your other posts you seem to be on my side of this debate!

[quote=GrahamS ]Nah, they are capable of defending themselves there if they want and I do think it is important that they realise people are upset at this.
I don't think they've handled it well so far.

Sorry - I should have put a smiley on the end of that. Though I;m sure you don't think we have completely differing opinions on this!

is that it's not actually that much harder or more expensive to do the job properly than to do it badly.

Didn't the 1973 Dutch ""Stop de Kindermoord" revolution involve things like very high oil prices (thanks to the oil crisis), car-free Sundays, and then banning all motor vehicles from city centres?

A lot of that sounds hard, expensive and even scary to most people in this country.

Though I;m sure you don't think we have completely differing opinions on this!

That's the terrible thing. I think we all want the same thing* - but in-fighting about how best to get it completely sabotages any hope we have.

.

* Except time trialers. I have no idea what they want. 😀

aracer I think we may be talking at cross purposes slightly and to be clear I am a Sustrans supporter who does not support everything in this handbook.

- I agree that the advice in the latest publication is not as good as it should be
- I agree that we should be doing it right

- I think that the reality is somewhat more complicated that 'do it right or dontt do it at all'

- I think there is a lot of political and bureaucratic nonsense that gets in the way of doing it right and makes this:

it's not actually that much harder or more expensive to do the job properly than to do it badly

a bit misleading, as although it is not much harder physically and financially to do it properly, politically it is, and I think that this has driven Sustran's approach towards one of pragmatism and compromise, more so than it perhaps should have.

- I also think that the way forward is more co-operation between cycling organisations and [b]more [/b]support for people like Sustrans because of what they could do (with more support and guidance and co-op), and not poo-poohing them for what they are not getting right now, because I think what they do do is better than nothing, which realistically is what we would have had without them.

But the public and political will just isn't there

I guess my thoughts on this bit is that I think this is [b]why [/b]Sustrans compromise.

Argue about whether they should or not, but I think this is why, they know the will isn't there yet and won't accept more radical changes, so they push for what they know they can do.

Given that there is no real alternative body with as much influence and entrenched history in the UK I think we should be supporting them while pushing for them to improve rather than saying they are rubbish and putting forward the message that they are harmful to cycling and totally wrong.

I guess it comes down to this:

Sustrans are not perfect, and certainly not above criticism, but we are better off with them than without, and I support their goals if not always their methods.

but in-fighting about how best to get it completely sabotages any hope we have

This! so much this!

Cycling groups of the UK, unite! 🙂

Sustrans are not perfect, and certainly not above criticism, but we are better off with them than without, and I support their goals if not always their methods.

I tried a bit of sustrans national cycle network once, the experience was so bad, I've never tried it again!

Perhaps you should futon, it's not ALL bad.

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

(My local route again 🙂 )

aracer: okay, I did post a comment on the Sustrans blog 😀

Final thought (possibly)

One thing that would be more effective than ALL these guide and handbooks would be to force every local and government transport official to watch this video.

https://www.ted.com/talks/janette_sadik_khan_new_york_s_streets_not_so_mean_any_more

I am Dutch and go back home a lot. More cycle routes/paths/bridges are being added all the time. I'd say the uk is about 30 years behind when it comes to cycle infrastructure. My kids love being out on my mums bikes over there.

They also don't seem to get pot holes....so I suppose it can't really be the weather's fault like they claim here. The roads over there are great.

All comes down to money in the end, my sister does pay about 100 euros per MONTH road tax for a 2006 C4.

Round my way (back home) all they did was take my old road training loop (as did one of the bike mags), and stick up blue route number 18 signs.
It's on opencyclemap as national route 179.
Maybe if someone's in North Kent, they can confirm if Google Streetview and Opencyclemap are consistent.

They did re-route NCN1 along a country lane and past a firing range instead of alongside (aka gutterstripe c/o dulux) 40mph road.