[Closed] Sustrans says half of all cycle routes are ""unsafe for a 12 year old"

"designed and implemented with Sustrans as the driving force, making councils install the lanes to their locations/routes/designs?"

Youd think so but in short NO not at all .

They are bascially given what they are given by the LA and they can sign post it or not - often using a damage limiation methodology to where they route.  They have very little say or backing on what does or doesnt get built based on discussions we have had locally with the liason officer

 wasn’t the National Cycle Network (upon which this survey is based) designed and implemented with Sustrans as the driving force, making councils install the lanes to their locations/routes/designs?

No.

I used to work with Sustrans, volunteered there at Uny and did my dissertation and MSc with them before working a great deal with them in that London. They were usually restricted by that heady mix of politics, land owners and money.

This meant I think that during their push to reach a target at the turn of the millennium, for more lottery money if I recall, they abandoned a defined safety standard and adopted an interim standard (ie. anything goes). At this point the NCN network ceased to mean anything very much. But they have done some fantastic stuff too

Was it Bez who argued that we have a national network of blue signs?

It drives me crazy, actually: the network should represent a quality standard, and comes up woefully short in the majority of cases.

What would you rather?  That Sustrans carry on pretending that a "Cycle network" that involves dismounting and carrying your bike up a flight of steps, or riding along a 60mph country road, or dealing with off-camber cattlegrids , gravel used on tight bends at the bottom of hills, blind corners, unlit narrow canal towpaths etc,etc,etc is all fine?

Or would you rather that they actually start doing what they're supposed to have been doing all along and asking for more funds and higher standards?

I think they have really blurred the lines between an active transport charity, an advocacy group for leisure cyclists and a design consultancy.  That's led to the situation you describe above where Sustrans have been called in to design something, if they say it's not good enough then the council will just pay someone else to do it, but if Sustrans do the work then the council will claim it was "approved by cycling groups", then act surprised when nobody wants to use the dark, muddy, out-of-the-way mugger's paradise to ride home from work on a January evening.  Hopefully they've realised that that approach doesn't work and they need to start holding (national and local) government to account.

Look at the government response though.  Sustrans say they need £2.8bn.  The government has given £1m.  That's like saying you need £2,800 from your neighbour to repair a shared driveway, and he pops round later on saying " This driveway is a valuable asset to our households and I'm fully committed to securing its future, so here's £1, don't spend it all at once".  Then you stick your head over the back fence and see that he's putting in a gold-plated hot tub.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/record-road-investment-in-the-midlands-to-step-up-in-2018

What everyone else said, councils put in cycle paths and the blue circular signs, Sustrans just link them together with recommended routes.

Sometimes they work, sometimes they're a bit circuitous (as Sustrans try to use what's there), sometimes they're on "quiet roads" which have become busier, other times they get it completely wrong for example there's a section of route 23 near me which is is a bridleway in name only, you'd struggle to walk it in winter but it's supposed to be maintained by the electricity company as it's an access path to their substation.

So "National cycle routes" are a map made by sustrans of the supposedly best bits.

"Cycle routes" (of which this survey says half are crap) are those plus any other crap cycle lane that's been painted on the road.

At the end of the day they're a charity with limited control over what they can do. But let's face it, without the stuff they've done, we'd be a lot worse off. There are some fantastic routes near me, and they are the only reason I am able to take my son out in the baby trailer. I think it's a good thing they're making themselves heard about the difficulties they face.

first day in my new job i tried to follow the blue signs to the office.

I followed it left - it went a circuitious route over the gramps and emerged from the gramps about 60 foot from where id previously left the road.

Was a genuine WTF moment.

sadly those happen often when following the blue signs.

I did blue signs from Aberdeen to Edinburgh on a cold January day this year. The signs certainly took you a long way for a short cut and eventually onto some hellish roads.

sure the alternative would have been slightly busier in the most part but it would not have spat you onto the lochgelly /cowdenbeath horrorshow.

Since 99% of it (estimate) is voluntary I reckon they’ve achieved quite a lot all things considered.

Agreed some routes are confusing, or not signed or indeed random in choice, but the vast majority take the user off the main carriageway and onto some quieter and infinitely pleasing routes.

They get my support.

I can definitely see where they're coming from - I cycle from the centre of Edinburgh to Livingston three times a week on route 754, which is the Union Canal towpath. It should be a safe, traffic free route for people to commute to work and school on and enjoy at the weekend but it has, on my commute, two aquaducts that are paved with extremely rough cobbles that are cambered towards the canal. My commute has the added joy of a cobbled wier at the Livingston end. Everyone I know who's tried to ride along them, both experienced and beginners, complains about them and it's not somewhere I'd let a kid ride unaccompanied.

It's a national cycle route, but it's Scottish Canals that are responsible for it and they aren't going to do anything unless forced to by the goverment.

"Everyone I know who’s tried to ride along them, both experienced and beginners, complains about them and it’s not somewhere I’d let a kid ride unaccompanied."

playing devils advocate - is the alternative road cycle any better or is it possible their view that  the cobbles be navigated by foot safely to offer a traffic free alternative to the signed road route?

There are signs telling you to walk along them. But they're actually rather long, so it takes ages, and people are using them to get to work as it's the major traffic free route from the west of town to the city centre. Telling people to walk along them instead of surfacing them appropriately is like leaving a section of the main road to the city centre as a rough farm track and telling people to get out of their cars and push them along that stretch.

Sustrans have worked on the basis of " this is as good as we could practically make it" rather than " this is a well designed cycleway"  they prefer half a cake to no cake at all

"Telling people to walk along them instead of surfacing them appropriately is like leaving a section of the main road to the city centre as a rough farm track and telling people to get out of their cars and push them along that stretch."

If indeed your road to the city center was built by a charity with no real funding or power to influence the surface on land not owned or operated by them.

but other than that i agree with you - how ever i guess the alternative is you play with the traffic all the way to work ? is it worth leaving 10 minutes earlier to navigate the cobbles safely in this case?

signs advising you walk seems like a sensible precaution over playing with traffic imo.

I wish I could figure out how to post my little sign that says "Before you complain, have you volunteered?"

NCN62 is a Jewel in the crown, you  know, apart from the odd section of national speed limit road 🙁

I reckon the aqueduct at Slateford is a listed structure anyway and hence unlikely to be resurfaced. It's also too narrow for 2-way cycling. So, the options are (a) avoid that route and use the road (b) lobby for a new, parallel, bridge to be built to bypass the cobbles or (c) get off and walk a few metres.

they prefer half a cake to no cake at all

Yep, because even an incomplete and crap cycle network encourages more users and then they can show that there is demand for the other half of the cake.

Er... The Cobbled surfacing on the Canal will be "heritage" features and you'd have a hard time convincing the canal people, local authorities and the national Heritage bodies to get rid of them....

The problem is that a canal towpath is basically not suited to a high-volume cycle way with the myriad user conflicts that are likely to occur, never mind the unsuitable fixed heritage infrastructure that cannot be modernised....

Government has pledged 1 million quid for improvements to the national cycle network.....

and 30 billion to the road network

Says all you need to know

Er… The Cobbled surfacing on the Canal will be “heritage” features and you’d have a hard time convincing the canal people, local authorities and the national Heritage bodies to get rid of them….

If that's the case, then it shouldn't be part of the signed cycle network. Ditto all those routes you can't tow a baby trailer on and those impassable in winter.

Westminster Government has pledged 1 million quid for improvements to the national cycle network…..

The Scottish Government has committed £7m towards the development and maintenance of the paths in Scotland.

I speak to lots of LEJOGers every year. Most say that the standard of cycle infrastructure north of the border far exceeds the rest. Some of that will be down to population density but there certainly seems to be more commitment from Holyrood.

I wish I could figure out how to post my little sign that says “Before you complain, have you volunteered?”

As luck would have it I'm actually a surveyor, architect, town planner, groundworker, highways engineer, civil engineer, planning officer and digger driver all rolled into one.  Plus, I just found the £2.8bn that's needed down the back of the sofa so I'll give Sustrans a call and see what they want me to help out with!

The issue isn't that the volunteers aren't working hard enough, it's that volunteers are needed in the first place.  I would be quite happy to see Sustrans disappear completely, or maybe only exist to help disadvantaged people get access to a bike, as long as that happened because national and local government actually got on with the job of building a dense, connected network of safe, segregated, direct cycle lanes that were easy and appealing to use.  Then there's no need for sustrans volunteers to turn up and cut back the brambles or sweep cow poo off the slippery concrete path running down the edge of a farmers field.  If it's a leisure route that goes nowhere in particular in the countryside then yeah, have a charity look after it, but if it's a transport link then it's local/national infrastructure and should be treated as such.  Nobody volunteers to do the work of upgrading to 'smart motorways', the people building HS2 won't be volunteering after a day in the office doing IT work, why should the people building a cycle transport route be any different?

Also, are you telling Sustrans that they shouldn't criticise the NCN until they've been out and volunteered with, erm, Sustrans?!

Yep, because even an incomplete and crap cycle network encourages more users and then they can show that there is demand for the other half of the cake

Does it?  what has happened to cycling rates in the UK over the period that the NCN has been built/signposted?

Meanwhile, in Seville, "cycling has increased 11-fold in the space of a few years" because they built "an ambitious network of connected, segregated bike lanes".

Can't help feeling sustrans past endorsement of shit cycle paths is part of the problem, if these sections are so poor remove them from the maos and campaign for something better

<div class="bbcode-quote">

Yep, because even an incomplete and crap cycle network encourages more users and then they can show that there is demand for the other half of the cake

</div>
Does it?

Yes, it does.

DaveT - perhaps it would be better giving them grades - poor, average, good, excellent or gold,silver,bronze so there is an incentive for having good paths but not a disadvantage for those who thought they were doing the right thing?

scotroutes - shouldn’t the population density make it more likely that there is good infrastructure in the south, because there are potentially more users?

On the canal aqueduct - if you get off and push your bike you are wider than if you are riding.  so I always ride it at walking pace but give way to walkers coming the other way and tuck right into the edge putting the bars between the railings to get out of the way and allow them to pass.

cyclists dismount signs have no legal standing and are only put there by unimaginative planners.  If you need a cyclists dismount sign then something is wrong with your route ( in general) - the cobbles on the canal are no issue.  How do you cope on Edinburghs cobbled roads?

bails

...Meanwhile, in Seville, “cycling has increased 11-fold in the space of a few years” because they built “an ambitious network of connected, segregated bike lanes”.

That's the frustrating bit. Getting govt to realise that by spending more on the cycling infrastructure, they could save even more than they spent on cycling because they have diminished the vehicular traffic on the roads, so there's less need for road expansions.

As for cobbles, fatter tyres make a huge difference.

"cyclists dismount signs have no legal standing"

It's an interesting defence sure but no one disputed that they did they are merely an advisory.

If the routes that bad no one's stopping you riding the road surely ?

scotroutes – shouldn’t the population density make it more likely that there is good infrastructure in the south, because there are potentially more users?

You'd think so but I was thinking that there might also be an issue with land allocation and finding suitable corridors/quiet roads. I do think population density makes it more important though.

If the routes that bad no one’s stopping you riding the road surely ?

No, but cyclists are encouraged to use the canal path. Blue signs...

I don't want cycle infrastructure.  I want good quality roads that are suitable for everyone, and I want drivers who respect cyclists.  I feel this is probably more attainable and ultimately more productive than building an entire network of traffic free routes for cyclists.

Do blue signs make you go stupid ? Surely you ride it once and realise the routes not fit for purpose as teej said above .and you go else where .

Alternatively you realise it's the lesser of two evils and just get on with it.

Do blue signs make you go stupid ? Surely you ride it once and realise the routes not fit for purpose as teej said above .and you go else where .

That depends on the circumstances of the cyclist. But you carry on calling them stupid, because it's very grown up.

Is the question mark invisible or does that not fit in with the attempt at a snipe ?

No one was calling anyone names. I was simply pointing out that a blue sign is advisory as per the high way code , your free to make your choices.

But I'm sure in most circumstances most folk would agree a traffic free route with a few meters of cobbles is a better choice than playing with traffic at commuter times.

I don’t want cycle infrastructure.  I want good quality roads that are suitable for everyone, and I want drivers who respect cyclists.

Ideally, me too. The biggest problem is that drivers won't learn how to behave around cyclists that they encounter where there is no parallel cycle network.

Is the question mark invisible or does that not fit in with the attempt at a snipe ?

The sniping seemed to be coming from you.

But I’m sure in most circumstances most folk would agree a traffic free route with a few meters of cobbles is a better choice than playing with traffic at commuter times.

So the choice is crap or very crap? We should be aiming for better.

Based on commuting around Sheffield, I'd go with avoiding the roads simply to have something other than diesel fumes to breath but avoiding the death boxes would be a big plus too.

100% agree with scotroutes.  There is no way that any government we're likely to get in the next hundred years is going to redesign the roads so they're safer for bikes and I don't see any appetite for sorting out the mess that is driver licensing either.  Arguably, self driving cars when they happen may address a number of issues but overall separate cycle infrastructure is the best UK option right now and likely to remain so.

The Sustrans 'low impact' sticker signage is frustrating at times as it's easily lost and can take some looking for but even installing metal signs on posts is quite a chunk of cash on that scale.

What we need is a number of things

Proper segregated cycleways on any road with a speed limit above 20 mph.  Urban roads should be 20 mph limits and use the dutch " shared spaces" concept where cyclists have priority and presumed liability as in every country in europe bar UK and Malta ( IIRC)

go to the low countries and cycle there to see what good infrastrucure and laws mean for cyclists.

No but if you think your going to get dutch standards overnight then your deluded .

We have come along way from when I started cycling.<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;"> </span>

<span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">the mentality of bikes in this country by and large is that they are a toy. </span>

That change in mentality doesn't happen over night no matter the level of infrastructure in place  and unfortunately it will only happen with education at a lower level than trying to educate adults who can rarely be persuaded to take the blinkers off.

Unfortunately many schools put large barriers in place to stop cycling as a sustainable transport mode (althoigh lots have made a marked effort)   cycling is largely villianised at that level so how do you convince that child as an adult that if it wasn't deemed safe to ride to school that it's safe to ride to work ?

No we won't get dutch standards overnight but we could slowly move that way.  Presumed liability and shared spaces could be implemented immediately

for example the scottish government has a decent set of standards for cycleways.  recent ones in Edinburgh have been built to nowhere near the standard.  If they followed the government advice they would be useful but as built they are dangerous.

Based on commuting around Sheffield, I’d go with avoiding the roads simply to have something other than diesel fumes to breath but avoiding the death boxes would be a big plus too.

Whereas, based on commuting in London some years ago, I found that the sheer number of cyclists made the infrastructure irrelevant, and the drivers learnt to deal with it, and once you account for the standard London attitude, were actually generally good .

Then they started building the cycle super highways, which seemed a bit surplus by that point as critical mass had been reached.

Whereas, based on commuting in London some years ago, I found that the sheer number of cyclists made the infrastructure irrelevant, and the drivers learnt to deal with it, and once you account for the standard London attitude, were actually generally good .

When I first moved to London I had the same experience motorcycling. Compared to Edinburgh there were just so many more motorbikes and so the car/van/truck drivers had adapted mush more than I was used to.

based on commuting in London some years ago, I found that the sheer number of cyclists made the infrastructure irrelevant if you were assertive and physically fit … the super highways seemed a bit surplus by that point as critical mass of able-bodied men had been reached

ftfy

With the odd exception, I've been pretty impressed by Sustrans offerings, both dedicated paths and the 'quiet road' routes I've followed in the SW (and to a lesser extent elsewhere). Modern paranoid parenting would have it that even the pavement in front of their houses isn't safe for their obese pampered 12 year olds, so I don't think that's much of a yardstick.

Modern paranoid parenting would have it that even the pavement in front of their houses isn’t safe for their obese pampered 12 year olds, so I don’t think that’s much of a yardstick.

I do think it is an odd, somewhat arbitrary standard to define.  Have they defined what makes a path unsafe?  I know of some routes which I wouldn’t describe as unsafe but are thoroughly impractical: giveaways on the cycleway for every driveway it crosses, means accelerating and decelerating every 50 yds, routes that are so popular with dog walkers they are too congested to ride at prime time, canal tow paths with “cyclist dismount” signs on every bridge, and closest to me a “bike traffic light” on a road that outside 0730-0900 and 1700-1900 M-F gets about 3 cars a day, which defaults to green for cars and red for bikes, requires the cyclist to push a button and wait 2 mins for the sequence.

I read it the other way round though - if it IS safe for a 12 yr old, it will be safe for an adult with a bike (rather than a cyclist).  Those are the people Sustrans and the government really want to encourage out of cars.  Those are the people who are less likely to use the roads themselves.

I read it the other way round though – if it IS safe for a 12 yr old, it will be safe for an adult with a bike (rather than a cyclist).  Those are the people Sustrans and the government really want to encourage out of cars.  Those are the people who are less likely to use the roads themselves.

I think that's the intention, twisting it the other way for a headline makes it a bit glass half empty and does encourage the sort of mouth frothing bullshit you expect in the comment section.

On a personal level, I feel that the sustrans labelled routes are shite; they're unreliable and untrustworthy. I can't plan a route for a particular level of cyclist based on their network and that's an embarrassment. It's not all their fault. On a case by case basis they can be excellent or downright impassable.

But now that we have a network, they can scream and shout about how they've been forced in to this position by NIMBYS, councils, landowners and embarrass them in to helping improve it. Do you reckon threatening to remove a cycle network would help motivate improvement?

But now that we have a network…

We don’t have a network. We have the notion of a network; a Notional Cycling Network.

The idea of a national network is misguided anyway: if you go to Bristol you can see a nice wall-mounted relief map of how you can in theory cycle from Southampton to York, but what’s the point? People in Southampton want to cycle a couple of miles from home to work or the shops, not 250 miles to the National Railway Museum.

More concisely,

https://twitter.com/bollocksinfra/status/1002199145539670016?s=21

The idea of a national network is misguided anyway: if you go to Bristol you can see a nice wall-mounted relief map of how you can in theory cycle from Southampton to York, but what’s the point? People in Southampton want to cycle a couple of miles from home to work or the shops, not 250 miles to the National Railway Museum.

This is what most of the folk I meet (i.e. committed cyclists) don't understand and explains some of the weird routing decisions. Rural routes are often quite straightforward but these folk complain that urban routes detour past schools, housing estates, hospitals etc. They're not really seeing what Sustrans initially set out to do. TBF, Sustrans are definitely now concentrating on these shorter routes.

The biggest problem is that drivers won’t learn how to behave around cyclists that they encounter

They won't?  We haven't really spent any money trying, have we?  There's been big campaigns against drunk driving, and to look out for motorcyclists, but I haven't seen anything about cyclists.   We could do a hell of a lot better just by getting the message out, IMO.  And tbh it's the easiest thing to start with.  Would cost peanuts compared to a massive infra rollout.

I've been working in Amsterdam, and I'm not sure I'd like to see the same infra there as here, because you MUST use the cyclepaths where they exist.  And they aren't always great.  Sometimes they are half a narrow pavement between parked cars and driveways.

I would take their superhighways - arterial traffic-free routes connecting areas, I would take their traffic calming approach to road layout in suburban side-streets, I would take the presumed liability and driver awareness, I would take the cycle-prioritised roundabouts ( in some places - not all roundabouts have cyclist priority); but I would ditch the universal coverage for cyclepaths and the compulsion to use them.  There are plenty of big suburban roads where the cars take priority in the junctions and it takes 5 mins to get through on a bike.  For small roads I would advocate shared usage with lower speed limits, priorities at junctions and good space and sight.  But shared, not segregated.

Sustrans have just tweeted: "Sorry about the earlier typo, it's Notional Cycling Network, hope this clears that up."

Lolz 🙂

Oh, and raise the legal driving age to 25.  That'll get people out into the world of work without having access to cars, and they can bloody well cycle (disability notwithstanding).

Oh, and raise the legal driving age to 25.  That’ll get people out into the world of work without having access to cars, and they can bloody well cycle (disability notwithstanding).

Not a bloody clue about living outside a city then?

"Not a bloody clue about living outside a city then?"

Its ok you can still get your tractor license at 16.

or since he mentioned cars - i guess you can still get your moped license.

I do reckon that compulsory moped for 6 month-1year prior to getting a car would change attitudes over a generation - and if you drive like a dick and tot up points etc - no hardship plead - you revert to your moped license.

Sorry, you took me literally. Now that Sustrans claim to have a network, is the threat of removing parts of the networks a useful tool?

Now that Sustrans claim to have a network, is the threat of removing parts of the networks a useful tool?

I doubt it, if you told Reading council you were demoting it's cyclepaths they'd shrug and file it with the abandoned BMX tracks.

From the councils own website describing the park facilities http://www.reading.gov.uk/article/7067/Hills-Meadow:

 a grassy BMX track

Not a bloody clue about living outside a city then?

Nah.  I grew up in the countryside, my mates were farmers etc etc but I wasn't paying attention.

And my post was not entirely serious.

But in any case, most of us could not afford cars for offspring, so it made little difference.  I still had to cycle to my mates' houses, get lifts or even hitch-hike.

Bez,

My experience of London Commuting was not one of "if you were assertive and physically fit … the super highways seemed a bit surplus by that point as critical mass of able-bodied men had been reached", but I found a genuine mix of users of all abilities using both main and minor roads.  Maybe it's changed in the last 10 years or so, but I moved to London in 2006 and found it a cycling utopia when compared to with Bristol or Nottingham, mostly due to driver attitudes as in London they were used to 20 cyclists at the front of every queue to the traffic lights, at every junction, for every cycle of the lights, for 2 hours every morning and every night.

When it wasn't so busy with cyclists (weekends, daytime etc), drivers seemed much more aware of the presence of bikes and not behave like idiots around them.