I've noticed over the past few months in some locations, new signs being erected illustrating the EuroVelo cycle routes on new signs for NCN 1, in various places in both England & Scotland.
I can't find anything in TSRGD relating to them, or any traffic sign authorisations.
Also I do find it a bit of an odd thing to sign. We don't sign European highway routes (which would have some, if minor purpose), so why would we sign European cycle routes which are practically completely useless as if you are cycling across multiple countries, I'm pretty sure you would be on the same native route for days if not weeks at a time.
In addition, it is just another sign to add to the clutter and another sign to maintain, raising costs for no practical reason.
jervi wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 22:02
I've noticed over the past few months in some locations, new signs being erected illustrating the EuroVelo cycle routes on new signs for NCN 1, in various places in both England & Scotland.
I can't find anything in TSRGD relating to them, or any traffic sign authorisations.
Also I do find it a bit of an odd thing to sign. We don't sign European highway routes (which would have some, if minor purpose), so why would we sign European cycle routes which are practically completely useless as if you are cycling across multiple countries, I'm pretty sure you would be on the same native route for days if not weeks at a time.
In addition, it is just another sign to add to the clutter and another sign to maintain, raising costs for no practical reason.
A box to be ticked somewhere, or a budget to be blown, errm, "carefully spent"?
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
You don't say where this is, but large sections of what was NCN 1 - particularly in Scotland and East Anglia - have now been removed from the National Cycle Network (for reasons of increased/faster motor traffic) but remain part of a EuroVelo route. So it makes sense to sign the EuroVelo route.
jervi wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 22:02
why would we sign European cycle routes which are practically completely useless as if you are cycling across multiple countries, I'm pretty sure you would be on the same native route for days if not weeks at a time.
France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland all sign EuroVelo routes (and probably several other countries but I've not ridden there!).
Very often EuroVelo routes aren't duplicated by a national route - this is standard in France, for example. I rode the EuroVelo Rhine route in the Netherlands last autumn and it would sometimes take in several different national/local routes in the space of just a few miles.
Richard_Fairhurst wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 18:53
You don't say where this is, but large sections of what was NCN 1 - particularly in Scotland and East Anglia - have now been removed from the National Cycle Network (for reasons of increased/faster motor traffic) but remain part of a EuroVelo route. So it makes sense to sign the EuroVelo route.
jervi wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2024 22:02
why would we sign European cycle routes which are practically completely useless as if you are cycling across multiple countries, I'm pretty sure you would be on the same native route for days if not weeks at a time.
France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland all sign EuroVelo routes (and probably several other countries but I've not ridden there!).
Very often EuroVelo routes aren't duplicated by a national route - this is standard in France, for example. I rode the EuroVelo Rhine route in the Netherlands last autumn and it would sometimes take in several different national/local routes in the space of just a few miles.
I wondered if it was something to do with that. It occurs to me that this could create the odd situation where British cyclists come to associate the Euroroute sign with substandard infrastructure.
Near me, NCN 1 goes through a supermarket car park then over a railway bridge...which only has stairs. Facetiously, I'd rather they were fixing things like that than directing visitors to the worst bits...
jervi wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 15:34
eurocycle3 (1).jpg eurocycle2 (1).jpg eurocycle1 (1).jpg
Some images to the signs. Spotted in both Lincolnshire & Moray
Hrm. If the issue is that route 1 is going to become largely de-signed, then telling people to follow route 1 is pretty useless. So presumably something else is going on.
Yep, those signs make sense - it looks like a sensible way of signing EV12 consistently by just adding some "repeaters" like these along sections shared with NCN 1, and presumably discrete EV12 signage for the sections not shared with NCN 1
jnty wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2024 20:44
Near me, NCN 1 goes through a supermarket car park then over a railway bridge...which only has stairs. Facetiously, I'd rather they were fixing things like that than directing visitors to the worst bits...
Wouldn't we all! Signs are a little cheaper than replacement bridges though...
jervi wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 15:34
eurocycle3 (1).jpg eurocycle2 (1).jpg eurocycle1 (1).jpg
Some images to the signs. Spotted in both Lincolnshire & Moray
Hrm. If the issue is that route 1 is going to become largely de-signed, then telling people to follow route 1 is pretty useless. So presumably something else is going on.
Sustrans increased the minimum safety standards in 2020: this resulted in a chunk of the routes being demoted from the network.
jervi wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2024 15:34
eurocycle3 (1).jpg eurocycle2 (1).jpg eurocycle1 (1).jpg
Some images to the signs. Spotted in both Lincolnshire & Moray
Hrm. If the issue is that route 1 is going to become largely de-signed, then telling people to follow route 1 is pretty useless. So presumably something else is going on.
Sustrans increased the minimum safety standards in 2020: this resulted in a chunk of the routes being demoted from the network.
I know - but presumably people aren't being told to "follow route 1" for something over demoted sections unless there's a serious coordination breakdown.
I find it, um, peculiar to decide to simply not sign chunks of what used to be a signed, major, long-distance cycle route. By all means change the route if some of the original has become less suitable for cycling - that's basically what roads authorities do when they build bypasses or when they demote roads like the A41 to encourage people to follow the M40 instead. But it's not going to help uptake of cycle routes into public consciousness if they're "here today, gone tomorrow".
It's not exactly news that large proportions of the UK road network aren't particularly pleasant to cycle on. By removing chunks of NCN1, Sustrans seems to think that the only reason people cycle is for recreation, where they preferentially choose locations which are pleasant. If I'm cycling for leisure, I'll do the same thing. But we really need to get away from the whole "cycling is for kids in parks and MAMILs dreaming of the Tour de France and nothing in between", and I'm disappointed in Sustrans for pandering to this attitude.
Conversely, I much prefer the direction signage Jervi's photos show to what we get in Sweden on cycle paths. For a start, it's facing the direction of travel, and it follows a similar design to what people are already used to for motor vehicles.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
FosseWay wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 06:41
I find it, um, peculiar to decide to simply not sign chunks of what used to be a signed, major, long-distance cycle route. By all means change the route if some of the original has become less suitable for cycling - that's basically what roads authorities do when they build bypasses or when they demote roads like the A41 to encourage people to follow the M40 instead. But it's not going to help uptake of cycle routes into public consciousness if they're "here today, gone tomorrow".
It's not exactly news that large proportions of the UK road network aren't particularly pleasant to cycle on. By removing chunks of NCN1, Sustrans seems to think that the only reason people cycle is for recreation, where they preferentially choose locations which are pleasant. If I'm cycling for leisure, I'll do the same thing. But we really need to get away from the whole "cycling is for kids in parks and MAMILs dreaming of the Tour de France and nothing in between", and I'm disappointed in Sustrans for pandering to this attitude.
Conversely, I much prefer the direction signage Jervi's photos show to what we get in Sweden on cycle paths. For a start, it's facing the direction of travel, and it follows a similar design to what people are already used to for motor vehicles.
It wasn't that routes had somehow got worse, but that they really shouldn't have been included in the first place! As Sustrans' CEO Xavier Brice stated in the article, previous administrations simply wanted miles of NCN regardless of the quality of the route (we often criticise Local Authorities for a similar attitude when re-signing footways as combined footway/cycleways). They are now aiming at a standard which means, for example, a family could use a route in confidence that halfway through the traffic-free bridleway they have been using doesn't suddenly direct them onto a 70mph dual carriageway for a mile or two! In other places a major complaint was, I believe, signed routes being impassable swamps for half the year.
FosseWay wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 06:41
I find it, um, peculiar to decide to simply not sign chunks of what used to be a signed, major, long-distance cycle route. By all means change the route if some of the original has become less suitable for cycling - that's basically what roads authorities do when they build bypasses or when they demote roads like the A41 to encourage people to follow the M40 instead. But it's not going to help uptake of cycle routes into public consciousness if they're "here today, gone tomorrow".
It's not exactly news that large proportions of the UK road network aren't particularly pleasant to cycle on. By removing chunks of NCN1, Sustrans seems to think that the only reason people cycle is for recreation, where they preferentially choose locations which are pleasant. If I'm cycling for leisure, I'll do the same thing. But we really need to get away from the whole "cycling is for kids in parks and MAMILs dreaming of the Tour de France and nothing in between", and I'm disappointed in Sustrans for pandering to this attitude.
Conversely, I much prefer the direction signage Jervi's photos show to what we get in Sweden on cycle paths. For a start, it's facing the direction of travel, and it follows a similar design to what people are already used to for motor vehicles.
It wasn't that routes had somehow got worse, but that they really shouldn't have been included in the first place! As Sustrans' CEO Xavier Brice stated in the article, previous administrations simply wanted miles of NCN regardless of the quality of the route (we often criticise Local Authorities for a similar attitude when re-signing footways as combined footway/cycleways). They are now aiming at a standard which means, for example, a family could use a route in confidence that halfway through the traffic-free bridleway they have been using doesn't suddenly direct them onto a 70mph dual carriageway for a mile or two! In other places a major complaint was, I believe, signed routes being impassable swamps for half the year.
Indeed. It's not a case of recreational pleasantness: they haven't removed segregated cycleways due to proximity to an industrial site or something like that. It's simply down to substandard infrastructure. I think the demoted routes are still available in maps etc. but their clear absence from the NCN allows you to understand when it's necessary to make an independent assessment of route quality. Sufficiently quiet/slow roads can still be included in the NCN, I think, and this probably drives some council behaviour - Perth and Kinross council, for example, has started posting 40mph "cycle and pedestrian friendly road" limits on certain country roads, some of which form part of the NCN. Ironically, I think my stairs example stays in, though, presumably because it's car-free!
I think it's reasonable because if you're totally alien to an area and touring there for pleasure, you do want to understand what quality of route you'll find, whereas if you're utility/commute cycling you're likely to be familiar with your routes and less likely to want to visit somewhere that happens to fall nicely on NCN routes. Councils also often have local route networks which are more useful for that sort of thing.
Fundamentally, whether it's explicit or not, it's fairly clear the NCN is designed to facilitate touring rather than utility cycling. NCN 1 runs from Dover to Tain; I sincerely doubt they were thinking of utility cyclists at all when they devised the route. So it's reasonable for them to make decisions largely based around the needs of recreational touring/day rides. I don't think your average commuting cyclist or Deliveroo rider will have any idea where their nearest NCN route is. I'm vaguely aware I maybe use one for part of my commute, but if you quizzed me on the details I'd have no idea.
Debaser wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 13:51
It wasn't that routes had somehow got worse, but that they really shouldn't have been included in the first place! As Sustrans' CEO Xavier Brice stated in the article, previous administrations simply wanted miles of NCN regardless of the quality of the route (we often criticise Local Authorities for a similar attitude when re-signing footways as combined footway/cycleways). They are now aiming at a standard which means, for example, a family could use a route in confidence that halfway through the traffic-free bridleway they have been using doesn't suddenly direct them onto a 70mph dual carriageway for a mile or two! In other places a major complaint was, I believe, signed routes being impassable swamps for half the year.
Thanks for the clarification - that didn't come across in the earlier passing comment that prompted my response.
I'm still somewhat sceptical towards route definitions that involve too limited a definition of what is "cyclable". Impassable swamps and 70 mph DCs should probably be excluded from any official cycle route signage, I agree. But the reality is that cycle infrastructure is missing or inadequate on a large number of the country's roads. The question is to what extent we should allow this to put us off signing routes that are legally and practically usable by a confident cyclist. It's a bit chicken and egg - if we think that providing a joined-up system of cycle route signage will encourage cycling, do we do this and hope that the infrastructure catches up as demand visibly increases; or do we take a more cautious approach to signage and risk not encouraging so many to consider cycling?
While I see the point and the attraction of providing touring/tourist routes that people follow on holidays and days out, from the societal perspective what we should be concentrating on is local utility cycling, because it's this that will have the clearest effect on pollution, congestion, parking, over-reliance on cars and so forth. And cycle route signage around towns is pretty poor in general. I know Gothenburg pretty well, but even a small deviation from a route I do regularly requires concentrated study of GSV to understand where I'm likely to need to turn, which cycle paths spit you out onto the wrong side of a main road and so forth, because you absolutely can't rely on the signage at each junction to tell you where to go.
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Yes, a lot of NCN 9 has had the number patched over because it’s a main road in lieu of actual provision, but not the cycle symbol.
I think that’s basically what happened when they were set up. Cycle paths were identified, and “least awful but still terrible” roads to link them were identified.
Debaser wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 13:51It wasn't that routes had somehow got worse, but that they really shouldn't have been included in the first place! As Sustrans' CEO Xavier Brice stated in the article, previous administrations simply wanted miles of NCN regardless of the quality of the route
TBH a lot of routes had got worse. Yes, there are some routes that should never have been admitted to the NCN - the Lower Bann Cycleway (NCN 96 I think?) in Northern Ireland was genuinely too high traffic from day one, NCN 423 north of Usk has always been problematic, and there are a few bits of NCN 82 (the Teifi valley in Wales) I have reservations about. But there are more that were set out at the Millennium or thereabouts when the NCN was first established, and rising traffic levels/speeds have just made them untenable.
There was a particular issue dating back to the late 00s when Sustrans realised that the difference between national routes (red patch) and regional routes (blue patch) was not widely understood. Commendably, they decided to fix this by bringing the regional routes into the national network, usually with a three-digit number on a red patch. Unfortunately many of these weren't up to NCN standards in 2010 and they certainly aren't now. They included "county cycleways", circular routes of the sort that were in vogue in the late 80s/early 90s, which had got pretty unpleasant to ride. In several cases bringing these into the NCN, I think, ended up just storing up trouble for the future.
Richard_Fairhurst wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 20:58 But there are more that were set out at the Millennium or thereabouts when the NCN was first established, and rising traffic levels/speeds have just made them untenable.
And I guess we have that common problem in a UK where an independent body is left with the task of papering over lots of cracks caused by wider policy. Those roads should have been future-proofed with modal filtering or, if not viable, separated infrastructure. But presumably there was no government interest past the point of signs going up and ribbons being cut.
Richard_Fairhurst wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 20:58 But there are more that were set out at the Millennium or thereabouts when the NCN was first established, and rising traffic levels/speeds have just made them untenable.
And I guess we have that common problem in a UK where an independent body is left with the task of papering over lots of cracks caused by wider policy. Those roads should have been future-proofed with modal filtering or, if not viable, separated infrastructure. But presumably there was no government interest past the point of signs going up and ribbons being cut.
You've got to remember that it was Cameron (in possibly his one good act) who called for 'cycle proofing' - as he called it - of all new highway schemes and kick started the boom in the whole 'active travel' sector in 2013. Before him it was really a Cinderella area of transportation practice, largely populated by gentlemen of a certain age, notable for a fondness for beards, lycra and vehicular cycling.
AndyB wrote: ↑Tue May 14, 2024 15:12
Yes, a lot of NCN 9 has had the number patched over because it’s a main road in lieu of actual provision, but not the cycle symbol.
I think that’s basically what happened when they were set up. Cycle paths were identified, and “least awful but still terrible” roads to link them were identified.
I think Sustrans had been a bit overambitious in designating the cycle routes, which I think led to the massive 2020 cuts. If the YouTube helmet-camera videos are anything to go by, the relationship between drivers and riders are … not good. Those videos sometimes make me think the UK is the worst country in Europe for cycling.
Little Owl wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 09:51
If the YouTube helmet-camera videos are anything to go by...
They're not
A subset of cyclists go out of their way to create conflict in the guise of claiming their right of way.
Conflict-prone cyclists are more likely to have cameras, both because they think it will help them in any resulting investigation when their conflict obsession inevitably results in an accident, and because they want to hang out the rest of society on YouTube.
The latter category will then upload their stuff to YouTube.
So what we see the whole time on YouTube is the consequence of a subset of a subset of a subset doing stuff on the roads. Most cyclists don't have cameras; most who do, don't have them specifically for the purpose of showing how dumb they are, er... how dumb everyone else is. And a proportion of those who may have been influenced to get a camera for that reason won't actually get round to uploading anything (you can't, generally, if you're in the ICU). So what you see on YouTube in terms of poor interactions on the roads is out of all proportion to what actually goes on there.
I commute by cycle 150 km per week. I don't have a cycle cam, but the number of times when I might have considered sending to Ashley Neal or whoever a clip showing someone else (or myself) doing something noteworthily daft on the roads is tiny. I'd be more likely to show amazing sunsets or large wildlife (which admittedly generally lacks road sense).
Did you know there's more to SABRE than just the Forums? Add your roads knowledge to the SABRE Wiki today!
Have you browsed SABRE Maps recently? Try getting involved!
Little Owl wrote: ↑Thu May 16, 2024 09:51
If the YouTube helmet-camera videos are anything to go by...
They're not
A subset of cyclists go out of their way to create conflict in the guise of claiming their right of way.
Conflict-prone cyclists are more likely to have cameras, both because they think it will help them in any resulting investigation when their conflict obsession inevitably results in an accident, and because they want to hang out the rest of society on YouTube.
The latter category will then upload their stuff to YouTube.
So what we see the whole time on YouTube is the consequence of a subset of a subset of a subset doing stuff on the roads. Most cyclists don't have cameras; most who do, don't have them specifically for the purpose of showing how dumb they are, er... how dumb everyone else is. And a proportion of those who may have been influenced to get a camera for that reason won't actually get round to uploading anything (you can't, generally, if you're in the ICU). So what you see on YouTube in terms of poor interactions on the roads is out of all proportion to what actually goes on there.
I commute by cycle 150 km per week. I don't have a cycle cam, but the number of times when I might have considered sending to Ashley Neal or whoever a clip showing someone else (or myself) doing something noteworthily daft on the roads is tiny. I'd be more likely to show amazing sunsets or large wildlife (which admittedly generally lacks road sense).
More neutrally, if you have a pleasant and trouble free commute every day you're not going to get a camera and upload it to YouTube, whereas if you constantly get grief on a certain section you might choose to. If you often see wildlife and sunsets you're probably not commuting through Central London, like many of the YouTube cammers seem to be. But it is important to emphasise that, even on busy roads, poor behaviour is far from universal and it's often possible to navigate and cycle in a conflict-averse way (though you shouldn't have to.)
But I do think the attitude to cyclists in the UK is particularly toxic; certain public figures have freely joked about wanting to injure and killing cyclists with their cars in the recent past, for example. The isolated nature of abuse almost makes it more shocking when it occurs - whether receiving a red-faced yell from a window or, in a relative's case, being swung at with a scaffolding pole from the side of a country road (no, really!)
Have you ever been screamed at by a pedestrian for cycling two abreast on a wide, empty road in Sweden? I have in the UK...
