Talk:Sustrans

Needs work
This article is, in places, very opinionated (negative to Sustrans - "ripping up trees", etc) and PoV. It needs much work, and probably a flag warning the reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.171.194.12 (talk) 09:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * These messages keep getting censored by the notorious Steinskly, a Sustrans employee deseperate to conceal the reality of his patron. Could we please have that person banned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.36 (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This article seems to be subject to abuse, with one user (192.93.21.65) constantly vandalising it. In addition, the point "The Network has been criticised for sometimes creating new car traffic as users drive to access points for recreational cycling, and the network is yet to meet its target of being 60% utility cycling" needs sourcing... who has criticised it? Snooo 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was wondering the same thing. I have a couple of weeks off over xmas so will do some research and try and get references for everything in the article.  I'd love to see a reference for the claim that the NCN prevents railways reopening.  I've been following the parliamentary debates on the Portishead Railway and the NCN is the least worry for those who want railways reopened.  The Bristol and Bath path might prevent the Avon Valley Railway being extended, but so would the Bristol Ring Road and the various housing developments on its route, plus the fact that there is already a railway serving a similar function.
 * While I did almost apply for a job with Sustrans once, and my county council engineer father has consulted with them, I can infact provide proof of the fact that I'm 3000 miles away and working for the University of Cincinnati. If only I had a salary for everytime some agenda-pushing vandal accused me of having a job.
 * Additionally, anon, please stop editing other people's comments on talk pages. Joe D (t) 17:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

""The Network has been criticised for sometimes creating new car traffic as users drive to access points for recreational cycling, and the network is yet to meet its target of being 60% utility cycling" needs sourcing... who has criticised it? Snooo 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)"
 * I made this one less POV and left it in because it sounded like it might actually be true. Since the author of the claim has made other dubious claims and suggested some sort of vendetta against this organisation I'm not sure any of the edits should be kept.  Joe D (t) 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

That awkward sentence was created by the clumsy Steinsky, who added the criticism bit to a simple statement of fact that Sustrans routes generate car use and the NCN did not meet the agreed conditions of millennium funding, eg that the network would be for 60% transport cycling. There has been other extensive vandalism here by Steinsky, who also removed the very significant piece of information that Sustrans are not a membership organisation. That is verifiable via the Charity Commission, but a most inconvenient fact for those who want to imply that Sustrans is in some way democratic and accountable. There may be as few as three actual members, and they are notorious for listening to no one and steamrollering counterproductive schemes despite valid objections.

It's really unfortunate that the Sustrans disinformationalists have made this page read like a Sustrans publicity flyer, they should be ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.36 (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC), — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.139.77.214 (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your claims to be editing in good faith are slightly undermined by:
 * Repeatedly deleting useful, verifiable content, including external links.
 * Replacing links with your own, pushed to the top of the section
 * Editing somebody else's talk page comment
 * Presenting as fact such claims as "Sustrans don't listen to anyone"
 * Attempting to turn the article into a somewhat childish ad hominen editorial with claims that sustrans supporters are afraid of roads and rip up trees.
 * Your ammusing ad hominen opening comment on this talk page.
 * Editing other people's user pages to add ad hominens.
 * I have more important things to do than deal with that. If you want to take the aims of Wikipedia seriously I'm sure I could work with you to get a properly referenced and fair portrayal of criticisms presented in the article.  Joe D (t) 21:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

This page is confusing: where is the stuff about trees? There seems to be an element of paranoia creeping in, with all edits being attributed to just two users. Page seems to have changed rapidly in last week, looks like Steinsky deletes any changes anyone makes and cries vandalism. (What is a user page?) It really is a poor article and would be best kept short and factual and with as few links as possible so it does not serve as an advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.36 (talk) 21:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment from another visitor: it seems facts do get removed here or edited to make them less factual, the 60% target being a case in point. It was for the year 2000,so why does someone keep editing it to say they "have yet to meet" this target? Perhaps there needs to be a link to a time travel section so people can go back and change the past? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.170.71 (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Mr whoever you are, you really need to stop deleting external links. Will restore them when I get time. Snooo 13:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Surprising the way the RNIB link about the dangers created to blind people keeps getting deleted. The link to Sustrans constitution has been added so people can see for themselves that the supporters are not in fact members and Sustrans is not constituted as a user group. It seems Steinsky deletes this stuff as fast as he can, but is he concerned that the only sources he leaves are Sustrans ones? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.44.220.36 (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I reverted because you added a claim that is contradicted by the cited source and several other sources on the net, and for which I can find absolutely no evidence, and because you addition of links involved deleting the rest of the external links. Joe D (t) 16:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the members claim is worded such as to be at least misleading and probably factually incorrect. If my limited understanding of the workings of companies and charities is correct, any charity which is also registered as a company has a board which acts as guarentee, and need not be dictators of the charity policy.  i.e., they are accountable financially if anything goes wrong.  Indeed, if I read the CC document correctly the members are not sallaried employees.  Do you have any evidence that Sustrans is anything other than a normal charity?  Joe D (t) 17:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This whole thing is making me wonder about Wikipedia. Can we get this article locked to prevent that guy from constantly vandalising it? I would spend my time maintaining it but I have sh*t to do. Snooo 11:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello, many people wonder about wiki - it doesnn't enjoy a good reputation, and it doesn't help people using it as publicity. IMO these links are promos and do not belong Bristol & Bath Railway Path photographs (NCN 4) The Taff Trail (NCN 8) Valley Rides By Tony Gibbs (NCN 8) The Pennine Cycleway NCN 68 Derby to Berwick by Dik Stoddart - going to the Sustrans website is ok for finding them, are they on here to boost search engine results?? Steinsky shot himself in the foot deleting the constitution link and saying it "contradicted other sources." So where's that second constitution then? He must be pretty wet behind the ears not to know Sustrans tell lies - or maybe he does it all on purpose. Sad.

PS re charities only the board members (chosen by Sustrans) get to be members - you cannot "join" - but the supporters don't get to elect anyone or decide anything, all they can do if they are not happy is stop giving money and quit. Which many do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.146.113.221 (talk) 18:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Please 1) identify yourself with a username, 2) stop deleting links, 3) substansiate your accusations. Snooo 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A link was deleted and the name of another changed. The RNIB links to this text: "Shared facilities with cyclists are extremely unpopular. Shared facilities should only be introduced in exceptional circumstances and only after a full and effective consultation with local users. The Government should review existing guidance and regulations regarding shared facilities to ensure that they address the needs of pedestrians with sight problems." The link to the open letter to Sustrans titled "Casualties on Cycle Paths" was renamed "Safety of Cycle Paths", which is the name of another page. Snooo claimed he was dealing with vandalism in making the deletion and change of name.

Some phrases were deleted: on the subject of how 10,000 miles was created "mostly by signposting existing roads", ie that most of the NCN consists of roads, which Sustrans quote as being two thirds. And, on the subject of traffic levels claimed for the NCN "These figures include cycle traffic on existing roads signposted as part of the NCN." Steinsky deleted these phrases, claiming they were "vandalism."

A comment was inserted into the body of someone else's comment, rather than at the end of the the first person's comment. Of course that edits the original comment and alters the sense of the discussion, so the second comment was moved to the correct location. Steinsky undid the change, commenting (rv: do not edit other people's comments.) The comment inserted in the middle of someone else's was by Steinsky, so presumably he is asserting an exclusive right to edit others' comments.

An irrelevant link was deleted, but Steinsky saw that as vandalism and reinstated it: http://www.steinsky.me.uk/Bristol_and_Bath_Railway_Pathhttp://www.steinsky.me.uk/Bristol_and_Bath_Railway_Path which is a page of his personal photographs. It has been suggested that some of the links are being posted here to boost search engine results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.44.220.36 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It has been suggested by you. If anyone has been really deleting links it has been yourself. Any other edits have been to rectify information which is either irrelevant (people get injured on cycle paths... i don't think thats a major controversy for Sustrans), is spiteful, or has been removed. Why a non commercial charity like Sustrans would want to boost search engine results is anyone's guess - but enough of your trolling. Snooo 12:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The lack of non-Sustrans sourced data here is surprising. I've added a link to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/ron.strutt/rrsustrans.html which provides useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granulate (talk • contribs) 20:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An alternative slant on Sustrans reinserted. Articles are supposed to be unbiased. I.e. reporting bad as well as good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.61.248 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Sustrans mapping
I just reverted a massive change to the article made by because it looked like a whitewash - removing the criticism section and adding large amounts of uncited content. Perhaps before reinserting any content Sustrans mapping might care to explain the reasons for the changes and assure us that any possible conflict of interest and connection with Sustrans will be declared. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 22:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Aspirational routes
There are more than a few 'National Cycle routes' shown on Sustrans online mapping which are "on road" and do not feature any route signage. This has always struck me as a bit of a con - Sustrans simply declare a bit of existing road is a part of a "cycle route" and tell the Charities Commission they've been "creating cycle routes". Ahine?--feline1 (talk) 13:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism section
The criticism seems to mainly come from railway enthusiasts and cyclists with personal complaints which is fair enough but the citations only seem to come from their own forums and some cycling forums. I feel these are not true references as these are just websites where people express their opinions and not backed up by verifiable fact. Of course Sustrans will have it's critics but these should be referenced from reliable sources. Andrew ranfurly (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)