http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Tag: Scotsman - Recent Posts en Mon, 20 Apr 2026 03:45:58 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11895#post-137071 Mon, 16 Dec 2013 09:46:59 +0000 fimm 137071@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Bin lorries are one of the classes of vehicles that I am wary of, having suffered from poor driving from their drivers in the past.</p> <p>My b/f told me off about getting cross with our acquaintance and I added a more helpful link to an article about opportunities for cyclists to sit in lorry cabs... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11895#post-137033 Sun, 15 Dec 2013 11:54:38 +0000 gembo 137033@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I did not read the comments, why would you? That way lies frustration, anger, feelings of negativity etc </p> <p>The article is good. Well done evening news for such a well balanced piece. More journalism like this please.</p> <p> I see they are starting with the roads team. They are already quite aware I find, in some of the gangs out on the black stuff. The clennie on the other hand can be quite random. However, always good to go to the bin folk and say this works, the roads teams have liked it, could you please do it too. Then there. Might be an issue of overtime or bins not being collected whilst training happening etc, but I would still push for it as my bins only need emptied once a fortnight </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11895#post-137032 Sun, 15 Dec 2013 11:40:15 +0000 cc 137032@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Of course the proven solution is simply to separate bicycles and lorries so that they can never come into contact. Allowing them to use the same road together is barbaric. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11895#post-137030 Sun, 15 Dec 2013 11:23:16 +0000 wingpig 137030@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Good comments on this one.<br /> <blockquote><em>"...the physics of flesh and steel are not compatible."</em></blockquote></p> <p>Sounds like something the Road Haulage Association would have carved above the portal to their headquarters. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11895#post-137027 Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:50:50 +0000 fimm 137027@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>An acquaintance posted this on Facebook with the following comment:<br /> "<em>...might move the 'share the road responsibly' campaign back a step if nothing is done to make cyclists more aware of what sharing a road safely would look like. We're (collectively) not blameless...</em>"<br /> which left my jaw firmly attached to the floor in disbelief. I keep going back and posting more stuff in response. I could be about to cause a bit of a stooshie, once she actually sees what I've written... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11895#post-137026 Sun, 15 Dec 2013 10:31:56 +0000 cc 137026@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That's a step in the right direction - thanks for reporting it here.</p> <p>Our old pal Neil Greig also features, giving an excellent reason why lorries should not be permitted on any roads where people cycle, although he doesn't seem to see it that way. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11895#post-137023 Sun, 15 Dec 2013 03:46:35 +0000 condor2378 137023@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-lorry-drivers-to-get-cycling-lessons-1-3231777">Link to the story. </a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67621 Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:59:36 +0000 crowriver 67621@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Surely the real opportunity is the the South Sub. Not only are there railway lines already in place, but Newtwork Rail plan to electrify the line soon. All we need are the stations to be refurbished, and passenger services eg. divert trains from North Berwick service via South Sub? Or from Borders line when it opens? Or even tram/train link line somewhere around Slateford... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67558 Sun, 29 Apr 2012 08:42:52 +0000 Dave 67558@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>They're low hanging fruit because they are already rail beds - no worries about what's underneath the track, for instance. Obviously it makes more sense to put the trams on road and take them to the Western General etc., but that would be expensive and unpopular with almost everyone.</p> <p>I can't see how we'll avoid losing the North Edinburgh paths but will be one of the ones fighting it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67496 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:08:12 +0000 Claggy Cog 67496@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>AS a south-Edinburgh resident I am going to be a complete NIMBY and say I don't want a tram line from Waverley to NRIE, the proposed route was going to run through a green belt area and/or local parks, great. Lothian buses have cut the number of buses going out to Little France,I suspect because they do not make a profit, so why would a tram be any different? This was after the RIE was moved out here, and in fact one bus route running from SE - SW was obviously so unprofitable that initially it changed from a 10 - 15 minute service to half hourly, and is now shared between LB and First. Another bus route which went out to Fort Kinnaird no longer runs at all. When the Border line is reopened whole sections of the SEPN are going to be lost, so lets not contemplate losing all cycle ways out this way... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67485 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:23:53 +0000 minus six 67485@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Today was the first time in years that I've cycled into town via the Roseburn Path.</p> <p>Cyclists are dominating this path and going far too fast for shared use conditions.</p> <p>You can't have your cake and eat it.</p> <p>Get on the road ! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67471 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:39:42 +0000 Min 67471@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>What this does do is help to show how utterly devolved from the reality of how people get around cities Transport Scotland really are.</em></p> <p>It sure does. It is just all so wrong. You encourage people out of their cars by taking space away from peds and cyclists do you?</p> <p>The NEPN could do with being widened a bit - to allow a proper separate cycling and walking route. As cc has already mentioned, it can be very overcrowded, there are loose dogs running everywhere in a way they wouldn't on the road (as ExcitableBoy points out)and no-one is going to get out of their car to wobble very slowly round large number of dogs and pedestrians. </p> <p>We all know that the route would just be cut off to everybody for years and the resulting mixed use path would be something akin to the towpath. </p> <p>No</p> <p>Trams</p> <p>Here </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67469 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:21:56 +0000 kaputnik 67469@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Surely the key advantage trams have over trains is that you can run them on the roads - rather than have to build expensive grade segregated infrastructure like the Edinburgh trams plan.</p> <p>What this does do is help to show how utterly devolved from the reality of how people get around cities Transport Scotland really are.</p> <p>However, this being Edinburgh, we don't want to use the existing bit of railway we have that doesn't have stations and then we want to build a new bit of railway that we don't really need, just because there's a non-road corridor where it might go.</p> <p>The loss of the NEPN would be such a massive loss to the city, you can guarantee that any replacement/alternative provision would be far less satisfactory and would probably be built (I say built, signed/painted is probably more like the truth) long after they had closed the existing route to walkers and cyclists. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67467 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:37:36 +0000 cc 67467@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Can't remember where I read this but apparently the way to guarantee plenty of passengers for a new tram route is to run it between major railway stations and hospitals, and preferably also universities. If the Little France route ever gets built it at least should be a financial success - Waverley at one end, major hospital at the other, and large university campuses on/near the route too. It should have been line 1. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67465 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:04:00 +0000 crowriver 67465@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>MUCH better would be to increase pressure for the South Sub (existing) rail line to reopen to passengers.</em></p> <p>Re-opening the South Sub is in the Green party manifesto for the local elections. I don't think any party is talking about taking the trams down 'Line 1b' anymore. Only the Lib Dems mention extending the trams, and they talk about taking it to Little France, once its reached Leith via Leith Walk... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67462 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:52:58 +0000 Min 67462@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>"There are times when people wanting to promote 'sustainable' transport should accept that things like the NEPN now have a better use - for 'active travel'. "</em></p> <p>Yes, the type of person who rates those paths as "under-used" either does not live here, or if they do does not actually do "sustainable transport" at all.. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67460 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:27:14 +0000 ExcitableBoy 67460@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"it was really quite awkward to have to weave back and forth between and around all the dog walkers"<br /> I think something needs to be done about dogs on shared use paths - people don't walk their dogs down the middle of roads. I'd like to see them banned altogether, but at the very least they should have to be kept on a short, fixed lead! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67458 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:11:27 +0000 chdot 67458@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There are times when people wanting to promote 'sustainable' transport should accept that things like the NEPN now have a better use - for 'active travel'. </p> <p>Not like there is spare cash around...</p> <p>MUCH better would be to increase pressure for the South Sub (existing) rail line to reopen to passengers. </p> <p>Would have been nice if it could have had working stations when the Borders Line is reopened. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6312#post-67456 Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:04:33 +0000 cc 67456@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Transform Scotland wants to put trams on to the north Edinburgh cycle paths, says the Scotsman:</p> <p><a href="http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/fifty-years-after-rail-track-fell-silent-trams-offer-new-lease-of-life-1-2261752">Fifty years after rail track fell silent, trams offer new lease of life</a></p> <p>I was on these paths last weekend. They're lovely but already crowded - it was really quite awkward to have to weave back and forth between and around all the dog walkers. I wouldn't like to meet a tram there too, for all I want a city tram network. And I certainly wouldn't want my wheels to meet a tram line. </p>