http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: NMW 'spur' en Mon, 18 May 2026 23:41:17 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=3#post-190188 Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:17:19 +0000 chdot 190188@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Latest news on this spur and its tactiles!</p> <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14895#post-190062" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14895#post-190062</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=3#post-190187 Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:15:04 +0000 chdot 190187@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Maybe add that to this thread too</p> <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13465" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13465</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=3#post-190185 Thu, 04 Jun 2015 22:05:05 +0000 KarenJS 190185@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Noticed there are double cables now across both Tarvit street and valley field street. Are these traffic counting things? Am I being optimistic in thinking they might be in the process of thinking about improving the canal to meadows route? </p> <p>Not sure if this is the right thread so feel free to redirect me, been looking for a while. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=3#post-183860 Fri, 20 Mar 2015 22:30:07 +0000 SRD 183860@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>further thoughts: <a href="http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-uncertainty-principle.html" rel="nofollow">http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/the-uncertainty-principle.html</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=3#post-183738 Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:58:42 +0000 Fountainbridge 183738@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My photos from the meadows showing the area - <a href="https://flic.kr/s/aHsk8KQLup" rel="nofollow">https://flic.kr/s/aHsk8KQLup</a></p> <p>I have to say that the lines along NMW seem to work very well. The majority of pedestrians keep to their side and the majority of cyclists keep to the left side. </p> <p>This is my attempt at showing the issue. Somebody has said the bit at the end of Valleyfield Street towards Melvile Drive has always been cyclists only. From memory the bit between Melivile Drive and NMW has never been marked until now.</p> <p><a href="https://flic.kr/p/rGjAsx"><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8741/16865206971_87cb86e1f9.jpg"></a><a href="https://flic.kr/p/rGjAsx">Middle-Meadow-Walk-no-pedestrians</a> by <a href="https://www.flickr.com/people/130059894@N04/">fountainbridge</a>, on Flickr </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=3#post-183253 Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:38:03 +0000 chdot 183253@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Perfectly clear -</p> <p>It's a <em>road</em> - no pedestrians 'allowed'!</p> <p>(Wide angle lens makes it look wider than it is.) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=3#post-183252 Sat, 14 Mar 2015 10:21:11 +0000 SRD 183252@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>back on topic.</p> <p>sorry this has taken so long. hope the video is clearer than the still pic</p> <p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw231UXirpI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw231UXirpI</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=3#post-183234 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:06:05 +0000 Luath 183234@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>These give way markings on MMW at George Sq are not at all helpful. Give way markings are a concept designed for roads, not share use spaces. As SRD's photo beautifully illustrates, peds walk across that junction from all angles, sometimes with absolutely no observation or awareness whatsoever. What happens if I give way at the dashed lines then in the 2-3 metres between there and the junction a ped steps out in front of me? To pre-empt SRD (sorry if I get this wrong!), I’ll do what I’ve always done and cycle considerately and attentively and share the space as best I can. But the give way markings aren’t going to help me do this and I don’t see how they help peds either.<br /> If there really was a problem of peds not being able to cross the cycle part of the path then why not paint on a zebra crossing? At least that’s a bit of road infrastructure that actually tackles the (apparent) problem. I think the raised speed table solution is a bad idea. You end-up focussing on hitting the sudden change in gradient and not falling off, rather than paying attention to any peds trying to cross. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=3#post-183233 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:05:43 +0000 chdot 183233@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Given this my preferred solution (probably unwelcome on this forum) is to make all shared paths desegregated with no 'calming' measures,"</p> <p>This is clearly a 'debate' worth having. </p> <p>There <em>is</em> a thread on '<a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10924">shared use</a>', but this may be the time for a new variant(?)</p> <p>There is undoubtedly a 'dualist' element to this - a desire/need for 'fast' direct routes for bicycle riders - particularly commuters (who are well represented on CCE), and also a general desire for 'safer' ways of getting about by people who may not have 'time pressures' and may or may not have children with them. (People who started PoP - and those who turn out in their thousands - mostly understand this and are altering the 'agenda'.)</p> <p>Of course this leads to the danger that 'cyclists' are seen (by some) as 'like motorist' expecting free and unrestricted use of the routes they choose. Which seems to be an element in some CEC actions of the past couple of years. Some say 'such people' people 'should use the roads'. A response is 'that's fine, tell us when they are suitable. (There are some 'cycle campaigners' who think that people should just get used to riding on the roads as they are - though obviously 'things could be improved'...)</p> <p>At the same time it's hardly reasonable that 'cyclists' are 'catered for' by sub-standard round the houses routes. </p> <p>I have no wish to pre-judge the Innocent to Canal route, which will be part delivered very soon. It should be useful to cycle commuters and also be an enabling 'family' route. It 'must' be expected to increase bike traffic (including across the MMW/NMW junction). Is 'everyone' <em>ready</em> for this?? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183232 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 18:03:30 +0000 ih 183232@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Exactly @Dave. They've created a major road crossing MMW that allows vehicles to cross as far as the segregation line, but no protection for pedestrians. Will even give them a totally false sense of safety. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183231 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:53:38 +0000 Dave 183231@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Apologies if it's been covered, but I didn't see it in a quick skim. The give-way sign offers no protection to pedestrians because it doesn't indicate that you should give way to them:</p> <p><em>no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the major road into that road in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident</em></p> <p>(from <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/regulation/25/made">here</a>).</p> <p>If anyone has any advance on that, I'd be interested? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183230 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:44:33 +0000 chdot 183230@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I believe that a lot of these shared path issues arise because one group thinks the facility is 'theirs' and they're damned if they will let the other group use it freely."</p> <p>There's certainly an element of that. </p> <p>A bigger problem is that even <em>if</em> people (I'm meaning mainly pedestrians here!) notice the signs, they still don't 'register' - or perhaps understand. </p> <p>Perhaps when CEC does its 20mph promo, it can say 'this is part of a grand scheme to improve Edinburgh and includes better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. These include segregated and shared-use paths and areas. These signs explain things'... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183229 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 17:24:31 +0000 ih 183229@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Good points @chdot and @morningsider. I particularly like, 'I suspect there is more agreement than disagreement!' and 'Moving people around via a multitude of modes is complicated - and difficult.'</p> <p>However, whoever decides these things in Edinburgh does tend to over-complicate and over-engineer. I know MMW has the de jure status of a road, but I'm going to consider its de facto status of shared ped and cycle path.</p> <p>We still don't know the problem that this is to fix. (Same with silly markings on the NMW spur as well that started this off). Incidentally, I never said anything about it being about cyclists popping into Sainsbury's. </p> <p>But I believe that a lot of these shared path issues arise because one group thinks the facility is 'theirs' and they're damned if they will let the other group use it freely.</p> <p>I was walking in a park area in Hackney East London yesterday and noticed some green-background circular signs that had diagrams of pedestrians above and cycle below, with the words, 'Pedestrian Priority. Considerate Cycling Welcome'. I thought this stuck exactly the right tone - welcoming, reasonable, and recognising the reality that on a shared path pedestrians will always have the 'right' to wander anywhere. I saw no conflict anywhere, although admittedly volumes were low.</p> <p>Given this my preferred solution (probably unwelcome on this forum) is to make all shared paths desegregated with no 'calming' measures, and nice friendly Hackney style signs. I believe peds and people on bikes could cope with this without causing havoc, and the fact that pedestrians could use the whole path would calm down any furious cycling (I offer you the wide Cramond path on a sunny Sunday where you cannot cycle fast). There would probably need to be some initial education about the change. There would also need to be a more robust response to influential groups who have irrational fear of bikes or just don't want them around.</p> <p>I could cope with this because shared paths (segregated or not) aren't very good infrastructure. They are great for pootling and we are blessed in Edinburgh with some very pleasant ones.</p> <p>We could then concentrate on working towards a proper infrastructure of segregated cycleways on busy roads and at dangerous junctions. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183223 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:42:54 +0000 chdot 183223@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"would have an ongoing maintenance cost"</p> <p>Not sure if bumps on Leamington Walk ever get maintained!</p> <p>Once again, highlights the problem when governments (local and national) split Capital and Revenue. Usually enough for building new stuff, but never enough to look after it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183222 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:34:44 +0000 acsimpson 183222@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@AKen,</p> <p>I'm sure you're being ironic. But no Edinburgh's policies have nothing in common with the SNP's magic fairy dust approach to increase cycling. Although the council may be guilty of wasting a certain proportion of the budget on tinkering they have made a firm and very real commitment to spend a considerable proportion of their transport budget on cycling projects.</p> <p>Compare this to the SNP's approach of attempting on an annual basis to spend less on cycling while squeezing council budgets and claiming they should be the ones increasing cycling. If only the SNP had some quality cycling infrastructure they could tinker with this would be a better county. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183221 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:24:18 +0000 Morningsider 183221@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A better solution would have been a raised speed table across the width of MMW, linking the two pedestrian accesses. There are examples of these on Leamington Walk (Bruntsfield Links). It would clearly deliniate the pedestrian desire line and help slow cyclists. The only problem is the cost - far more expensive than paint and it would have an ongoing maintenance cost.</p> <p>Personally, I don't think it would be a good use of cash. However, if something has to be done then probably best to do it well. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183220 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 16:08:35 +0000 AKen 183220@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>CEC has policies to significantly increase cycling.</em></p> <p>Do these policies involve the same magic fairy dust that the Scottish Government seems to think will <em>significantly</em> increase cycling?</p> <p>You don't make significant changes to anything by tinkering with it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183219 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:45:56 +0000 chdot 183219@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"i don't think it is a good solution at all"</p> <p>This is the key.</p> <p>It's easy to say 'there was no problem that needed fixing'. </p> <p>I.e. 'It's a road - for bikes - pedestrians have to wait/know their place/take their chances'</p> <p>Once again 'we' don't know the thinking behind this (and the design) or why it was 'necessary' in the first place. </p> <p>'We' are only too well aware of 'concerns' about 'speed' - golf course path and elsewhere. </p> <p>As a 'cyclist' I am going to be annoyed by this, but as a person who gets around by bike, likes off-road paths who 'campaigns' for better facilities (not just off-road!) and for more people to cycle it's a bit more complicated. </p> <p>I'm happy to assume this is a bad idea and/or could be done better and 'would be in most places outside the UK'. </p> <p>I HATE the possibility that this has been done with any sort of notion that 'we have to control cyclists' behaviour in a pedestrian environment' ESPECIALLY as they is not much being done to deal with bigger problems of motor vehicles - because they are 'normal'/dominant. </p> <p>Though obviously things like 20mph <em>are</em> being done.</p> <p>Should 'we' accept paint on MMW as 'a small inconvenience, but part of bigger picture' or complain loudly about this latest example of 'CEC making things worse by overestimating problems and providing unnecessary/poorly produced solutions?</p> <p>Moving <em>people</em> around via a multitude of modes is complicated - and difficult. </p> <p>However -</p> <p>CEC has policies to <em>significantly</em> increase cycling. Sometimes is hard to tell if the 'whole' council understands... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183217 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 15:05:59 +0000 SRD 183217@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ih - i don't think it is a good solution at all. but i don't think the problem is with the turning into sainsbury's! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183216 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:57:45 +0000 chdot 183216@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ih and @SRD</p> <p>I suspect there is more agreement than disagreement! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183214 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:54:32 +0000 ih 183214@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@srd unusually for you I think you've missed my point. That this 'solution' is wrong and badly thought out on every level. And I'm sure it's very dodgy legally, although others on the forum are much better placed to comment than me. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183211 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:46:48 +0000 SRD 183211@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ih i feel like you're missing the point here. the situation remains exactly the same as it was before if cyclists were turning of MMW to PY or Sainbury's . If you feel they should have stopped/dismounted before, then I guess they still should. But i don't see that as the major issue here. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183210 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:46:39 +0000 chdot 183210@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"because there are no defined cycling facilities on the other side"</p> <p>That's a fair point. </p> <p>I think there can be a 'reasonable' assumption that it is 'shared-use' by design/in practice/legally. </p> <p>BUT</p> <p>(I suspect) it's 'private' - QuarterMile, so who knows! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183208 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:42:25 +0000 ih 183208@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@chdot thanks for example. So we would have the situation where bikes could cross from George Square because they have priority (thanks to the Give Way) but when they reach the solid segregation line they have to yield, by default, to pedestrians on the walkway part, possibly stopping in the cycleway for less-than-attentive cyclists to smash into them broadside.</p> <p>Not convinced about biking across still, because there are no defined cycling facilities on the other side. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183203 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:25:17 +0000 chdot 183203@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"cyclists MUST keep to the cycling side"</p> <p>Yes but that's for going in the direction of the path - same as 'cars aren't allowed on pavements - except to get to driveways etc.' </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183202 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:21:01 +0000 ih 183202@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@wingpig Where is the rule about being allowed to 'bike' across footways between cycle facilities. Highway code 62 says pretty clearly that on a segregated shared use path, cyclists MUST keep to the cycling side.</p> <p>But my rather larger point was, 'what is this disastrous solution for?"' </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183199 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 14:04:29 +0000 wingpig 183199@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote><em>"bikes are not allowed on the pedestrian side so they can't legally cross without dismounting!"</em></blockquote></p> <p>Bikes are allowed to be biked across footways to and from cycling facilities. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183195 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:49:29 +0000 DrAfternoon 183195@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I don't think this is helpful to anyone. The problem at that crossing is mostly caused by that fencing forcing a bottleneck.</p> <p>When I'm abroad I'm always impressed by places (Denmark etc but also the US) where there's shared right of way on crossings (i.e. left turns on a green man if clear) rather than one or the other. It fosters a much less aggressive attitude where you're always looking out for each other, instead of right or wrong. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183194 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 13:49:20 +0000 ih 183194@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>To what question is this Give Way on MMW the answer?</p> <p>Is it to allow pedestrians from George Square to get to other side of the path and/or the precinct opposite? Is the Give Way sign applicable to pedestrians? The road signs pdf talks of giving way to 'traffic' on the 'major road'. I would argue pedestrians aren't traffic as defined, and the cross walk is by no commonly understood notion, a major road.</p> <p>Is it to allow cyclists to get across to the precinct? Same as above for 'major road', but additionally, bikes are not allowed on the pedestrian side so they can't legally cross without dismounting!</p> <p>Is it to give priority to cyclists from George Square who are joining MMW, up or down? I would suggest this problem is best left to cyclists to sort out between themselves, without the help of Give Way signs. </p> <p>This will make the situation more dangerous, for all path users, and it is being done at the cost to the cycling budget. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183188 Fri, 13 Mar 2015 12:48:56 +0000 chdot 183188@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"as people argue over who should have stopped when."</p> <p>Indeed. </p> <p>There needs to be an initial education period followed by some enforcement... </p>