http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: William Hunter - self-hating cyclist? en Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:41:02 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187329 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 19:22:19 +0000 Greenroofer 187329@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I don't care either way about cars on Multrees Walk, and I'm with WC on quite liking big Jags. However the Twitter posts were unpleasant and unbecoming of their sender (particularly if representing a commercial enterprise) and I'm quite in favour of sanctimoniousness about that.</p> <p>I'm not a militant cyclist, and we own a car. I'd just like my family and me to be able to cycle safely on the roads on their trailer bikes and (if they so desire) not wearing helmets. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187325 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:39:04 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 187325@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The route through to Elder Street in the past will have been a public footpath. Public Rights of Way are specifically over private land, by definition they're not required over public land. So there's not an old RoW to continue.</p> <p>So the planning stage would have had to actively create a RoW, and I suspect that's crediting the powers that be with too much forethought. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187323 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 18:09:50 +0000 SRD 187323@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Sorry. I find it hard not to be sanctimonious when a pedestrian campaigner (not me) suggests that a pedestrian-only space is not the right place for two expensive cars, only to be accused of being a MILITANT CYCLIST. And a BULLY. And a TROLL. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187321 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:53:10 +0000 Edinburgh Cycle Training 187321@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>There was public access to St Andrew Square from Elder Street before this development. </p> <p>Its not an unreasonable argument that Multrees walk has maintained this long established thoroughfare.</p> <p>Its use an a public RoW may even have been agreed at the planning stage? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187318 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 17:14:06 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 187318@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Public Rights of Way are only created in Scotland after a 20 year prescriptive period, and that period can be restarted by the owner exercising the right to restrict access. In theory the restriction of access by bikes could stop it becoming a Right of Way because the owner is asserting their control over the space.</p> <p>Reminds me of a comedy moot I took part in at uni when my only contribution of note was a very poor taste joke about something being a right of way rather than a servitude. You had to be there.</p> <p>Anyway, in short I'd be pretty confident (to the point of certainty) that a court would point out Multrees Walk had not been in existence for 20 years and to come back and try again then. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187315 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:49:12 +0000 Edinburgh Cycle Training 187315@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'd be surprised if there were no public access rights at all there.</p> <p>I've been using it as a public right of way, unchallenged, on a regular basis since it opened. I'd be pretty confident that a court would uphold that right in the event of a bouncer stopping me.</p> <p>Presumably, the only way the landowner could enforce any ban on cycling along there would be by civil action? I'd like to see a critical mass meet up there ;-) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187313 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:36:46 +0000 stiltskin 187313@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Hmmm. My 2p worth is that there is a whiff of sanctimoniousness on this thread. &amp; I don't even like cars. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187311 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 16:22:02 +0000 Morningsider 187311@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>edd1e_h - Section 6(1)(b)(i) of the Land Reform Act exempts land surrounding and associated with non-domestic buildings from the access rights it grants. It would probably need tested in court, but I'm pretty sure the owners of Multrees Walk would argue that the space between their buildings is clearly associated with them and that access rights do not apply. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187303 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:59:27 +0000 neddie 187303@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>There is no public right of access to Multrees Walk</em></p> <p>Really? What does the LRA have to say about that? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187289 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 14:10:36 +0000 Morningsider 187289@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It is private land. The cars are parked there legally. Just because it looks like a street doesn't mean it is one. There is no public right of access to Multrees Walk - people can only access it at the discretion of the owners. Clearly, it is in the owner's interest to allow as many people into the area as possible - retailers will only rent their shops if there is a high footfall. Best to think of it as an uncovered shopping centre, rather than a street. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187284 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:53:46 +0000 wingpig 187284@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Aha. This must be one of the same three people whining about trailers (or hur hur "tents" hur hur) with flags in Morningside in the EENinoo a few months back. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187282 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:51:19 +0000 amir 187282@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's not really private land in the same sense as your house though. There is an expectation that the general will be there in large numbers. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749&page=2#post-187280 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:48:09 +0000 SRD 187280@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@wc you sure you've not switched usernames with Dave? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187277 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:41:41 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 187277@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Apologies, I read "... any of us..." incorrectly.</p> <p>Yep, still don't agree. Private land. I don't let smokers smoke in my house; should smokers be allowed to complain that I have a cat in the house? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187275 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:39:31 +0000 SRD 187275@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@wc i was speaking for myself, and the original tweeter - 'send wrong message'. </p> <p>the owners of this space have vociferously defended their right to restrict access to cyclists and to harass photographers. I don't see what's wrong about us complaining about how they choose to use it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187274 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:38:10 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 187274@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I'm a cyclist too" is becoming the new "some of my best friends are &lt;insert minority&gt;"</p> <p>Indeed. Or the "I'm not racist but...."</p> <p>My favourite was a young girl driving up my tail beeping her horn because I was 'in the middle of the road' in a big slow moving queue. She informed me that she did have sympathy with cyclists having to use the roads. Very odd. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187273 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:36:11 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 187273@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That's fair enough, I disagree SRD, but if we all thought the same it'd be a boring world. </p> <p>On the illegality, erm, heavily inferred...</p> <p>"How did the parked exhibition car get there, I wonder - levitation? (It does make it look as if motor vehicles are allowed access.)" (would anyone be wondering how they got there if it wasn't believed it would be illegal to do so? As in the question whenever there's a car parked on the pavement of 'how did it get there?' because parking isn't illegal, but driving along the pavement is).</p> <p>And</p> <p>"Question: where are the traffic wardens when we need them?" (why would the wardens be interested if it were legal?)</p> <p>@algo, no worries, worked that one out after a moment of confusion ;) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187271 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:33:24 +0000 Stickman 187271@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Oh, meant to say:</p> <p>"I'm a cyclist too" is becoming the new "some of my best friends are &lt;insert minority&gt;"</p> <p>WC: thanks for the explanation, that was my loose understanding of things so good to have it confirmed. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187270 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:32:23 +0000 algo 187270@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@WC - crossing of posts - yours makes good sense - I was referring to the sentence in the e-mail to SRD </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187269 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:30:51 +0000 SRD 187269@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@wilmingtonscow Don't think any of us said it was illegal. (other people on twitter may have done). </p> <p>I still think it is a poor use of space. I nearly wrote 'public space' but of course it isn't. </p> <p>Can't share your appreciation of them in that intrusive space especially as that thoroughfare is usually busy and crowded whenever I go through. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187268 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:30:36 +0000 Stickman 187268@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Wow, that's a bit of an over-reaction!</p> <p>Why did he even get involved in the first place? Is he bored commenting at the Evening News? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187267 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:28:46 +0000 algo 187267@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>that makes as little sense gramatically as it does societally - I really want to ask them what this is supposed to mean, but that would be bullying </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187266 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:28:06 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 187266@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Storm in a teacup. The guy is clearly a muppet and needs put back in his box, but….</p> <p>Multrees Walk is private land, not a public footpath (found all this out years ago when a friend got some security guards stroppy with him for taking photos). There is no difference whatsoever here to cars driving over a pavement to access a driveway. None. It's private land, the landowner can allow people to park there, and because it's legal parking they are allowed to access over the path outside which is public.</p> <p>Not your usual parking on the pavement. All legit, above board, legal (including the driving there). And if anything there will have to have been risk assessments carried out by the company doing the promotion, and I suspect taking the cars on and off, as well as being at much quieter times of day, there will have been people herding them on and warning pedestrians, so actually safer than anyone parking on a driveway.</p> <p>I happened to walk past them too. Two Jag F Types. Lovely cars, and despite being from the same stable I think a bit prettier than the Aston cousins. Can't say it even crossed my mind to complain about it, but then I appreciate the aesthetic and thought they improved the bland grey passage (plus there was LOADS of space to pass on either side - wish I'd taken the photo I wanted to now). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187265 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:24:26 +0000 SRD 187265@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@algo yes that *was* bad timing wasn't it....probably just as well....</p> <p>ah. it was the email that had this gem:</p> <p>"Bet your one of my those weirdos that drag your kid around on a trailer with a little flag putting their life at risk." </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187264 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:22:34 +0000 SRD 187264@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><img src="https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7658/16690533723_bbed91175a.jpg"> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187263 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:22:03 +0000 algo 187263@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>tragically I had complete network failure before my hilarious retorts could be tweeted - well done for getting screen grabs SRD…. could you share the aggressive response? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187262 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:22:01 +0000 SRD 187262@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><img src="https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8730/17284926776_2fdb3a32bb.jpg"> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187259 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:18:43 +0000 SRD 187259@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@stickman I assumed it was a petty underling mis-using his bosses twitter account, so I emailed the 'info@' email to let them know. and got a fairly aggressive response from the man himself. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187258 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:17:22 +0000 SRD 187258@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>pity. I failed to screen grab the one where he said 'i bet you're one of those people who tow their kids around with flags on them' before he deleted the tweets and then blocked me. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14749#post-187257 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 13:13:08 +0000 SRD 187257@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>also:</p> <p>@Edin_Mortgages: @ShoestringCycle @SRDorman<br /> A few things bug me</p> <p>1. Bikes on pavements<br /> 2. Adults towing kids<br /> 3. No helmets<br /> 4. Cyclists with earphones </p>