http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: 'Missing white lines' en Sun, 05 Apr 2026 00:51:36 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14952#post-190784 Thu, 11 Jun 2015 17:10:44 +0000 slowcoach 190784@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>This doesn't sound right to me. There are plenty of examples of advisory cycle lanes on roads narrower than that.<br /> Transport Scotland's <a href="http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/system/files/documents/reports/Cycling_by_Design_2010__Rev_1__June_2011_.pdf">Cycling by Design</a> says the optimal width of a with-flow bus lane is 4.6m and a 1.5m wide advisory cycle lane may be provided within it. It also mentions roads where cycle lanes have been included but centrelines have been omitted if there isn't enough for two full general traffic lanes (one in each direction). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14952#post-190759 Thu, 11 Jun 2015 14:04:11 +0000 Snowy 190759@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So a road would have to be 9.5 metres from kerb to kerb to justify white lines on the cycle lanes? </p> <p>Since the red chips are all but invisible to car drivers anyway, the white line is about the only thing that indicates the presence of a <strike>cycle lane</strike> informal guide lane. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14952#post-190675 Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:38:09 +0000 HankChief 190675@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>GSR is 6-7m wide where there is lanes but this reduces to &lt;6m at each end hence the evaporating lanes </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14952#post-190672 Wed, 10 Jun 2015 14:46:33 +0000 Arellcat 190672@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I wonder how wide Gogar Station Road is, using the same measurement process?</p> <p>And are Edinburgh cyclists going to have to carry long tape measures now as well as brushes to clear broken glass?</p> <p>I know that in certain states of USAnia, some cyclists have had to measure the widths of carriageway lanes in order to prove that they are allowed to 'take the lane' per statutes that 'require' cyclists to otherwise cycle as far to the right as possible (for certain carriageway widths). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14952#post-190659 Wed, 10 Jun 2015 12:04:01 +0000 acsimpson 190659@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So the road is too narrow to provide space for cyclists to be safely past by motorists and their solution is to add some coloured chips to discourage cyclists from taking primary.</p> <p>Face, meet palm. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14952#post-190655 Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:39:43 +0000 newtoit 190655@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Eh? Why bother then? I didn't realise that 4.75m is too narrow for (being ambitious) 1.75m of cycle lane and a lane for a car (average car eg Ford Focus is 2m wide).</p> <p>"Informal Guide" - is this not what all advisory cycle lanes are?</p> <p>That road is more than wide enough for sure. Obviously not helped when there are buses parked on it... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14952#post-190654 Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:36:32 +0000 kaputnik 190654@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Perhaps we should start referring to them as "informal guide lanes" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14952#post-190652 Wed, 10 Jun 2015 11:09:58 +0000 SRD 190652@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>On saturday, I cycled up Chalmers St and turned right on to Lauriston Place. I noticed that while there was red chip in the surface to denote a cycle lane, there was no white line. I queried the neighbourhood team and got this reply:</p> <p><img src="https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/325/18482502690_9b3b9bca5c.jpg"> </p>