http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Leith Walk - parking in cycle lanes not enforceable? en Tue, 19 May 2026 09:25:34 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934&page=2#post-232290 Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:45:14 +0000 Morningsider 232290@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Here's my understanding of how this should all work on Leith Walk.</p> <p>Parking in an advisory cycle lane: No offence, they have no legal status and are simply paint on a road.<br /> Parking in advisory cycle lane with parking restrictions (yellow/red lines): Subject to enforcement by local authority parking attendants, when the parking restrictions are in force.<br /> Double parking (whether in an advisory cycle lane or not): Subject to enforcement by the police, under powers to deal with obstruction. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934&page=2#post-232279 Wed, 28 Sep 2016 13:18:48 +0000 threefromleith 232279@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So, there have been letters sent to folks here which say one thing about enforcement, the police saying another, and yet more letters send from the council to non-CCE members I know which say something different again!</p> <p>I'm still waiting for the relevant people to respond to my councillor's request for info, but I'm not hopeful that their answer will be any clearer than the thickest of mud either.</p> <p>It would appear that no-one actually knows what the legality of the double-parking in cycle lanes on Leith Walk actually is, nor who should enforce it if it <em>is</em> illegal. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934&page=2#post-232253 Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:16:17 +0000 crowriver 232253@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I recently made an FOI request about parking tickets issued in my local area of Abbeyhill, and got a full reply.</p> <p>Some points really struck me looking at the figures for the past three years, and the rationale behind enforcement:</p> <p>- The majority of tickets issued were on streets where parking is controlled or where parking/loading restrictions apply. </p> <p>- Streets where there is mostly unrestricted parking attract fewer tickets, egsrdless of anti-social or double parking epidemics (the latter anecdotally observed by me).</p> <p>- Some streets with specific restrictions (e.g.. Abbey Street, outside primary school) have very few tickets issued while others (e.g.. Rossie Place, double yellows on junctions) have a lot more.</p> <p>- The council policy on enforcement prioritises certain times of day, vis:<br /> "Parking Attendants can patrol streets at any time during the day or night; however the vast majority of patrols are undertaken during times when the parking restrictions are in force (e.g. 0830 to 1830 within the central controlled parking zones; 0830 to 1730 within the peripheral and extended controlled parking zones)."</p> <p>- There are "minimum visit requirements" by parking attendants for each street, and these vary considerably. However the trend seems to be that streets in the CPZ are visited very frequently (i.e.. several times per day); main through routes are visited slightly less frequently; side streets outside the CPZ or quieter through routes can vary from one daily visit (one at the weekend), to one per week (one weekend visit per month). Poor old Bothwell Street apparently has "no visit requirements"!</p> <p>What was surprising to me was to note that Rossie Place, despite being one of the least visited streets, had the third highest number of tickets issued of the streets I enquired about (highest were Montrose Terrace and Easter Road). Which I suppose demonstrates how bad the parking on that street really is. Imagine if visits were more frequent than once a week (once a month at weekends): the number of tickets issued would be much higher.</p> <p>I don't know for sure, but looking at the pattern in my area, I would imagine Leith Walk is visited very regularly by parking attendants. Again though, they can only enforce what they have the powers to enforce... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934&page=2#post-232178 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:43:12 +0000 mgj 232178@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The only advantage of the painted red sections is that because cars access them, they are free from glass and other rubbish, as well as wandering pedestrians. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934&page=2#post-232175 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:24:54 +0000 Klaxon 232175@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Bigger than they look.</p> <p><em>These facilities will generally be 1.5m wide and will be physically segregated from traffic by a 0.5m wide segregation zone. </em></p> <p>Anyway I've accidentally drifted this topic into the realm of stuff that should be in the project thread not enforcement of the old stuff: <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11196" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11196</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934&page=2#post-232174 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:21:53 +0000 ih 232174@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The thing is @ac, and this really scares me, if you smash into the edge of an opening door you could be very seriously injured. It's not just being pushed over into the pavement. If that's the layout, there MUST be a separation the width of an open door between the parking bays and the (roadside) edge of the cycle track. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934&page=2#post-232173 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 22:13:20 +0000 acsimpson 232173@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>ih, You're right but I'd still rather be knocked off by a careless passenger into the path of a pedestrian than knocked in front of a bus.</p> <p>The pedestrians are also big losers here as cyclists are liable to swerve unexpectedly onto the pavement if a door opens in front of them.</p> <p>I've just realised that I've assumed there's not a kerb between cycle lane and pavement. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232172 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:59:33 +0000 ih 232172@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'm worried about those parking bays being so close then to the narrow cycle track. It's highly likely that passengers will open doors without looking. Even more likely than drivers doing same. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232170 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:52:00 +0000 Klaxon 232170@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Lanes behind parking with a buffer.</p> <p><img src="https://i.imgur.com/Py3ANxd.png"> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232168 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:48:18 +0000 ih 232168@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Only for Pilrig St south to Picardy Pl"</p> <p>?? Did I misinterpret those plans for the section from Brunswick Road to Annandale St? That didn't look segregated to me on plan, but just lanes in the road. So I thought it would be red chip lanes from the Foot to Pilrig, then segregated to Mcdonald, then red chip again up to Annandale. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232157 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:07:56 +0000 Rob 232157@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>oh. I'd assumed the rubbish that was there was temporary and they'd properly link into Leith Links-&gt;Portobello.</p> <p>Never mind then, I'll keep going the long way. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232156 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 21:04:36 +0000 Klaxon 232156@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Only for Pilrig St south to Picardy Pl (where the Roseburn to Leith project picks up) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232155 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:59:29 +0000 Rob 232155@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>"That's what happened at the Foot of the Walk"</em></p> <p>Aren't they about to put segregated lanes along Leith Walk? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232152 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 20:37:40 +0000 chdot 232152@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>""</p> <p>As part of the ongoing Leith Programme, there are continuing plans to re-design pavements and cycling facilities and manage a variety of waiting and loading/unloading requirements along Leith Walk. To deliver these plans, various changes are now proposed for Leith Walk between Brunswick Street and Montgomery Street </p> <p>"</p> <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11196&amp;page=16&amp;replies=452#post-232151" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11196&amp;page=16&amp;replies=452#post-232151</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232136 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:29:27 +0000 crowriver 232136@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My recollection is thus (I may have got some bits mixed up, I blame old age). The original plan was to just resurface Leith Walk. Then early in the consultation there was a lot of lobbying by "us"/Greener Leith etc., for the council to be more ambitious, reduce car parking and put segregated cycle lanes between parked cars/loading bays and the pavement. Cpuncil went to Scottish government and secured millions in funding for an "exemplar" active travel corridor on Leith Walk. However once the revised draft designs were consulted upon, there was a big backlash from "local traders" who were already fed up with the tram works saga. The council then issued some statement justifying painted door-zone cycle lanes in term of a "different culture"* in that part of Leith Walk (!) and "insufficient road width" (!!!). </p> <p>* - By which I presume they meant the culture of free-for-all, anti-social double parking espoused by drivers who stop in the area. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232134 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 16:06:04 +0000 jonty 232134@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What is the history of the painted Leith Walk lanes? I assumed the council just hadn't got on the segregated lanes bandwagon by that point, but recently I've heard a lot about shopkeeper complaints. What was the original plan they objected to? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232133 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:56:12 +0000 crowriver 232133@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"The whole point of segregated infrastructure is to minimise parking on/in it."</p> <p>Yeah sure. The point of "local traders" up in arms is to stop the segregated infrastructure being built, thus maximising parking opportunities. That's what happened at the Foot of the Walk, and it set the precedent for Roseburn "local traders" to follow. PG/KNS is just a useful conduit for "local traders" to defend the status quo. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232131 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:41:22 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 232131@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Build segregated lanes then neutron bomb the rest from space. It's the only way to be sure. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232129 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:33:14 +0000 jonty 232129@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The (legal) parking bays are on the inside of the bike lane so, unless crossing it to get there is a recognised exception (which I think it might be - similar to bays next to greenways) then doing so would block them and probably won't happen. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232126 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 15:20:16 +0000 Luath 232126@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@mkoerner worth going back to the council to say that police will only enforce parking restrictions in cycle lanes marked with a solid line - then asking for all cycles lanes in Edinburgh to be marked as such.<br /> As of 22 April this year, cycle lanes with a solid line don't need a traffic order (see section 3.48 of <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523916/DfT-circular-01-2016.pdf">http://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523916/DfT-circular-01-2016.pdf</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232095 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:16:09 +0000 Klaxon 232095@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If we're remarking on how mis-sold phases 1-3 was, let us also not forget the justification of 'extra wide bus lanes being great for cyclists' - a dubious statement in itself as it means there's width for a proper lane - while the consultation was in progress to cut hours to peak mon-fri only </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232093 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:05:43 +0000 chdot 232093@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Precedent set for Roseburn"</p> <p>Not really.</p> <p>The whole point of <em>segregated</em> infrastructure is to minimise parking on/in it.</p> <p>Hope laws/implementation/enforcement cope! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232091 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 12:02:03 +0000 dougal 232091@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable."</p> <p>Heaven only knows how "unavoidable" transmuted into "necessary to minimise the distance to Greggs". </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232081 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:22:17 +0000 crowriver 232081@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"the cycle lane nothing more than lip service from the council"</p> <p>Yep. That's what happens when "local traders"* are up in arms about something (in this case the something was possible segregated bike lanes). Precedent set for Roseburn...</p> <p>* - ie. shop owners who like to park outside their shop. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232074 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:57:24 +0000 jonty 232074@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Surely the double parking aspect is illegal though - or does there need to be a report from the blocked-in car in this instance? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232073 Tue, 27 Sep 2016 10:42:23 +0000 mkoerner 232073@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A year ago, I’ve contacted both, the council and the police about the ongoing parking in the cycle lane on Leith Walk.</p> <p>The council replied: </p> <p><em>From your enquiry, it appears that the problems that you are encountering are caused by poor or inconsiderate parking on Leith Walk.<br /> The Police should be able to take action against vehicles parked in the cycle lanes, where an actual obstruction is caused.<br /> With regard to our Parking Attendants, they should also be able to take action as parking restrictions are present adjacent to the cycle lane. However, when issuing parking tickets in these circumstances a five minute observation period needs to be given and we often find that the vehicles are removed before the parking ticket issuing process is complete.</em></p> <p>Following up with the police, this was their answer:</p> <p><em>I’ve been looking for some clarification regarding parking on cycle lanes: Cycle lanes. These are shown by road markings and signs. You MUST NOT drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a solid white line during its times of operation. Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable. You MUST NOT park in any cycle lane whilst waiting restrictions apply.<br /> I checked Leith Walk last night and the cycle lane has a broken line. As I understand it this is an advisory lane so, technically driving, stopping and parking is not illegal.</em></p> <p>So it indeed seems to be the case that the cycle lane nothing more than lip service from the council and instead is just an additional parking lane, and there is nothing which can be done about it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232051 Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:59:54 +0000 Klaxon 232051@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I wonder if the wardens themselves have accuracy / appeal rate as a KPI and thus would be incentivised to only ticket the most obvious open and shut cases.</p> <p>Pure speculation on my part. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-232048 Mon, 26 Sep 2016 19:44:14 +0000 Fountainbridge 232048@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My experience in watching the wardens round Edinburgh is that they will only ticket cars that are parked on double yellows or where they do not have a valid parking pass or ticket.</p> <p>They do not ticket cars parked in any of the pedestrian zones (Grassmarket, Castle Street, Royal Mile, Rose Street, beside art gallery etc).</p> <p>As a side note wardens are only contracted to visit bus lanes 4 times a day and other places twice a day. The info is in recent CEC transport meeting minutes. Saturdays they only have something like 4 wardens on covering the entire city, Sunday just 2. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-231953 Mon, 26 Sep 2016 10:40:29 +0000 dougal 231953@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>From crowriver's article "Mr Foster accused the council of revenue raising"</p> <p>Such an accusation! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16934#post-231923 Mon, 26 Sep 2016 03:17:02 +0000 gkgk 231923@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If the lane was paid for by the cycling budget, any parking fine revenue should go to the cycling budget too! </p>