http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Revising Cycling By Design en Tue, 19 May 2026 20:27:46 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-289977 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 17:36:53 +0000 sallyhinch 289977@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I get Cycling by Design quoted at me a lot as a reason not to do things properly by the coonsil. Giving it some real teeth would have been helpful. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-289963 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 14:40:26 +0000 Frenchy 289963@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I see.</p> <p>Ugh. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-289961 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 14:35:32 +0000 Morningsider 289961@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Frenchy - the quote on page 18 is from an "Analysis of emerging top level themes" and page 41 from a "summary of oral evidence" received by the task force. There is no mention of revising Cycling by Design or the TRO process in the conclusions, recommendations and next steps section(pages 24-26). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-289950 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 14:02:26 +0000 Frenchy 289950@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Page 18 of the report:</p> <p>"Update the Trunk Road Cycling Initiative and Cycling by Design documents."</p> <p>"In consultation with relevant stakeholders, review and revise the TRO process."</p> <p>and page 41:</p> <p>"Some design and technical documents in circulation need to be updated; otherwise there is inconsistency in delivery, e.g. Living Streets’ document ‘The Pedestrian Pound’ and Road Humps Act 1984 as well as Cycling by Design and the Trunk Road Cycling Initiative" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-289949 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:53:20 +0000 Morningsider 289949@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Frenchy - doubtful, they didn't recommend a review of Cycling by Design in their final report. Oddly, they didn't even recommend a review of the TRO process - despite that being identified as one of the issues they should look at.</p> <p>Final task force report: <a href="https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/42284/active-travel-task-force-june-2018.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/42284/active-travel-task-force-june-2018.pdf</a></p> <p>Issues for consideration: <a href="https://www.transport.gov.scot/our-approach/active-travel/active-travel-task-force/#53429" rel="nofollow">https://www.transport.gov.scot/our-approach/active-travel/active-travel-task-force/#53429</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-289944 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:26:02 +0000 acsimpson 289944@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Cycling by Design is a bit like the highway code. Neither is perfect but both might be adequate, however as they are both routinely ignored will an update improve matters much? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-289942 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 13:22:43 +0000 Frenchy 289942@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The Task Force will be meeting with Transport Scotland "soon" to discuss next steps. I <em>assume</em> (but probably should know better by now), that one of those steps will be "Crack on with updating Cycling by Design".</p> <p>We'll see... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-289939 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:47:58 +0000 Morningsider 289939@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Frenchy - everything wrong with the UK approach to active travel in a nut shell. "Why do something when we can produce another report". </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-289936 Thu, 30 Aug 2018 12:33:23 +0000 Frenchy 289936@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"the update of Cycling by Design was put on hold following the formation of an Active Travel Task Force."</p> <p>In case anyone was wondering. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-279360 Tue, 03 Apr 2018 17:25:10 +0000 McD 279360@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>nedd1e_h Like!<br /> Is this the right thread for these design <a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/550/edinburgh_street_design_guidance">Factsheets</a> that Edinburgh has produced - not come across them before, although Phil Noble has mentioned a few times that that they were working on. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-237517 Sun, 27 Nov 2016 12:11:06 +0000 neddie 237517@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'd like to see a clause similar to:</p> <p>"A cycle lane must not 'give up' when things get difficult (to design) e.g. at junctions, narrow parts of the road, etc." </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-237509 Sat, 26 Nov 2016 23:13:54 +0000 sallyhinch 237509@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Some cracking examples here <a href="http://dashedlines.uk/cycling/conflict-by-design/" rel="nofollow">http://dashedlines.uk/cycling/conflict-by-design/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-237508 Sat, 26 Nov 2016 23:02:14 +0000 sallyhinch 237508@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's really short and to the point! Plus a chance to provide your contact details for future involvement </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-237507 Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:52:11 +0000 Frenchy 237507@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Thanks for posting the link - do you know roughly how long the survey takes? Don't want to lose everything 3/4 of the way through because I have to do something else. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-237506 Sat, 26 Nov 2016 22:46:23 +0000 sallyhinch 237506@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>By the way there is a survey here as part of the scoping study for the Cycling by Design review </p> <p><a href="https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/CbD2017" rel="nofollow">https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/CbD2017</a></p> <p>- it's open to everyone to complete, you don't have to be representing any organisation </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-237329 Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:53:14 +0000 chdot 237329@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Would it be better here for cyclists to come off the road and cross the WAR with pedestrians"</p> <p>Only if there were lights.</p> <p><img src="https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5816/31038852022_2b3f523130.jpg"> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-237328 Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:50:03 +0000 Frenchy 237328@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Close it!</em></p> <p>Of course, but I also wonder what the best options are more generally - there are plenty other junctions like that, and they <strike>can't</strike>won't all be closed. <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.9308629,-3.1903008,3a,75y,73.33h,81.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOCz7SlOh90w52zfA5KS1Gg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en">Another example</a>, which isn't as bad as Dundee St.</p> <p>Creating more of an angle is obviously good, but is there anything which can be done with cycling-specific infrastructure, which should be going in Cycling by Design? Would it be better here for cyclists to come off the road and cross the WAR with pedestrians, for example? If closing the road ain't happening, is it better to have a bike lane or no bike lane? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175&page=2#post-237320 Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:23:33 +0000 jonty 237320@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Closing it is obviously the best solution, but in lieu of that, there's probably enough space to narrow the road and create a bit more of a right-angled junction. You could also then consider signalising it, with separate lights for the bike lane &amp; pedestrian lights too (sorely needed.)</p> <p>Another alternative would be closing the ramp but making the exit road two-way with a signalised junction to get the traffic across to the right side of the WAR. I wonder how structurally sound the ramp is by now anyway? Pretty sure that road was done very much on the cheap. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237305 Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:47:27 +0000 chdot 237305@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Does anyone have any suggestions for improving junctions like this? </p> <p>Close it!</p> <p>(And have WAR bikes + buses only)</p> <p>Notorious junction, a real disincentive for new/nervous/non cyclists.</p> <p><em>Actually</em> it was even worst when it was first created! Slight change in kerb line and size of opening (can't remember detail). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237302 Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:42:16 +0000 chdot 237302@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I wonder if it'd be better to have the bike lane carry on over the bridge"</p> <p>Yes.</p> <p>I'm quite sure CEC would say 'no room' - in spite of the fact it's done elsewhere and it's perfectly legal to drive in dotted line cycle lanes.</p> <p>Another problem is that lines here would get worn away quite quickly and CEC seems incapable of repainting lines 'when required' rather than as part of some (far too long) cycle. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237300 Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:36:53 +0000 Frenchy 237300@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Does anyone have any suggestions for improving junctions like <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.9397304,-3.2225382,3a,75y,50.23h,89.19t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s6uZusyfCmrfyHkronR_clw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en">this</a>? How would the Dutch deal with this?</p> <p>Although it's actually a left turn for vehicles going on to the W Approach Road, no turning of the steering wheel is necessary, which makes it tempting for drivers to just plough forwards, without properly checking the cycle lane, or without giving way to cyclists. I always take primary here, but that doesn't always feel safe either. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237298 Thu, 24 Nov 2016 10:30:29 +0000 Frenchy 237298@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Sally - Yes to segregated bike lanes being parking-protected! The other advantage is that, if someone <em>does</em> get doored, they don't then also get run over by the following cars.</p> <p><em>My opinion is that this lane increases risk rather than decreasing it and so would be better off not being there. An experienced cyclist should take the lane.</em></p> <p>I wonder if it'd be better to have the bike lane carry on over the bridge. Drivers therefore see the bike lane and think "Oh, cyclists are going to be cycling here". The amount of space a cyclist requires on the bridge is then explicitly shown. It does mean that drivers <em>have</em> to drive in the bike lane, though. Similar infrastructure can be seen on the road past the racecourse in Musselburgh - <a href="https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.9457635,-3.0372261,3a,75y,76.64h,78.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sya1k5YXIe8awbh42294-Yg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en">here</a>.</p> <p>I'd be really interested in people's thoughts on this, because it surprises me that such infrastructure isn't more prevalent, and I wonder if there are good reasons for this that I just haven't thought of. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237288 Thu, 24 Nov 2016 03:19:02 +0000 uphill 237288@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'd like to nominate the cycle lane leading to the Dean Bridge at the town end as highly dangerous. <a href="https://www.dropbox.com/s/vyerl6qv9g0gg2v/Photo%2023-11-2016%2C%2015%2011%2025.jpg?dl=0">Pic today</a>. The carriageway reduces suddenly from around 6 metres before the bridge to around 3.2 metres on the bridge. The approach is a downhill bend. Both cyclists and drivers approaching the bend see order - a nice cycle lane to the left, plenty black tarmac to the right, all go, then pow, all forced together at the foot of the hill. My opinion is that this lane increases risk rather than decreasing it and so would be better off not being there. An experienced cyclist should take the lane. </p> <p>As a general rule, the guidance needs to stress that special risk exists wherever width reduces including effective width reductions due to alignment.</p> <p>I think I'd be very happy with parking protected cycle lane, especially to avoid the Leith Walk problem of constant double parking :) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237284 Wed, 23 Nov 2016 22:49:22 +0000 sallyhinch 237284@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Actually got around to reading the London Cycling Design Standards - at least the first chapter. The design principles are excellent. If Scotland comes up with something similar I'd be delighted </p> <p><a href="http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lcds-chapter1-designrequirements.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lcds-chapter1-designrequirements.pdf</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237277 Wed, 23 Nov 2016 21:14:16 +0000 neddie 237277@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'd be happy cycling with my children along a parking-protected bike lane, but not with the bike lane on the other side. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237272 Wed, 23 Nov 2016 20:43:11 +0000 sallyhinch 237272@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Frenchay (and others) - what do people think about parking-protected bike lanes (i.e. where the bike lane is put between the pavement and the parking)? I know some UK cyclists are dubious about them because but they are fairly standard practice in the Netherlands and Denmark (usually with a raised kerb) and beginning to be adopted in the US (where bike lanes are much much wider than UK ones - a bit like most things in the States, I guess). They would still put bikes in the passenger doorzone but this wouldn't be such an issue if wide enough, especially if there was a forgiving kerb (i.e. sloping so that you can get onto the pavement to escape if a passenger door opens suddenly). Also, cars always have drivers but only sometimes have passengers so it's statistically less likely to happen. </p> <p>There's some issue with enforcement, especially if there's no kerb, as drivers are used to parking up against the kerb and may need a bit of encouragement to leave the lane clear. But they are obviously much less affected by double parking and there are fewer conflict points as bikes don't have to worry about drivers who are more focused on that elusive parking space than the bike ... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237270 Wed, 23 Nov 2016 20:36:21 +0000 sallyhinch 237270@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>A bit more about Saturday's workshop <a href="http://walkcyclevote.scot/cycling-by-design-help-to-influence-the-future/" rel="nofollow">http://walkcyclevote.scot/cycling-by-design-help-to-influence-the-future/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237104 Tue, 22 Nov 2016 11:27:02 +0000 Frenchy 237104@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>There was a recent case of plans for soft segregation being abandoned on a poorly lit stretch of road (somewhere near Blackford hill I think)</em></p> <p>Pretty sure this was Braid Hills Drive - not sure of the details. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237099 Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:26:08 +0000 wingpig 237099@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><blockquote><em>"Sometimes when you have a segregated cycle lane you want to give a green light to bikes that are in the segregated lane but not to bikes that are on the road. For example..."</em></blockquote></p> <p>As seen on the St Leonard's Street segregated lane, at the pedestrian crossing just before Hermit's Croft. It's presumably to stop bikes going through at the expense of crossing pedestrians, but it's a bit weird in practise... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17175#post-237096 Tue, 22 Nov 2016 10:07:39 +0000 UtrechtCyclist 237096@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Hi Sally, thanks for this thread. Three things I'd like to see in the new cycling by design.</p> <p>1) Sometimes when you have a segregated cycle lane you want to give a green light to bikes that are in the segregated lane but not to bikes that are on the road. For example, if you have a segregated lane going across the top of a T-junction, it's effectively bypassing the junction and can have green a lot of the time but you still want the cyclists in the segregated lane to stop for the pedestrian green man (and cyclists on the road to obey the normal road signals). What is the best way of doing this?</p> <p>This is particularly difficult if you don't have space to stick the traffic lights between the segregated lane and the road (which would require a lot of space, apparently traffic lights need to be set back a long way from the road because otherwise cars will hit them). </p> <p>This was a real issue when designing the Pilrig Street/Leith Walk junction, and they didn't manage to solve it. If they had managed to work out a solution this would have meant that cyclists only had to wait at red when the pedestrians are crossing, this would have been a big improvement.</p> <p>2) I think I read somewhere that cyclist headstart lights are now legal (where cyclists get a five second headstart at the traffic lights). Are these in cycling by design yet? </p> <p>3) There was a recent case of plans for soft segregation being abandoned on a poorly lit stretch of road (somewhere near Blackford hill I think) because of fears for the safety of motorcyclists. Clear guidance on how best to install soft segregation in poorly lit areas would be great. </p>