http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Lanark road cycle lane removal - (was “today” - now long term thread!) en Tue, 19 May 2026 05:27:12 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=4#post-356902 Wed, 17 Nov 2021 13:06:02 +0000 chdot 356902@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1460941753834524679" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1460941753834524679</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=4#post-356658 Wed, 10 Nov 2021 18:52:23 +0000 gembo 356658@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>See, not obsessed, just using extended case study methodology </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=4#post-356636 Wed, 10 Nov 2021 11:04:51 +0000 chdot 356636@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="https://twitter.com/david_mccraw/status/1458367729421926401" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/david_mccraw/status/1458367729421926401</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=4#post-356619 Tue, 09 Nov 2021 20:25:34 +0000 chdot 356619@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19981&amp;page=6#post-356618" rel="nofollow">http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=19981&amp;page=6#post-356618</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=4#post-355885 Tue, 19 Oct 2021 18:40:45 +0000 gembo 355885@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Just back from Glasgow lot of Cop 26 expect delays signs. Susie W can blame that on cycle lanes too because there is a cycle lane that goes over the M8 so it is clearly the SFP Glasgow version to blame.</p> <p>Climate change that is just made up too in weberian Logic. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=4#post-355867 Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:51:02 +0000 Frenchy 355867@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The argument is that <em>If more money is spent on improving cycling infrastructure than on improving pedestrian infrastructure then the transport hierarchy isn't being followed</em>. Have I understood correctly?</p> <p>OK, fair enough. What's the public transport and roads budget, and where are public transport and private cars in the transport hierarchy? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=4#post-355866 Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:44:11 +0000 Stickman 355866@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@ejstubbs - Lesley Macinnes said almost exactly the same as you at TEC last week, and also highlighted the Tories setting up the artificial pedestrians vs bikes narrative. </p> <p>I expect the 2022 election leaflets from the Tories and LibDems are going to feature a lot of bike lanes, but not for the right reason. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=4#post-355864 Tue, 19 Oct 2021 10:27:29 +0000 ejstubbs 355864@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@chdot: <em>It is (apparently) about how all (most of) the S4P money went on cycling infrastructure.</p> <p>Whether this is true and/or whether pedestrians have been disadvantaged/unadvantaged is, of course, debatable…</em></p> <p>OK, here's my contribution to the debate:</p> <p>As @gembo says, it's a despicably scuzzy attempt to pit pedestrians against cyclists (and possibly tries to play to the fact that most drivists become pedestrians when they step out of their cars - assuming that they haven't managed to assert their unwritten right to park directly outside their destination address, of course). Surely the point is that there is already generally adequate pedestrian infrastructre along the sides of just about <u>every</u> road in Edinburgh (which is not to say that it couldn't be improved in some locations, as SfP tried to do), whereas until before SfP there was pretty much <strong>zero</strong> worthwhile cycling infrastructure on <u>any</u> Edinburgh roads*. Even the pre-SfP mandatory cycle lanes on Chesser Avenue (a first for Edinburgh AFAIK) were and are rubbish because (a) they are not protected in any way and (b) the parking spaces were put next to the kerb, forcing cyclists out towards the path of drivers most of whom who couldn't be bothered/were too lazy/thought it was taking a stand against woke-lefty-liberal-vegan-long-haired-weirdos-on-bicycles to encroach on the cycle lane (but who would no doubt barely have hesitated to shout at a someone on a bike to "use the &lt;rule 2&gt; cycle lane" if they felt that their journey was being delayed by a few precious seconds).</p> <p>In summary: the nasty party manages to live up to its soubriquet once again.</p> <p><em>* Obviously non-mandatory cycle lanes dont count as "worthwhile", being a complete waste of paint, but even advanced stop lines are of questionable value when they seem to be so regularly encroached upon by drivists with apparent impunity.</em> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355862 Tue, 19 Oct 2021 09:35:31 +0000 gembo 355862@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Nasty, trying to pit pedestrians against cyclists etcetera to benefit motorists being able to park where the6 like.</p> <p>How sad if this wins them any votes apart from the guy from the Bondi Beach Cafe. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355861 Tue, 19 Oct 2021 09:10:57 +0000 Dave 355861@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>What I don't understand about the legal challenge based on consultation is that they've decided to keep the cycle lanes despite the consultation showing majority support for removing them. So it's not like something dubious was done to fake support for cycle lanes in the consultation, they are clearly choosing to proceed taking the consultation results into account. Unless someone is going to set a precedent that consultations are legally binding, it's hard to understand where the legal basis for a challenge would come from. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355860 Tue, 19 Oct 2021 09:08:58 +0000 Dave 355860@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>They and the Tories have now pivoted to wanting all the non-cycling improvements without the cycle lanes, e.g. for the active travel budget to pay for better wider pavements, crossings, junction buildouts, and removal of cycle lanes. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355827 Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:51:39 +0000 chdot 355827@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“How he works out that cyclists are being "prioritised over pedestrians" will probably forever remain one of the world's insoluble mysteries.“</p> <p>Not as such. </p> <p>It is (apparently) about how all (most of) the S4P money went on cycling infrastructure. </p> <p>Whether this is true and/or whether pedestrians have been disadvantaged/unadvantaged is, of course, debatable…</p> <p>HOWEVER</p> <p>The idea that this awful situation will be improved/remedied by removing any/all infrastructure to the advantage of cars/owners is BIZARRE. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355823 Mon, 18 Oct 2021 09:19:53 +0000 ejstubbs 355823@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@chdot: <em>...a decision based on a flawed or misleading consultation would be challengeable.</em></p> <p>So they complain about not being consulted and then, when a consultation does take place, complain that it was "flawed or misleading" - because it didn't deliver the answer they wanted?</p> <p>Does Professor Reid have any actual data to support his assertions? (This is a bit of a theme in these discussions). He's a physicist: if anyone should know about drawing conclusions from data rather than just deciding that the world is how you would like it to be, he should.</p> <p>I'd love to know how reducing the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph has "seen speeds increase". Unless, of course, he means cycling speeds, in which case of course how very <em>dare</em> those two-wheeled proles enjoy improved journey times... And it must be down to their inherent tendency to hooligan behaviour, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with cyclists having a protected space to ride in where they don't have to dodge in and out of the motor vehicle traffic because of all the <u>parked cars</u>.</p> <p>How he works out that cyclists are being "prioritised over pedestrians" will probably forever remain one of the world's insoluble mysteries. The answer, if one exists, will likely be secreted in that same magical box of joylessness where the fact that motor vehicles are systematically prioritised over both seems to be hidden. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355816 Sun, 17 Oct 2021 23:06:07 +0000 gembo 355816@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So Prof Deek says costs £200k but has he included the legal costs of the council defending itself against his spurious legal challenges in the £200k? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355815 Sun, 17 Oct 2021 22:57:29 +0000 chdot 355815@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>Earlier, Professor Derryck Reid of campaign group South West Edinburgh in Motion told the committee it had received legal advice that a decision based on a flawed or misleading consultation would be challengeable.</p> <p>He said the Lanark Road scheme had cost of up to £200,000 but had not increased cycling by a statistically significant amount, had had a negative impact on people with disabilities, had seen speeds increase, prioritised pedestrians below cyclists and did not have majority support from the community.</p> <p>A representative from another campaign group SW20 backed the scheme and argued the council should be bolder.</p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-spaces-for-people-scheme-on-lanark-road-to-stay-in-place-despite-warning-of-potential-legal-challenge-3421089" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/edinburgh-spaces-for-people-scheme-on-lanark-road-to-stay-in-place-despite-warning-of-potential-legal-challenge-3421089</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355674 Thu, 14 Oct 2021 16:09:46 +0000 chdot 355674@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>Cllr @lmacinnessnp says Conservatives on #TransportCommittee creating cyclist v. pedestrian division in their motions, speeches &amp; press articles</p> <p>There is existing pedestrian network (needing improvement) but no full safe cycle network yet, and both are covered in the plan</p> <p>“</p> <p>Click for more info</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448660757147648001" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448660757147648001</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355672 Thu, 14 Oct 2021 15:06:42 +0000 chdot 355672@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>Conservative amendment to remove most schemes including #LanarkRoad ... amendment defeated by 7 votes to 3(?) </p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448614622127398912" rel="nofollow">https://mobile.twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448614622127398912</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355664 Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:50:27 +0000 gembo 355664@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>How mad is SWEM? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355663 Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:44:37 +0000 chdot 355663@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>2. Safety for women cyclists scared of WoL path? SWEM: onroad seg lanes unsuitable as they 'trap' cyclists behind defenders </p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://mobile.twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448597857540485122" rel="nofollow">https://mobile.twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448597857540485122</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355662 Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:42:03 +0000 gembo 355662@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Dave McCr amazing there </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-355661 Thu, 14 Oct 2021 11:37:33 +0000 chdot 355661@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Committee on now</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448597857540485122" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448597857540485122</a></p> <p>Great thread -</p> <p><a href="https://twitter.com/david_mccraw/status/1448304286786535427" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/david_mccraw/status/1448304286786535427</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-354521 Fri, 10 Sep 2021 18:39:00 +0000 crowriver 354521@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I wonder if there's some correlation between the ease of approval for making SfP measures permanent and the level of support locally for the Conservatives and Lib Dems? I'm sure the data is available somewhere... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-354512 Fri, 10 Sep 2021 15:39:45 +0000 Murun Buchstansangur 354512@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Meanwhile, elsewhere:</p> <p><a href="https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19572656.glasgow-spaces-people-measures-win-public-approval/" rel="nofollow">https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19572656.glasgow-spaces-people-measures-win-public-approval/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-354483 Thu, 09 Sep 2021 19:03:37 +0000 gembo 354483@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>He is a zealot but doesn’t have the necessary energy to take over the world. Irritant. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-354482 Thu, 09 Sep 2021 18:13:21 +0000 Yodhrin 354482@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>McLellan calling anyone else self-righteous is just *chef kiss* top shelf projection. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-354475 Thu, 09 Sep 2021 14:08:49 +0000 chdot 354475@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>It was agreed that communities would be consulted about the future of the most contested schemes, but it appears that residents affected by the most controversial of all, Lanark Road, have been given a multiple choice selection which does not include an option to remove.</p> <p>As far as the stretch opposite Dovecote Park is concerned, they are being given options, but one of them isn’t putting things back the way they were.</p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/edinburghs-spaces-for-people-controversy-set-to-continue-as-self-righteous-council-fails-to-listen-john-mclellan-3375348" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/edinburghs-spaces-for-people-controversy-set-to-continue-as-self-righteous-council-fails-to-listen-john-mclellan-3375348</a></p> <p>Whatever the (continuing) merits of all this, it’s nice to see McLellan continuing to stand up for the rights of the inconvenienced, privileged, minority. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-354418 Wed, 08 Sep 2021 13:02:16 +0000 chdot 354418@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Presumably</em>, although that letter is sent, the organisers would welcome more/wider range of ‘supporters’? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-354417 Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:05:06 +0000 gembo 354417@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@frenchy, it is a very good list </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-354416 Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:02:12 +0000 Frenchy 354416@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Also very pleased to see one of my cousins in the list. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=20620&page=3#post-354415 Wed, 08 Sep 2021 12:00:02 +0000 gembo 354415@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@srd yes I thought it nice that the doctors widened this to non-health professionals or if you like folk that consider wellbieing, fitness, etc types of health of the community. </p>