http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "The Case Against Bike Lanes" en Sun, 17 May 2026 17:36:49 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-2849 Mon, 15 Feb 2010 21:56:06 +0000 chdot 2849@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Hotel Missoni, Geo IV Bridge – thank you everyone who complained to your councillors about the original road layout – this wouldn’t be happening without your efforts adding to ours."</p> <p><a href="http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2010/02/public-meeting-city-council-action-plan/" rel="nofollow">http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2010/02/public-meeting-city-council-action-plan/</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1809 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:07:59 +0000 chdot 1809@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That cyclist fined case was overturned on appeal. </p> <p><a href="http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue20/issue20page23.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.citycycling.co.uk/issue20/issue20page23.html</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1786 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 10:00:05 +0000 Dave 1786@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Kirst - would it be inappropriate for normal people to attend the Planning &amp; Designing for Cyclists day? I might be quite interested. </p> <p>On the other hand, it's not a policy design session, so I might end up having to sit through a lot of nonsense without actually having an opportunity to feed in on it (not that that wouldn't be interesting, if a bit depressing). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1785 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:49:58 +0000 chdot 1785@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I have now started a thread about <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=235">islands squeezing cyclists</a> and another about <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=236">Spokes membership</a>. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1782 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:27:08 +0000 SRD 1782@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Thanks for clarifications. My form is in an envelope. whether it gets a stamp and into the post is less predictable... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1780 Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:05:59 +0000 DdF 1780@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>To answer a few of the points about spokes [and I'd like to comment more often, but usually spend my time writing to MSPs, councillors, the Herald, etc!]...</p> <p>a. Probably the majority of Spokes members don't tick any of the boxes - most are members to receive information. We are very happy to have that type of member, but we very much hope they will act on info we send if they feel strongly about it (and we know from feedback that many do). </p> <p>b. Nonetheless, many do tick the boxes (we have 1200 members in 800 households) - but for the majority of the boxes people very rarely get asked to do anything! (that isn't true of all the boxes though)</p> <p>c. It is fantastic for individual members of the public to write (i.e. email) to councillors, MSPs, etc, as individuals. We do everything we can to encourage this as you will see if you check out our Bulletins, website etc. We also not infrequently email subsets of our membership to inform them of specific opportunities/needs to comment about something in their home area, their employment type, or whatever is relevant. Letters from lots of individuals, all in their own language, can make a big difference, and certainly add to the weight of anything spokes may do. This is far more important than the fact that there may be some inconsistency between individual letters.</p> <p>d. We only have email addresses for around 85%-90% of our members.</p> <p>e. East Lothian has quite a variety of ways of handling the problem of central islands squeezing cyclists, some of which are bad, some are quite impressive. The East Lothian Cycle Forum, where the council meets cyclist reps, has been pressing for uniformity. For a great example, see the picture on page 16 of SESTRAN guidance "Cycling Infrastructure" which is at <a href="http://www.sestran.gov.uk/strategy_publications/index.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.sestran.gov.uk/strategy_publications/index.php</a>. Clearly wide vehicles will have to enter the advisory cycle lane, but the idea is it makes them more aware of the cyclist's need for space. Incidentally this guidance document was drawn up by SESTRAN (not Sustrans) for the benefit of all the councils in South East Scotland. Finally, if anyone thinks East Lothian is bad on central islands, you should try West Lothian - there's no concrete evidence that they even recognise there's a problem. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1772 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:56:41 +0000 nearefare 1772@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>This I like LOL</p> <p>CYCLING FURIOUSLY?<br /> It's an in-joke in cycling that cyclists can't be booked for speeding but can be fined for "pedalling furiously." Many cyclists list being cited for "cycling furiously" as one of their life ambitions. Professor David S. Wall, Head of the University of Leeds Law School, a professor of criminal justice lists his hobby as: Cycling (Furiously) <a href="http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/staff/lawdw/law6dw.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/staff/lawdw/law6dw.htm</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1771 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:54:57 +0000 nearefare 1771@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Agreed , however<br /> <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-400273/Fined-using-cycle-lane.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-400273/Fined-using-cycle-lane.html</a></p> <p>and then there's general confusion</p> <p><a href="http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.bikeforall.net/content/cycling_and_the_law.php</a></p> <p>Of course , daily mail sensationalism and anyone here I suspect knows to hold their place on the road, but it's that sort of guff that puts folk off getting on a bike and gives cyclist bad PR. Anyone who's ever had a car door open out into traffic knows to hold out in the middle of the road :) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1769 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:46:03 +0000 Kim 1769@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The best thing is to ignore the "cycle lanes" and just move into a primary position as you approach the lane restriction. There are a lot of cycle lanes out there which are down right dangerous. Remember there is no legal requirement to use them, your safety is more important that the convenience of others. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1764 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:55:12 +0000 Min 1764@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I've kind of gone off Spokes a bit since they support the stupid tr**s. </p> <p>Scariest bike lanes I have seen are out near Musselburgh. There is a sign saying "do not overtake cyclists at traffic islands" or somesuch, so far so good. Then when you get to the traffic islands there is a tiny six inch strip of red paint at the side, encouraging cyclists to get as far into the gutter as possible so that motorists can pass them anyway. I ensured I was in the middle of the road at these points as there is really no space at all. Terrifying. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1761 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:36:33 +0000 Kim 1761@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Here is your opportunity to send back a membership forms with no boxes ticked in the last column! ;-) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1746 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:42:56 +0000 chdot 1746@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"do any of the membership forms ever come back with no boxes ticked in the last column?"</p> <p>I would assume so. </p> <p>I'll try to get an answer. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1743 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:38:59 +0000 SRD 1743@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Oh come on - do any of the membership forms ever come back with no boxes ticked in the last column? (or am I just very susceptible to implicit pressure?....) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1742 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:36:48 +0000 chdot 1742@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"but it is a bit off-putting to make it appear a 'requirement' of membership"</p> <p>Mmm I'm sure that's not an intended impression. </p> <p>Spokes has never had a fixed membership fee so that people aren't put off. Volunteering (or not) is voluntary... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1740 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:32:58 +0000 SRD 1740@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I suspect that people in my demographic -- working 1-2 jobs, kids, etc -- might also be put off by assumption that you will volunteer! I can't think of any organization that I've joined where I've not ended up volunteering, but it is a bit off-putting to make it appear a 'requirement' of membership. Anyway, I will be sending in my form, and doubtless volunteering to do something! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1739 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:26:48 +0000 chdot 1739@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Spokes always has 'about 1,000 members'. </p> <p>As it has no staff it's always been reluctant to have mass membership drives (notably among students, who are more likely to keep changing addresses - Spokes members get their newsletters hand delivered - by bike). </p> <p>One consequence seems to be an ever rising age profile. (Well at least if Spokes public meetings are anything to go by...) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1738 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:24:09 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 1738@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>And if I may say so, put a lot more succinctly than I managed! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1735 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:19:22 +0000 SRD 1735@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Kim: Ditto! (well, I've only had the form for a year or so, since we got back on bikes). I was told the other day that I could send in my form electronically, which would resolve the 'putting in envelope and posting' holdup. </p> <p>One solution to the perception of spokes, would be for us to do a mini membership drive, increase its numbers and thus make it look less fringey. </p> <p>But anth's point very true - both organised and unorganised pressure important. I doubt council would take independent cyclist complaints seriously if there were not the spokes etc lobby, but we need to buttress the organizational lobby with individual ones too. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1733 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:12:03 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 1733@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Hell no nearefare, I was happy to see it used! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1727 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 14:01:55 +0000 Kim 1727@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Is anyone here a member of SPOKES? </p> <p>I have a membership application form somewhere which I have been meaning to fill in for about.... ummm... the last ten years... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1725 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:31:05 +0000 nearefare 1725@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>note, didn't credit anth with the youtube vids ,as I presumed most folk here read city cycling and also it would be obvious from youtube that it was not me LOL.<br /> Just clarifying before anyone things Iwas being naughty </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1723 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:51:32 +0000 chdot 1723@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The relationships between Spokes and the Council have been varied over the years. </p> <p>From <a href="http://cyclingedinburgh.info/2007/03/09/latest-spokes-bulletin-available/">"over my dead body" - councillor's comment</a> on the prospect of cycling being allowed on Middle Meadow Walk to recent 'dealing with the tram' saga (ongoing). </p> <p>Spokes' main strengths are LONGstanding commitment by a small number of individuals. </p> <p>The most public face is the 'roughly three times a year' newsletter. Behind the scenes a lot of work goes into things like looking at, and commenting on, planning applications. </p> <p>The council almost relies on this. Once upon a time the person who does most of this went on holiday and didn't comment on a particular application. An official was heard to say 'we thought Spokes must be in favour because we didn't receive an objection'. </p> <p>It's hard to imagine what cycling in Edinburgh would be like now without <a href="http://cyclingedinburgh.info/2007/01/16/1977-was-a-good-year-for-cycling/">32 years of Spokes</a>, but it's dispiriting how much (in spite of heath, obesity, congestion, environment, Climate Change, etc, etc.) effort it requires to get anything 'sensible' done - and how piecemeal it all is. </p> <p>(I'm not actually a member either - just have taken many of the photos over the years, and produced the <a href="http://www.spokes.org.uk/oldsite/index.htm">original web site</a>.) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1722 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:29:37 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 1722@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I haven't got a problem with SPOKES in itself, and it has clearly achieved a lot in Edinburgh. I'm not a member because, well, I'm just not. No real major reason. I don't agree with some of what they say or do, but I do agree with other bits of what they say or do.</p> <p>But yes, I think those in positions of public administration get a bit jaded with the same organisations - I know from speaking to someone pretty high up in Transport in Edinburgh Council a few years back that there was almost a 'rolling of the eyes' when comments or suggestions came in from SPOKES. While it's not true, I think it's easy for long-running well-meaning active organisations to get branded (in this case) as a bit loony lefty beardy sandaly environmentalists. Obviously they ARE taken seriously in the end, given what SPOKES HAS achieved.</p> <p>And sometimes I do just generally think it helps if comments aren't seen as a 'movement' but rather the public, the voters, acting on their own initiative. It's not a 'cause' when that happens. In a weird way I personally (though anyone may disagree!) think this makes it seem more serious. I haven't been galvanised into action because someone else has told me it's something I should raise with an almost pro-forma letter... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1721 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:22:59 +0000 SRD 1721@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I’m not a member of SPOKES." for any particular reason? (sensing that I may be treading on some well-worn area here) or did you say this so as to re-assure them that they weren't just getting the same line that they'd already taken on board? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1720 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 12:13:24 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 1720@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Funnily enough I was asked by someone at the Council (on the back of a post here) for details of where the ice was on the Innocent Path, and after my initial email I thought I needed to back up a comment about encouraging cycling being about much much more than painting lines on the road:</p> <p>"There seems to be a belief that putting in more and more cycle lanes and ASLs is the way to encourage cycling. The problem really comes because much much more is needed as a sort of ‘aftercare’. Those lanes need to be maintained (the number you have to swerve out of is incredible – I’ve got a YouTube collection counting down the ‘top’ ten lanes of Edinburgh); and they also need to be enforced (along with ASLs, but hey, the cycle lane on Ferry Road is an OFFICIAL car park during sporting events at nearby playing fields). Without this the lanes and ASLs look like just what they are, a waste of paint.</p> <p>Ditto for the off road cycle paths. If they’re not cleared and maintained then they lose that sense of being ‘convenient’. The Innocent Path is a detour for me, it adds a mile onto my usual commute, but it’s a smooth route, with only one road crossing. I’ve got no problem riding in traffic, but those couple of miles of feeling detached from the city are bliss. One other cyclist was all I saw on the Path yesterday, there are normally at least a dozen (many more if I see the two parents taking kids to school).</p> <p>Then roads get amended, and the ‘Model Cycling City’ line gets blown completely out of the water. Princes Street is obviously the prime example. The ‘lane’ put in outside the Missoni Hotel is, I understand, still there – my photo of that particular facility made the Guardian’s ‘Readers’ Photos of the Year’ lineup, it was THAT ridiculous. Even small things. At night I ride home via Jock’s Lodge. The new lights there are great for pedestrians. But as a cyclist heading west to east the cycle lane narrows right down, just as you need it most, entering the ASL. It’s utterly insane, fitting in the cycle lane was clearly not in the original plan, but they had to squeeze it in because it was there before.</p> <p>I may be preaching to the converted. There is life outside and after lanes. And then we can move onto making cycling seem normal again…</p> <p>Apologies for the long rant. I’d be more than happy to chat in person if you fancy a coffee any day (West End lunchtime or anywhere evening) – trust me, I could go on a lot longer than this (which may put you off the idea of coffee).</p> <p>For info, I’m a daily cycle commuter, run a cycling magazine (www.citycycling.co.uk) in my spare time, a lawyer outside of my spare time, I’m also a driver who LOVES driving, 33 years old in body (17 years old in mind) and I’m not a member of SPOKES."</p> <p>Let's see where that gets me... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1719 Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:56:39 +0000 Kim 1719@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>In which cast you might be interested in the <a href="http://cyclingscotland.msol.org.uk/local/training/">forthcoming training courses from Cycling Scotland</a>, in particular the Making Cycling Mainstream Planning &amp; Designing for Cyclists course... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1713 Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:21:45 +0000 nearefare 1713@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>closer to home and just as daft,<br /> find all 10 amd enjoy</p> <p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z046F66kI5k&amp;feature=related" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z046F66kI5k&amp;feature=related</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1669 Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:13:23 +0000 gembo 1669@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The picture has the bike lane as a middle lane in LA. Just one pic but that would mean no cars parked in the lane as they would be to the cyclist's right in USA and next to the kerb. The objection is that the driver still opens their door on you. THe respondent from NYC then heaps opprobrium from motorists on himself/herself by cycling in the middle of the lane as if he/she were a car. I couldn't stand that heat every day. But the argument seems to be the same as touched on in the dreaded helmet debate in that cycle lanes let bad drivers off the hook again. Apparently in Sweden everyone drives at 50mph and if you get too close to the car in front they pull over, assuming you are in a hurry and let you passed. How civilised. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=224#post-1664 Sun, 17 Jan 2010 10:33:57 +0000 chdot 1664@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://urbanvelo.org/the-case-against-bike-lanes/" rel="nofollow">http://urbanvelo.org/the-case-against-bike-lanes/</a> </p>