http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "Save our Meadows arch from the jaws of extinction" en Mon, 18 May 2026 12:25:10 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-373673 Thu, 29 Feb 2024 17:59:06 +0000 chdot 373673@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>“</p> <p>Council officials said they are now “beyond reasonable repair” and should be “disposed of”.</p> <p>They said there was also “little appetite” for a replica to be made and sited in the Meadows where the original arch stood for over 120 years.</p> <p>However Mr Cruickshank, a local historian with a special interest in the bones for over 20 years, said there was a “very keen appetite that they should either be preserved and re-erected on site, or if that’s impractical that a replica should be made and erected where they had been”.</p> <p>“</p> <p><a href="https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-historian-fighting-stop-jawbone-28729889" rel="nofollow">https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/edinburgh-historian-fighting-stop-jawbone-28729889</a></p> <p>#ThisIsEdinburgh </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-38145 Mon, 15 Aug 2011 12:00:13 +0000 chdot 38145@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Heritage-body-buoys-up-whalebone.6818945.jp" rel="nofollow">http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Heritage-body-buoys-up-whalebone.6818945.jp</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-30484 Wed, 04 May 2011 08:28:26 +0000 chdot 30484@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<br /> A bid to raise funds to conserve and restore the Jawbone Arch in the Meadows will be officially launched on Friday. Southside and Newington councillor Cameron Rose has set up a <a href="http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_197353843641633">Facebook group</a> to highlight the appeal.<br /> "</p> <p><a href="http://guardian.co.uk/edinburgh/2011/may/04/sighthill-fire-jawbone-walk-appeal" rel="nofollow">http://guardian.co.uk/edinburgh/2011/may/04/sighthill-fire-jawbone-walk-appeal</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-26054 Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:19:29 +0000 chdot 26054@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"This has been fixed at some point over the week."</p> <p>I wondered if this was done for yesterday's running race(?) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-26053 Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:17:08 +0000 kaputnik 26053@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>So I've photoed and fixmystreet-ed it. </em></p> <p>This has been fixed at some point over the week.</p> <p>3 months to fill in a hole that they dug themselves on the NCN? Good going... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24874 Thu, 24 Feb 2011 00:36:56 +0000 kaputnik 24874@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>We fear change. </em></p> <p>That's why some of us ride singlespeeds </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24867 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 23:09:14 +0000 PS 24867@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>We fear change. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24864 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 22:48:22 +0000 Dave 24864@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Here is a useful thought experiment. Suppose in 2003 the Council had removed the signs on the Jawbone to comply with the Act, in which case the evidence suggests it would basically be exactly the way it is today (perhaps with fewer grumpy pedestrians!).</p> <p>Anyway, imagine this were so. Now, how would you feel about a campaign by Friends of the Meadows, or whoever, to start shutting down bike access to such paths? All the same arguments could be made, as indeed they could be made for shutting down North Meadow Walk today, since cyclists can use Melville Drive instead (and it's actually quicker). Many I think would resist the shutting down, just as they want to resist opening up.</p> <p>I include myself in this, for sure. I would fight any plan to pedestrianise the canal, even though if it was currently pedestrianised, I could see myself fighting any plan to allow bikes... how crazy is that?</p> <p>There's probably a scientific term for such inertia, but we could call it "This is Edinburgh"-ism..? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24843 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:48:18 +0000 kaputnik 24843@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It also struck me that this;</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaputniq/5470965521/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5132/5470965521_d8b40be8c4.jpg"></a></p> <p>has been like that since before the worst of the snow started at the beginning of Decembruary. So I've photoed and fixmystreet-ed it. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24842 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:39:18 +0000 kaputnik 24842@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Morningsider - exactly! The law deems it legal for a lorry to drive down the footpath but - perhaps - not so for a pedal cycle... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24840 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:32:39 +0000 Morningsider 24840@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Kaputnik - Section 64(1)(a) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 allows appliances and vehicles "for the construction, maintenance, improvement or cleansing of a road" to use footways, footpaths and cycle tracks. I assume "cleansing" covers bin lorries emptying litter bins. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24838 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 17:22:26 +0000 kaputnik 24838@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Want to use both the cycle lane and the no-cycle lane?</p> <p>Need a bin wagon;</p> <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/kaputniq/5471498552/"><img src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5217/5471498552_bfb3608cfc.jpg"></a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24833 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:54:45 +0000 cb 24833@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I love getting the chance to check out on the map any new regular journey I have to make to optimise the route for minimal length. It can be surprising how often you find you have been going the 'long way round' because you never looked at the map.</p> <p>As it happens Jawbone is on my optimally short route into town (if I'm aiming to come in at George IV Bridge) - but that only counts on foot, mainly due to a footpath used earlier in the route (which I've never seen a bike on).<br /> If I'm on the bike then I'd use MMW, approaching via Marchmont Crescent. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24826 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:23:54 +0000 Dave 24826@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Even if it saved five minutes, that wouldn't necessarily be a reason to take it - or if it cost five minutes either.</p> <p>You don't have to spend long looking at cyclists in the UK to come to the conclusion that all-out maximum speed is not very high up the list of priorities. If I had to try and pin down the airy-fairy I'd say it is the convenience and directness (not transit time) that appeals. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24821 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:04:41 +0000 wingpig 24821@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>That's if you do actually save thirty seconds - <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2342#post-24800">most direct route ≠ quickest route</a>? By the time the lights at the Meadow Place-proximal crossing have changed you could be at Argyle Place waiting for that crossing instead, and going up MMW safely is likely to be significantly quicker than going up Jawbone safely. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24820 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:01:27 +0000 mgj 24820@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Pedestrian use of the Roseburn paths is nothing like as heavy as that in JW, and there are no convenient alternative cycle routes. Likewise, there is a requirement to dismount at the start of JW as the entrance is a pavement prohibited to cyclists; it is in any case narrow and bounded by fences on both sides. Pedestrians on Roseburn can see the blue shared use signs (where they still exist) and expect cyclists; legal or not, the existence of a large 'no cycling' sign will make most people assume that they can walk as they please, dander around etc without having to worry that they are stepping into the path of a cyclist. I guess the main question comes down to 'since the no cycling signs are there, is it worth pissing off a number of pedestrians in order to save 30 seconds or so on a commute'? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24817 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:43:38 +0000 Dave 24817@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Sorry, I was taking it as read that by width we refer to a safe width as opposed to a physical limit - I should have been clearer.</p> <p>I absolutely agree 100% that the best scenario for pedestrians is the eradication of bikes.</p> <p>There can be no question that any mixing of modes, in any context whatever, is to the disadvantage of the previous incumbents. This is why drivers want cyclists confined to lanes and facilities, why cyclists want traffic-free routes (which aren't strung across by pedestrians and their dog leads), and why pedestrians don't want cyclists around them. </p> <p>So, what we then must accept is the principle that it's OK to take exclusivity away from pedestrians, because this is what every single cycle facility does. Imagine how nice the Innocent or the Roseburn would be without bikes? </p> <p>Visually impaired people could get all the way from the Commonwealth Pool to Joppa, and from Leith to Murrayfield or Davidson's Mains without anything to worry about except others on foot.</p> <p>It's not even clear to me that the Roseburn in particular is any safer than the Jawbone Walk. The Jawbone is straight and has great sightlines. The Roseburn in several parts is narrower than the Jawbon with vision obscured - I've come close to impaling pedestrians / fellow cyclists several times, and I take the particular care (I should do - I'm one of the few people who not only complains of cyclists on shared use paths, but has actually been nearly killed by one - and has a Youtube video of the crash to prove it).</p> <p>Speeds on the Roseburn are also far higher. I can ride *up* the hill at 20mph which I can't imagine anyone doing at any point on the Jawbone. I daresay I could manage considerably faster coming the other way - 30 plus.</p> <p>Where's the campaign to ban bikes on the Roseburn, though? Even I think it would be a great step forward for pedestrians (although I obviously don't support it).</p> <p>It seems to hinge on some idea that MMW and Melville Drive are an equally good alternative to the Jawbone, so we can win "something for nothing" by hounding bikes off that stretch. But this point of view is false, as is simply evidenced by the continuous and high (all things considered) use of the Jawbone in preference, even though it has its downsides (like riding past the pavilion for the tricky join with the bottom of Marchmont Rd). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24816 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:18:48 +0000 Morningsider 24816@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Dave - I never argued that "Jawbone Walk is too narrow for a bike and pedestrian to use at the same time" I said that "...it is too narrow to carry both cyclists and pedestrians safely". Obviously, Jawbone Walk is physically wide enough to accommodate bikes and pedestrians at the same time. As you will know, this is a busy pedestrian route and conflicts (i.e. potential accidents) can arise when bikes and pedestrians,often walking two or three abreast, heading in opposite directions and at different speeds have to pass each other.</p> <p>Perhaps I should expand on the "duty of care" idea. As I see it, there is a clear hierarchy of road users - HGVs/buses, cars/vans, cyclists and then pedestrians. Each class of user is more vulnerable than the previous, with pedestrians being the most vulnerable. </p> <p>In response to my stated concern regarding cycling on Jawbone Walk Chdot stated that "There are some on here who take a different view on the grounds of 'careful shared use'". The thing is, those who consider shared use appropriate are generally cyclists - I doubt many pedestrians are in favour of shared use in this location as there is a clearly marked and segregated alternative cycle route. </p> <p>Now, who should dictate what is the most appropriate use of Jawbone Walk - cyclists or inherently more vulnerable pedestrians. I think it should be the most vulnerable group who decides what is appropriate as they are more likely to suffer most in the event of any accident. The alternative is to allow the "stronger" road user to dictate terms to the more vulnerable - a dangerous precedent I would argue.</p> <p>Dave - I don't think anyone has accused you of being a lycra lout or of trying to kill toddlers or the elderly - but to dismiss the real concern caused by cyclists passing pedestrians at speed on these paths (even if it is slow by cycling standards) seems a bit inconsiderate. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24815 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:16:44 +0000 ruggtomcat 24815@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>You just like welding ;)</p> <p>Id like to see them preserved, maybe coated in resin or something. Always been a very evocative landmark for me. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&page=2#post-24812 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:50:25 +0000 Arellcat 24812@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Dave, my point was less about exclusivity as noting that there are already (IMHO) sufficient routes for cyclists to use in the Meadows area to cover all potential through-journeys quite well.</p> <p>I do use the canal towpath frequently, on bike and on foot, and it often feels like walkers get a bum deal. JW is wider and doesn't have a metre of water to risk falling into, but I also don't see the benefit to making all paths shared use just because we can, unless we can also include demarcated lanes for cyclists and walkers (since not all cyclists seem to use their brakes); I don't feel under threat or "in the way" when I walk up MMW or LW, and I enjoy the quiet time free of whizzing cyclists when I walk from Melville Drive up to Bruntsfield Links.</p> <p>But on my <a href="http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322&amp;replies=31#post-24792">earlier post</a> about the bones, which I can't edit because it was more than an hour ago that I wrote it in a necessitated hurry, I would like to see the jawbones cleaned up and restored - not just as the relic from the exhibition, but as a reminder of a crueller age, my feelings on which this post is too narrow to contain - and so paradoxically I would also like to see them removed and destroyed for that same reason. </p> <p>I would actually rather see a stainless steel structure in the same vein as the Gateway Arch in St Louis; something akin to a modern take on the shape, themes and form, and a gateway to The Meadows. I would further like to see counterpart gateways at all the other entrances to The Meadows, each relevant to the foregoing names. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322#post-24808 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:26:11 +0000 Dave 24808@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Despite promising not to bother with the conversation, I can't resist..!</p> <p>Since I must seem callous, I will state up front that I *never* ride on the canal for the express reason that I think shared use there is such a bad deal for pedestrians that I'm not willing to contribute to it. We actually cycle home to use the car to go to Ratho instead of riding along the canal in around the same length of time.</p> <p>So, I am not a heartless lycra lout who enjoys nothing better than killing grannies and toddlers.</p> <p>Nevertheless, I look at the photograph I posted above and really, genuinely find it hard to understand how anyone can claim that there is any physical reason why cycle use outside of the marked paths is inherently unsafe, or that it seems so to people walking.</p> <p>I spent three years living around the Meadows in the days when I didn't even have a bike, and I never experienced anything walking these paths which would allow me to support such a conclusion.</p> <p><strong>The idea that the council should seek to ban it more definitively seems laughable when you consider it is expressely legal to ride on the grass!</strong> </p> <p>Instead I see an ugly intolerance which, coming from fellow cyclists, I find rather depressing. </p> <p>Morningsider insists that the Jawbone Walk is too narrow for a bike and a pedestrian to use it at the same time, but this is self-evidently untrue when you consider it is *several times wider* than many completely uncontroversial mixed facilities.</p> <p>It also has no sightline problems like many completely uncontroversial mixed facilities (such as the Fountainbridge underpass, which has two 90 degree concrete wall turns, to say nothing of the canal).</p> <p>A lot of what is said I not only understand but agree with. Who would bother riding along the Jawbone on the festival Sunday when you'd be doing well to travel at 2mph? Who would bother riding under the actual jawbone when you can either ride across from the bottom of Meadow Place or Marchmont Road and avoid the whole snarl?</p> <p>However, I don't agree that something should be banned simply because it annoys people or because your personal preference would be to do something else.</p> <p>I also don't understand the sentiment expressed by "there is no need whatsoever for anyone to be cycling on them" (sorry Arellcat!).</p> <p>Let's be frank - there is no *need* for anyone to ride anywhere in the Meadows, or along the canal, or under the West Approach Road. There is nobody who could not make a journey if these areas were pedestrian only, and so there is demonstrably no 'need'.</p> <p>All that there is, is desire. What I see on the Jawbone is simply a reactionary desire for exclusive use, not a safety issue. At best, there is a legitimate argument that the enjoyment of exclusive use for pedestrians trumps the right of free movement for others, but this applies equally to the whole Meadows (and to all other shared cycle facilities). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322#post-24794 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:14:01 +0000 ruggtomcat 24794@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The bit that get me is the path from Dick place to Meadow place, most of which is marked no cycling, despite being much wider than these other paths. Maybe its the lack of decent lighting on that stretch that makes it unsuitable? Mind you the prom at Porty is no cycling, and covered in toddlers + elderly but the blatant and constant use of this path by middle class considerate cyclists never seems to cause any outcry. Curious.</p> <p>I too, blame the students. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322#post-24793 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:12:14 +0000 chdot 24793@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"there is no need whatsoever for anyone to be cycling on them"</p> <p>Depends on definition of "need".</p> <p>One advantage of cycling is the flexibility and (sometimes) ability to go on direct routes that are not open to motor vehicles.</p> <p>The desire to go the direct route (faster - sometimes - saves energy etc.) is ingrained.</p> <p>JW, etc., are clearly direct routes.</p> <p>I think it is perfectly reasonably to encourage people on bikes to take slightly longer routes BUT it would help if the Argyll Place/MMW junction was sorted to be more cycle AND pedestrian friendly.</p> <p>When I lived in Bruntsfield I avoided JW by going along MMW, Glengyle and Bruntsfield Place.</p> <p>But I can understand why people would prefer the off road delights of Leamington Walk - and the direct way of getting there.</p> <p>Obviously 'we' are in danger of 'demanding' 'more' so that we can become a less persecuted minority.</p> <p>'We' console ourselves by saying we are environmentally friendly and 'underfunded' in terms of infrastructure spend (compared with cars).</p> <p>But just 'cos the balance is too much in favour of motor vehicles, doesn't mean it can be balanced by further disadvantaging pedestrians. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322#post-24792 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:52:48 +0000 Arellcat 24792@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My view on the 'other' Meadows paths (Jawbone Walk, Coronation Walk, Boy's Brigade Walk, Townswomens Guild Walk, and the like), is that there is no need whatsoever for anyone to be cycling on them.</p> <p>You want to go east to west, or west to east? North Meadow Walk, Melville Drive, or Melville Terrace/Fingal Place/Bruntsfield Links are perfectly good. Bumpy, but good.</p> <p>You want to go north to south, or south to north? Use Middle Meadow Walk, Home St/Leven St, or Buccleuch St.</p> <p>You want to go diagonal? You're obviously not planning your through-route properly. See east/west.</p> <p>As for the Jawbone itself, I agree that you can't subjectively purge history, but the bones themselves have, I think, become more a part of the landscape in people's consciousnesses than remaining a relic from the exhibition. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322#post-24791 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:44:04 +0000 chdot 24791@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"yes, of course, that is what chdot meant!"</p> <p>Thanks.</p> <p>I seldom know what I mean. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322#post-24789 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:40:41 +0000 SRD 24789@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>yes, of course, that is what chdot meant! </p> <p>on a related note, found it interesting that at most recent community council meeting everyone was careful to criticise 'inconsiderate cyclists' not just 'cyclists'. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322#post-24788 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:39:45 +0000 chdot 24788@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"after reports of two similar incidents in recent weeks. What is going on?"</p> <p>Cluster effect? (As in notice one, notice more)</p> <p>More people cycling - true.</p> <p>Increased urban anger, lawlessness, disregard for authority - mmm.</p> <p>The 'wrong sort of people' taking up 'our' 'pastime'...</p> <p>Not having wide roads with no parking and slow considerate drivers doesn't help...</p> <p>I blame the parents -</p> <p>For not taking their children out cycling.</p> <p>And the council/schools -</p> <p>For not doing Cycle Training universally.</p> <p>And Spokes -</p> <p>For not promoting <a href="http://www.politecycling.info/edinburgh.html">Bike Polite</a> more.</p> <p>And CCE for trying to pretend that riding bikes is "normal".</p> <p>And Students -</p> <p>Well they are over here, overly in debt (so can't afford cars) - and get blamed for everything else. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322#post-24784 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:29:55 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 24784@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I tihnk that was chdot's point though. <em>Careful</em> shared use involves no <em>whizzing</em> - sadly there are varying degrees of, as well as avoidance of, <em>careful</em>.</p> <p>I think Morningsider has put it best - I've never ridden that way, partly because it's not a route I've ever needed, and partly because even the entranceway to the path, under the Jawbones, just looks too narrow and fiddly for a bike in amongst peds. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322#post-24783 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:26:44 +0000 SRD 24783@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>There are some on here who take a different view on the grounds of 'careful shared use' ...Of course the "careful" bit is a problem</em>.</p> <p>The point is that until they have walked that way with a toddler, or an elderly or infirm person, they have no sense of how worrying it can be to have bikes whizzing this way and that when you're not quite stable on your feet. Ditto dog walkers, of course, who often fail to realise that toddlers may be terrified of their 'nice, friendly' dog. And of course toddlers on balance bikes scare the dickens out of the elderly! </p> <p>One of the keenest cyclists I know, in his 70s and recuperating from a broken leg was nearly knocked down in West Harrison Park last Sunday, after reports of two similar incidents in recent weeks. What is going on? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2322#post-24779 Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:18:44 +0000 chdot 24779@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"It genuinely concerns me that people consider it appropriate to cycle along narrow paths such as Jawbone Walk."</p> <p>There are some on here who take a different view on the grounds of 'careful shared use'</p> <p>Of course the "careful" bit is a problem.</p> <p>Personally I think that some paths should be pedestrian only <em>and enforceably so</em>.</p> <p>The legality of that is (currently) open to legal question/challenge.</p> <p>What is clear is that many of the markings/signs are NOT legally enforceable.</p> <p>Some people know this and feel happy ignoring them. Some people assume that this is the case for ALL such signs (this <em>may</em> be true).</p> <p>There are many people who assume/believe the restrictions are (or should be) accurate.</p> <p>THIS is the situation that CEC needs to deal with (probably by removing ALL signs) to remove the doubt which exists and creates bad feeling/conflict.</p> <p>These should be replaced with advisory signs such as 'Cyclists please use alternative paths' - which some people will still choose to ignore - because they can.</p> <p>OR CEC needs to find a legally secure way of banning cycling - and have the willingness to enforce.</p> <p>The current situation is unsatisfactory - and has been for several years.</p> <p>ONCE this is sorted Spokes/CCE/etc. can hail this as "victory for common sense" and call on <em>all</em> people on bikes to behave with the care, courtesy and sense that they may wish other road users did too... </p>