http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "Wider pavements plan to suit bikes" en Wed, 13 May 2026 03:59:31 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36525 Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:54:35 +0000 DaveC 36525@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>When I rode out of Waverley yesterday morning heading up Market St towards North bank St, I over took a guy on a racier bike than mine (Trek 2.1) who was on the train from inverkeithing with me. At the top prevented from continuing by traffic and a bus hugging the kerb I went round the outside. The guy on the Trek 2.1 wizzed up the path and round the corner then straight back on to North Bank St as I was passing him, the lights turned green as I cut in at the lights.</p> <p>So there are some who just give the reat a bad name. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36523 Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:45:35 +0000 crowriver 36523@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@Kim - Very few pedestrians walk on Seafield Road. It's dirty, lots of diesel fumes from HGVs and speeding cars whizzing past. Effectively this will be primarily a cycle path. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36520 Thu, 28 Jul 2011 11:40:38 +0000 Kim 36520@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I am wondering if a 3 m wide pavement is really wide enough? The minimum width for a cycle lane should be 2 m, which would only leave 1 m for pedestrians, they would be better off putting in proper dedicated separated cycle lane, after all it would cost the same... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36434 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:22:27 +0000 PS 36434@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>The Evening News has the same group of maybe 10 trolls who comment on more or less every story where there is a chance of a reaction (I usually notice it on trams or cycling articles, but to be honest it's probably all stories about the Cooncil). I've come to the conclusion that they just find it (personally) very entertaining to parrot the same old inflamatory rubbish every lunchtime. Each to their own. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36427 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:47:24 +0000 kaputnik 36427@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Sheesh, there's a lot of anger out there!</em></p> <p>Well, there's a lot of anger from a small amount of bitter people who never leave their own houses, I think is a more accurate reflection.</p> <p>There was a big and interesting article in the Observer on Sunday about "flaming" and "trolling" on message boards and comment pages and how studies are being done on the effect that the anonymity it offers has on people's opinions, how they express themselves and how they project that they want to treat their fellow human beings. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36421 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:37:46 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 36421@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Damn, hoisted on my own petard! Doesn't mean it legally <em>is</em> a bike of course. That said, I think I'm one of the few cyclists who actually doesn't mind motorcyclists using the ASLs - as long as they're looking out I see us as both two-wheeled warriors... Or something.</p> <p>One thing I don't actually understand is the blatant exaggeration by some people. One chap undertook an impromptu survey (sounds familiar) and in 20 minutes saw something like 18 cyclists breaking the law. Yesterday morning in my 109 cyclists that were photographed... 1 broke the law. The morning before on Lothian Road in the 42 cyclists seen... 1 broke the law.</p> <p>And Rugal talking about constant 'abuse' for sitting in ASLs. Now I've sat in a LOT of ASLs with motorbikes and other cyclists there, and <em>never</em> seen any aggro. Not once. Yet Rugal claims it's <em>all the time</em>. I'm clearly missing out on something...</p> <p>It was the same as Porty Prom where newspaper comments made it clear there was some sort of war going on, when I hadn't so much as tutted at in all the times I rode there. And these <em>hordes</em> of pavement cyclists that must hide as soon as I approach whether on bike, foot or in car, then spring out as soon as I've passed...</p> <p>Just.</p> <p>Why? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36417 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:27:59 +0000 Arellcat 36417@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Rugal ... points out that his motorbike is taxed as a bicycle. 'That shuts them up'. Er. What?!?!? That doesn't even make sense because, well, it isn't.</em></p> <p>Motorbikes are categorised on a V5C as 'Bicycle' under class of vehicle, presumably because of the number of wheels. Unless I'm very much mistaken, a motorbike is not subject to zero-rated VED as a 'Bicycle' would be, though. So Rugal is at least being somewhat economical with definitions. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36415 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:07:53 +0000 crowriver 36415@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>Argh! I looked at the comments! Must. Not. Get. Involved.</p> <p>All the same comments from the same people who used to comment when I would have risen to the bait a year or two back. </em></p> <p>You could always cut and paste the retorts you used back then. Broken record technique, which is what they are doing. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36413 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 16:01:14 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 36413@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Argh! I looked at the comments! Must. Not. Get. Involved.</p> <p>All the same comments from the same people who used to comment when I would have risen to the bait a year or two back. Cyclists on pavements; running red lights; not paying tax; the biggest danger on roads. Sheesh, there's a lot of anger out there!</p> <p>At times it just makes me depressed to think there are people out there who are truly that narrow-minded. Oh, and the sort the internet was created for, the faux-hardman who reckons he's slapped down people really well in the past - like Rugal who apparently on stopping his motorbike in ASLs 'all the time' gets 'abuse you wouldn't believe' from cyclists until he rather wittily points out that his motorbike is taxed as a bicycle. 'That shuts them up'. Er. What?!?!? That doesn't even make sense because, well, it isn't. It probably shuts the cyclists up because they're stunned by the remarkable moronic idiocy! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36412 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:41:50 +0000 kaputnik 36412@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>so long as it's a metal horse, do stay on it! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36411 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:32:03 +0000 primalgeek 36411@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Part of Seafield Road will see its pavement widened to more than 11ft to allow both cyclists and pedestrians to use it"</p> <p>so why not use this investment to create a true cycle lane along the route [segregated from both the path and road]</p> <p>[ok, I lied about getting off my high horse in my previous post :-] </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36405 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:26:00 +0000 kaputnik 36405@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Shared use" means investing in a few signs on lamp posts and some white paint here and there.</p> <p>Anything else requires planning, will and investment. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36403 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 15:21:15 +0000 primalgeek 36403@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Are shared use paths really the way to move cycling in the city forward?</p> <p>Shared use paths just lead to more conflict between pedestrians and cyclist and are not suitable for anyone wanting to go above say 5-10mph (the vast majority of cyclists I'd assume?).</p> <p>If the council's real ambition is to reduce car journeys by replacing them with bike journeys then this is just another example of CEC's lack of understanding of the requirements.</p> <p>all IMHO</p> <p>[I'll get off my high horse now] </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36391 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 13:27:11 +0000 cb 36391@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"(I won't be reading the comments just in case...) "</p> <p>You might be disappointed to learn that you haven't been commented on. Well, not yet anyway.</p> <p>There are actually quite a few pro cyclist comments on this one. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3486#post-36367 Wed, 27 Jul 2011 12:24:12 +0000 chdot 36367@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Good piece (not just 'cos I'm quoted at the end).</p> <p><a href="http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Wider-pavements-plan-to-suit.6808385.jp" rel="nofollow">http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Wider-pavements-plan-to-suit.6808385.jp</a></p> <p>(I won't be reading the comments just in case...) </p>