http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: "Fears over pavement cyclists" en Wed, 13 May 2026 03:13:54 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547&page=2#post-45062 Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:56:05 +0000 chdot 45062@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Delay to Botanics scheme over - go-ahead given at September committee meeting! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547&page=2#post-37437 Sat, 06 Aug 2011 08:51:32 +0000 ruggtomcat 37437@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I am going to summarize my experiences in various European cycle systems in another post (and after I get back) but I would like to add here that in Germany they have a hodge podge of on-street and pavement marked cycle lanes where when the footway is wide enough they put a red marked lane for bikes and when its not this path descends to the road and is sometimes marked out and sometimes not. Sounds confusing and it is and the upshot seems to be a LOT of pavement riding, by everyone, all the time.</p> <p>The on-road provision can be a little hairy at the best of times (trucks here are atrocious, A 20 tonne semi that would pass on the opposite side of the road from me out in the country seems to think it fine to shave by with centimeters to spare and cut me up in the city) and I see many people cycle slowly on the pavement illegaly rather than chance their arm in 3/4 lane traffic. The fine for riding on the pavement without endangering other users is only 5 euro! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547&page=2#post-37184 Thu, 04 Aug 2011 00:25:44 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 37184@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>@mgj</p> <p>"<em>If it has happened to the councillor, we need to respect that, not diminish it in any way, because its real.</em>"</p> <p>I'm not sure anyone has done that, but rather suggesting that using it as an excuse not to go ahead with <em>shared use</em> paths in <em>a completely different</em> place is a little... Odd... Especially when the scheme being proposed includes the pavements being widened in order to accommodate all and (hopefully) mean that pedestrians and cyclists would not come into conflict.</p> <p>In essence the councillor has argued that pavements should not be widened and made shared use because someone at the moment cycles dangerously on a pavement that is not widened and not shared use... Apples and pears.</p> <p>Yes her incident was scary. Yes she has every right to hear 'pavement cycling' and think of that incident. No she shouldn't simply stop there but rather, as an elected representative with a responsibility to do so, she should seek to see why allowing cyclists to use widened and signed pavements is different from a cyclist illegally using a narrow pavement. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547&page=2#post-37170 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 20:47:53 +0000 wee folding bike 37170@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>My 7 and 8 year old know not to cycle on the pavement and they don't. </p> <p>The bigger secondary age kids don't seem to have heard of that but then they also don't look at junctions or when riding off the pavement onto the road nor do they seem to be aware what side of the road we customarily use in the UK.</p> <p>And, while obviously not mentioning the whole of the H word, the big boys use them, mine don't but I know who I'd pick as being safer.</p> <p>The 8 yr old is starting to use the main/busier roads to get to and from school. Not on his own yet but then I have to be there to haul the other two in the trailer anyway. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547&page=2#post-37158 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 18:09:59 +0000 Dave 37158@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>what anth said :) basically - in one the cyclist is expected (or, should be). In the other, it's not. And shouldn't be there. And isn't allowed to be there. </em></p> <p>Yes, it is legally different. But you're not answering the question I asked ;-)</p> <p>If the pavement is, in case of point, physically the same, and a pedestrian can join it without having to walk past a shared use sign (neither of these is remotely far fetched - I can think of an armload of examples), it really isn't possible to differentiate between the "good, holy, sacred" user of the shared path and the "evil, twisted, venomous" user of the pavement, except insofar as you can say that both parties *should* be in full possession of the facts!</p> <p>There are sections near my old work, for instance, where the only indication of shared-path status is that the pedestrian crossings have bike lights too. There is nothing else - not wide enough for a pedestrian plus a cyclist comfortably, no signs, no painted markings. I'm not even sure if that is because they were never put in and it's not a cycle path, or because of decay. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547&page=2#post-37155 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 17:47:16 +0000 mgj 37155@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>OK, as a cyclist and a person with young children who lives in an area with some pavement cycling I'll bite; there is no excuse for pavement cycling (for the reasons discussed above), and the anti-social idiots who do it give the rest of us a mountain to overcome in terms of public perception that results in exactly the sort of council vote we've just seen. If you have ever had to pull your kid out of the way of a bike on the pavement (and I have in the last week on Marchmont Road had to do this - to be fair he did ring his bell before he plowed into the area we'd been standing seconds before), then you will be aware of the effect of it on you, even as a cyclist; its scary and the primal red mist descends pretty easily. If it has happened to the councillor, we need to respect that, not diminish it in any way, because its real. It can be turned to good use with the 'if the streets were safer, there would be less pavement cycling' argument, but dont tell her it wasnt scary. She hears pavement cycling and thats what she remembers.</p> <p>OTOH, I use two main sections of shared use path on my commute and the big difference between them and the pavement is that they are wide and marked out for shared on split use (Marchmont Road to Argyle Place, and MMW respectively). They work and are convenient; most peoples memory of them is of a pleasant shared use. Neither is bounded by walls and parked cars, another important difference; on most pavements it can be difficult to get out of the way. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37153 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:41:29 +0000 kaputnik 37153@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>what anth said :) basically - in one the cyclist is expected (or, should be). In the other, it's not. And shouldn't be there. And isn't allowed to be there. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37152 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:30:54 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 37152@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I'll have a stab at that...</p> <p>On the marked as shared use path it IS marked and therefore all users should/will be aware that the other may be there.</p> <p>Also, you would assume, a review will have been undertaken to see if a particular path is suitable for sharing and may have had amendments made to it (such as the widening planned at Seafield).</p> <p>So the shared use path is not, strictly speaking, physically or psychologically the same piece of tarmac as a non-signed pavement. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37151 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:25:45 +0000 Dave 37151@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>"Personally I don't think anyone should (or needs to) cycle on the pavement ... get off and push... Pavement cyclists should be mocked for their mothers not letting them play on the road with the big boys and girls. </p> <p>However it's just ridiculous to use it as some sort of argument against provision of on-pavement ... cycling. If the piece of not-carriageway tarmac in question is signed and painted as a shared-use path there should be no problems at all."</em></p> <p>Out of interest, how do you reconcile the two paragraphs above (I admit to chopping your post up for dramatic effect), when the difference between a pavement and a shared use path is often as little as the council erecting one sign at one end, and a mile later, another coming the other way? </p> <p>They are the same thing in every meaningful way (that is, to a pedestrian or a cyclist using them, not in terms of papers lodged at the council roads dept). </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37149 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:20:22 +0000 Dave 37149@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Hmm, interesting. That means that contrary to common belief (including mine) we actually had a more restrictive set of cycling laws than the English, prior to the LRA. In England the law really does apply only to pavements that run beside roads.</p> <p>How strange. Double huzzah for the LRA then - it includes all paths (you can check the list of exclusions at <a href="http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/outdoors-responsibly/your-access-rights/" rel="nofollow">http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/outdoors-responsibly/your-access-rights/</a> , but we've had this discussion before...) </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37148 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:20:21 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 37148@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>"Maybe we should form a cycling church. "<br /> I just have this image of a church on top of a bicycle</em>"</p> <p>There would be schisms every day. Campag v. Shimano v. Sram v. Singlespeed v. racer v. mountainbike v. folder v. etc etc etc etc! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37145 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:09:51 +0000 kaputnik 37145@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Personally I don't think anyone should (or needs to) cycle on the pavement and I'm sure some people with children or the elderly etc. can find it intimidating / scary / potentially injurious. If a piece of road is just beyond your desire to cycle on and the pavement alongside is not designated for shared use, then get off and push. It's not really much slower than the sort of speeds most pavements cyclists can achieve anyway. </p> <p>However it's just ridiculous to use it as some sort of argument against provision of on-pavement (footway / footpath, whatever) cycling. If the piece of not-carriageway tarmac in question is signed and painted as a shared-use path there should be no problems at all.</p> <p>And in the grand scheme of things, the apparent cyclist/pedestrian war (that so many car-driving evening chipwrapper online commenters seem to think exists - personally, I don't think it does) is not really one of the pressing problems for Edinburgh is it. Kinda shows where the priorities of these 2 councillors lie (i.e. grabbing a couple of column inches in that appaling daily collection of pages of newsprint)</p> <p>Cyclists using shared paths, at the masters of faster and heavier vehicles, need to be mindful of the needs of pedestrians and should command their steeds accordingly with respect and with deference to other shared path users. Just like we would expect car drivers to for us (even whenthey don't!). Pavement cyclists should be mocked for their mothers not letting them play on the road with the big boys and girls. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37144 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 16:08:11 +0000 amir 37144@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Maybe we should form a cycling church. "<br /> I just have this image of a church on top of a bicycle </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37143 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:50:13 +0000 DaveC 37143@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Great I'm about to fit a brush to the front of my cycle and become exempt from the laws... digs out old pic from I'nnocent glassware thread'...</p> <p><img src="http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p86/Dave_Crampton/cycle_brush.jpg"></p> <p><a href="http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p86/Dave_Crampton/cycle_brush.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p86/Dave_Crampton/cycle_brush.jpg</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37141 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:41:34 +0000 Morningsider 37141@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Anth - 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. Council in the clear I suspect. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37140 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:39:47 +0000 Cyclingmollie 37140@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Dave:<em>"I like to re-read such news reports and press releases but replace terms relating to "cyclist/cycling" with a religious or ethnic group"</em></p> <p>Good trick. But I wish I knew why cyclists are seen as a self-selecting minority and exempt from hate crime law while religious groups are not.</p> <p>Maybe we should form a cycling church. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37139 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:37:40 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 37139@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Ah, there's my misunderstanding - I don't remember seeing 'footpath and cycle track' in there before!</p> <p>I guess that techniquely means the big council vans they drive down the Innocent to clear the foliage shouldn't be there? Almost got squashed last time. Went to pass on one side (he was stationary) and just at the required moment he started off and moved right because a cyclist had appeared in the opposite direction - so good in that he was moving out of the way of that cyclist, bad in that he almost squashed another! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37138 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:36:10 +0000 chdot 37138@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"Obviously, land reform access rights mean that you can cycle legally on many paths."</p> <p>That's why CEC's latest legal advice is that because of access legislation they 'can't stop' people cycling on Porty Prom - but I suppose now they'll try again...</p> <p>"It's all very complicated."</p> <p>Quite! </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37136 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:29:55 +0000 Morningsider 37136@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>It's amazing what you can squeeze into that 0.01% e.g. Section 129, Roads (Scotland) Act 1984</p> <p>(5)Subject to section 64 of this Act, a person who, in a footway, footpath or cycle track, as the case may be drives, rides, leads or propels a vehicle or horse, or any swine or cattle, commits an offence:.<br /> Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection do not apply—</p> <p>(a)where and in so far as the vehicle or animal is being taken across the footway, footpath or cycle track;.<br /> (b)in relation to a pedal cycle which is either not being ridden or is being ridden on a cycle track;.</p> <p>By my reading that makes it an offence to cycle on both a footway and footpath. Obviously, land reform access rights mean that you can cycle legally on many paths. It's all very complicated. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37135 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:18:26 +0000 Wilmington's Cow 37135@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"<em>Hmm. I'm 99.99% sure that the offence is cycling on a footway, being defined specifically as a section parallel to a highway laid out for pedestrian use. Ne c'est pas?</em>"</p> <p>That was my understanding as well... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37134 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:16:28 +0000 PS 37134@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Mmmm... "drinktank" :)</p> <p>I'd say cycling on the pavement is generally bad form except where it is specifically permitted. I'm not clear from the proposals whether these "shared use" pavements will feature a defined cyclepath area or not.<br /> <a href="http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/2478/transport_infrastructure_and_environment_committee">It's item 20 here</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37133 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:15:51 +0000 Dave 37133@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><em>"footpaths, which do not run alongside a carriageway. It is an offence to cycle on either of these. "</em></p> <p>Hmm. I'm 99.99% sure that the offence is cycling on a footway, being defined specifically as a section parallel to a highway laid out for pedestrian use. Ne c'est pas? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37132 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:14:29 +0000 Dave 37132@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I won't offer a suggestion to avoid giving offence, but for my own entertainment I like to re-read such news reports and press releases but replace terms relating to "cyclist/cycling" with a religious or ethnic group (religious works better because, like cycling, you can choose to practice or give up a religion).</p> <p>It really makes for eye-opening reading. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37131 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:13:06 +0000 Morningsider 37131@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Instography - in Scottish roads law there is no such thing as "a pavement". There are footways (which run alongside a carriageway - which most people call "a road")and footpaths, which do not run alongside a carriageway. It is an offence to cycle on either of these. However, a roads authority can designate any footpath or footway as a cycle track - meaning people can both walk and cycle along the same surface. These are usually referred to as "shared use" paths.</p> <p>I could go into more detail, but it is very boring - so I won't. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37130 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:08:34 +0000 chdot 37130@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"So does this mean it's OK for me to ride on the pavement? I'd got the impression it was considered bad form."</p> <p>Well...</p> <p>Some places it's illegal. </p> <p>Some places it's illegal but no-one would be inconvenienced/discomforted. </p> <p>Some places it's legal but the council hasn't removed the 'no cycling' signs. </p> <p>Some places it's legal - and there are signs to say so. </p> <p>Some places where expected to be legal fairly soon - once the pavements were widened. But some councillors suddenly found an unexpected fondness for pedestrians and called for delaying tactics (I mean a report). </p> <p>Hope that helps. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37128 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:00:15 +0000 chdot 37128@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"does this forum count as 'social media'?"</p> <p>ABSOLUTELY</p> <p>It has even spawned 'coffee mornings' and the odd pub evening. </p> <p>It is sharing info and experiences and encouragements. </p> <p>One interesting thing is that it is inhabited by normal people (more or less!). Many have cars - and use them. </p> <p>Quite a few have children who are, or will, be at school. </p> <p>Most live in or around Edinburgh and (mostly) like it a great deal - but wish it was a bit/lot better. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37127 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:55:27 +0000 Instography 37127@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So does this mean it's OK for me to ride on the pavement? I'd got the impression it was considered bad form. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37126 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:52:23 +0000 crowriver 37126@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>So, citycling on Facebook/Twitter? Or does this forum count as 'social media'? </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37125 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:37:39 +0000 chdot 37125@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Might have some relevance here -</p> <p>"<br /> People power seemingly works in this digital age where Government’s can be toppled and footballers exposed over the internet. So what good can online services do for cycling and business? Social media leads the way for London’s new breed of cycle advocates, argues Mark Ames of popular blog ibikelondon.blogspot.com. </p> <p>.......</p> <p>Street Talks, a monthly London ‘drinktank’ on sustainable transport and a more liveable capital, bridges the gap between online and off.  Organised and publicised entirely via the internet by a loose entity of like-minded campaigners, the talks take place ‘in the flesh’ once a month in a Clerkenwell pub. </p> <p>"</p> <p><a href="http://www.bikebiz.com//news/read/social-networking-sells-says-i-bike-london-blogger" rel="nofollow">http://www.bikebiz.com//news/read/social-networking-sells-says-i-bike-london-blogger</a> </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3547#post-37122 Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:23:48 +0000 crowriver 37122@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>If, like me, you were wondering "where on Earth do they find these awful Councillors?", well a quick Gugol reveals:</p> <p>"Cllr Stuart McIvor returned to his native Edinburgh to work as a tour guide after a career in the Metropolitan Police lasting 31 years. He is a strong advocate of lifelong learning."</p> <p>He should be ripe for some pro-cycling 're-education' then!</p> <p>Can't find much on Cllr Mowat, except she justified voting for the closure of nurseries in the city by saying "<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/edinburgh/2011/mar/10/edinburgh-nurseries-closed-cuts">We don't administer the city on fairy dust. We have finite resources. To help the whole, I'm afraid we have to disadvantage the few</a>." Very compassionate, I'm sure, Councillor. </p> <p>Also she was (surprise surprise) against emissions based parking charges, and tried to claim <a href="http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5463-edinburgh-to-introduce-emissionsbased-parking-charges">the consultation was a sham</a>.</p> <p>So, a right wing, 'no nonsense' car driver, then? We already know she has a personal grudge against cyclists who apparently are continually threatening her daughter's life. Could be a tough nut to crack. </p>