http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Topic: Is this 'right'? en Tue, 19 May 2026 00:57:43 +0000 http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3623#post-37945 Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:57:13 +0000 chdot 37945@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Apparently -</p> <p>"<br /> 'Slow' would have been more consistent with Traffic Signs Manuals but then these paths are not adopted as 'Roads'</p> <p>" </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3623#post-37938 Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:02:56 +0000 chdot 37938@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"I wonder how they found the time and resources to put these signs in, when there are far more pressing things that could do with painting (like restoring ASLs removed by roadworks / wear and tear) that may actually have some safety benefits."</p> <p>Different people/section/budgets. </p> <p>But yes, I believe all such things are now part of SfC where it remains business as it always used to be... </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3623#post-37937 Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:02:52 +0000 Arellcat 37937@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>I was hoping it was actually a statement, rather than a request: Cyclists slow [because they're polite]. But 'slow' is a transitive verb, which ruins the happy theory.</p> <p>Stencilling 'Cyclists slow down' would be even more of a statement, while 'Cyclists: slow down' uses up more white paint and tarmac. Otherwise, as wingpig noted, a simple 'SLOW' might have sufficed.</p> <p>Does the Road Traffic Act differentiate between 'Slow' and 'Dead slow'? The latter is often accompanied by signs reading '5mph'. And as kaputnik says, we all have different takes on slowness. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3623#post-37935 Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:58:01 +0000 kaputnik 37935@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Slow is subjective. One person's slow is another person's fast. Agree with pingwig that Slow Down would be more effective. Then even people who <em>think</em> they are going slow may be encouraged to go slower.</p> <p>In the grand scheme of things I wonder how they found the time and resources to put these signs in, when there are far more pressing things that could do with painting (like restoring ASLs removed by roadworks / wear and tear) that may actually have some safety benefits. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3623#post-37934 Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:52:46 +0000 chdot 37934@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>"by adding CYCLISTS it performs the inadvertent but useful secondary purpose of warning pedestrians that cyclists are permitted/expected."</p> <p>Yes that is a useful bonus. </p> <p>Cycling was unbanned a few years ago, but there must be plenty of people who don't realise. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3623#post-37933 Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:48:00 +0000 wingpig 37933@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p>Runners are exempt, then. If it has to specify cyclists it could use a DOWN at the end to make it less grammatically uncomfortable. Similar signs on the road tend to just say <strong>SLOW</strong>, but by adding CYCLISTS it performs the inadvertent but useful secondary purpose of warning pedestrians that cyclists are permitted/expected. </p> http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=3623#post-37932 Fri, 12 Aug 2011 11:42:28 +0000 chdot 37932@http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/ <p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/chdot/6033139350/in/photostream"><img src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6194/6033139350_aa81a4abf7.jpg"></a></p> <p>At least five have appeared in Roseburn Park. </p> <p>Clearly there have been 'inconsiderate' cyclists because there are unofficial 'please slow down' signs on a couple of lampposts. </p> <p>It's a well used walking route to Roseburn Primary. </p> <p>But is it the best phrase? Are the words too big?? </p>