CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"
Barriers will be placed on a popular cycling route to force cyclists to cut their speeds unless some of them start showing more consideration for walkers and children following a number of incidents in which people have reported feeling threatened by bike riders travelling riding at inappropriate speeds through Bristol's Ashton Court Estate.
"
http://road.cc/content/news/83496-slow-down-or-else-sustrans-warns-cyclists
"the council is considering erecting gates that would force cyclists to dismount, which it says would mean all cyclists being put at a disadvantage due to the inconsiderate riding of a few riders."
Again we see the stark difference between attitudes to motoring and cycling provision in the UK.
Almost all roads have issues with inappropriate driving, but how often would a council say "the road will be fitted with barriers that force motorists to stop and push a button before they can continue, which it says would mean all drivers being put at a disadvantage due to the inconsiderate driving of a few".
Exactly.
I'm the first to hold up my hand and say that when I'm walking, I hate all cyclists (no, really) and tolerate them only because I obviously do it myself from time to time.
No matter how slow, being overtaken annoys me, doubly so if someone has the cheek to ping ping me out of the way.
However, as someone commented on the article above, it will be impossible to create a cycling culture if all car-free cycle facilities have anti-disability barriers fitted to inconvenience users. Why not drive instead?
I've recently experienced this trying to get from the house to Edinburgh Park. There's a bridge over the canal that would be perfect but has an anti-disability barrier fitted. As a result, not only do I have to go an extra 500m, I potentially have to ride through two major sets of traffic lights*.
500m and two junctions seems trivial, but that could be half the time taken to get to Edinburgh Park from the house by car, where I can use major routes (like the bypass). You can see that the cumulative effect could very easily sway modal use.
* in this case, CCE has identified compromises that get around this - cut through the middle, or possibly ride around on the pavement.
what is an "anti-disability barrier"?
at the risk of courting controversy or (gasp) an argument with Dave, I would suggest that cars have licences, speed limits and police enforcement including penalties rather more serious than most cyclists encounter.
I'm not saying I want 'gates' or anything else, and I would like to see many more crossings where pedestrians do not have to wait to cross the road, but to imply that there are no restrictions at all on car use is just silly.
"to imply that there are no restrictions at all on car use is just silly"
True, but I think the issue is more the one about inconveniencing the many because of the actions of the few(?)
In Portugal they have speed detectors which trigger red lights, with no junction, slightly further down the road so the actions of the few directly impact on the many. From what I observed these cameras are very well observed, especially given the standard of southern continental driving.
SRD, I guess if pressed, I would say that drivers aren't inconvenienced (by any reasonable definition) by anything other than other drivers though - i.e. traffic jams and the traffic lights needed to control them.
I can slip into the car and, other drivers notwithstanding, whizz around just as I please. And this is why the huge majority do in fact use cars to get around.
It's not really a fair comparison to say that drivers are inconvenienced by only travelling at 30mph and sometimes having to give way to cross traffic, versus installing barriers that make cycle facilities hard to use (or for the less able or alternative amongst us, literally unusable).
The article / Sustrans are a bit sensational, for instance reporting that cyclists have been clocked at 28mph "near" a school. Were any cyclists actually passing children at 28mph, or is this a reading taken on a deserted stretch outside of peak time?
If the former, why haven't the police simply done these same checks and charged people with careless cycling? Doesn't that make more sense than closing off the route and putting many people back in their cars?
As an illustration of what I mean: I often average only ~12mph riding along miles of NEPN when it's busy. However, there are stretches which are straight, have no "junctions" and, if empty, it's hard to see why people shouldn't ride faster.
That's no guarantee that people won't write outraged letters to complain about it though.
I have done 30mph on some parts of NEPN, although even when deserted this is obviously far too fast for most of it (when there's any chance of someone stepping on from a junction, for instance).
I guess I apply the same criteria as I would if, for some reason, I was able to drive my car on NEPN. Obviously this is a big err on the side of caution for third parties, who benefit from the 10kg weight of the bike vs 2000kg of the car, and the fact that all cyclists are hyper aware of the agony they'll experience falling off :P
I suspect the 20mph hard infrastructure (that is, chicanes, speed humps, and the like) inconveniences the many to rein in the few (?) speeding drivers. If everyone observed the 20mph then we wouldn't need such suspension destroying edifices.
That said, the drivers are just forced to slow, not get out and push.
Robert
It's just laziness on the part of the police/council.
They go for the technological 'solution' instead of the human one - the human solution being proper policing/monitoring of the paths.
Why isn't there a policeman or warden on a bike sitting there, waiting to give speeding cyclists a ticking off. (In the same way a policeman used to give you a ticking off for parking on the double-yellows)
I'm assuming what Dave meant by "anti-disability" is that someone in a wheelchair, mobility scooter, or maybe a disabled cyclist on a trike would be unable to get past these idiotic chicanes.
Dave, yes YOU average 12mph when it's busy, but the point is OTHERS average much much faster when it's busy. We've all seen it.
I'm afraid I think your comment, "Again we see the stark difference between attitudes to motoring and cycling provision in the UK" is completely wrong. I live in an area where every road is 20mph, where there are speed bumps, and road narrowings. All done because a few (and yes, it's a few) break the speed limit to such an extent that it's necessary.
Similarly, if there are problems with a few cyclists cycling in such a ridiculous manner to cause people concern (and you cannot deny that it happens - not just your assertion that 'people will just complain because I'm an outgroup cyclist', there are definitely cyclists who fly along shared use facilities much much too quickly) then I actually think it's right and proportionate to try and put things in place that slow those cyclists down.
If you're cycling (or driving) reasonably then the 'barriers' are actually of no consequence. If I drive at 20 in a 20 then the speed bumps are easy - only people who are somewhat faster than that have a cause to complain. Similarly, the likes of the chicane barriers on the canal path are dead easy at 12mph and don't slow you down, it's only if you're going faster that it's an issue.
I'm afraid playing the 'victim' card here, and bemoaning the terribly biased attitude towards cyclists in this case is, firstly, wrongly based on false assumptions that motorists have unfettered use of the road, and secondly, smacks of double standards (i.e. some drivers are terrible so we should put in barriers to them vs some cyclists are terrible so it's unfair on the rest of us if barriers are put in palce).
"They go for the technological 'solution' instead of the human one - the human solution being proper policing/monitoring of the paths."
Agreed.
Yes, that's the ticket. I'd love to force officials (and indeed, cyclists who support this sort of thing, although they're probably few and far between) to be strapped in and attempt to negotiate "features" when you *can't* dismount.
That said, I also wish I could force pavement parkers to get in a wheelchair and attempt to wheel it into oncoming traffic on a main road, with no drop kerb to let them down (or back up)...
"... the council is considering erecting gates that would force cyclists to dismount"
I do hope that, as it's 'considering' at the moment, the cyclists in the area are actually being constructive, telling the council that such barriers are unworkable for those who can't dismount, and instead consider barriers that slow people down, but don't require dismounting.
Problem therefore solved surely?
You'd hope their in-house DDA compliance officers would kill it before relying on a member of the public, but who knows?
Although I could easily see such a thing being built, even the fact that it's being considered is depressing enough for me.
Far more intimidating than a few cyclists are wee neds on (stolen?) motorbikes whizzing up and down shared use paths at high speed. Usually carrying a pillion passenger. Got passed by two such bikes on the shared use path by Rosewell the other week...
That's very true crowriver, though again it's a little like saying that lorries are more intimidating than cars so we don't really need to do anything about cars. I still maintain that if there are cyclists being anti-social to the point of causing concern with their speed on shared use paths then it's entirely proportionate to try and slow them down.
Dave, depressing indeed, but expected. Seems to be up to the public these days to inform and challenge. Maybe that's what the Tories meant by Big Society. Something I haven't checked before (DDA application to these paths). Hmmmm, on a dull conference call.
Bang on.
s.19
(1) It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person... (b) in failing to comply with any duty imposed on him by section 21 in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such service...
(2) For the purposes of this section and sections 20 and 21 (a) the provision of services includes the provision of any goods or facilities...
(3) The following are examples of services to which this section and sections 20 and 21 apply (a) access to and use of any place which members of the public are permitted to enter... (f) facilities for entertainment, recreation or refreshment...
But then strangely:
(5) Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, this section and sections 20 and 21 do not apply to... (b) any service so far as it consists of the use of any means of transport.
That seems a very very odd exception.
Another way to slow down traffic is to redesign the road or path so that it looks like a place where you'd naturally go slowly, rather than like a race track.
But better than that though would be dedicated cycle paths which were wide and straight and even enough to safely support high speed and low speed use.
WC - the DDA was wholly repealed by the Equality Act 2010. It's hideously complicated and I don't have time to look into it at the moment - seems much more comprehensive in the protections it offers than the DDA at a quick glance though.
Cheers Morningsider - the Stationery Office (as was) normally notes when something has been replaced - DDA may be a little old for them to have got round to that yet.
From a little google it seems this is so that, for instance, everybody who owns a ferry (or train rolling stock) didn't immediately have to replace it or face legal action.
I'm not sure whether the local authority providing and maintaining a path is 'providing a service' for the purposes of the act, of course.
Under the old DDA they definitely were. As per the quotes above 'service' included 'facility' which included anywhere to which the general public had access (and local authorities (England, and their Scottish counterparts) were specifically mentioned as relevant providers).
I'd suspect the new Equality Act would replicate much of that kind of thing - but it likely updated to take account of the fact that everyone had had 15 years to get used to the DDA.
"the likes of the chicane barriers on the canal path are dead easy at 12mph and don't slow you down, it's only if you're going faster that it's an issue."
Or if you're Uberuce...
Are those chicane barriers passable by persons on tandems, towing trailers, or similar?
I think I agree with both sides of the discussion :D
It does indicate that cyclists do seem to be hit harder by intervention: Every day on the roads I feel "threatened by [cars] travelling at inappropriate speeds", but as Dave says the council wouldn't make car drivers come to a complete halt get out and get back in again. I think both on the roads and bike lanes where there is a problem then speed bumps might be the solution, or occasionally (e.g. coming into a village) a narrow only-one-car-can-get-through bit, or the fences on the canal? They don't seem to be taking into account the fact that cars go way faster than these bikes (you mentioned 28mph was clocked near a school - this is probably quite low most of the time for cars going past a school, and I'd prefer to be hit by a cyclist than a car given the choice :). Finally, I think one issue (which is reflected in Edinburgh too) is that these 'cycle routes' all seem to be shared with pedestrians - in the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, etc they have separate bike lanes! That would largely end this constant conflict which is inevitable if you mix large numbers of cyclists and pedestrians on narrow paths. I know that's maybe a bit of an ideal, but at the moment the bike paths all seem to have taken/shared space with pedestrians rather than taking space from cars? Anyway, it's a tricky one: On the NEPN for example the routes are maybe too narrow. Also something in me is against over-regimenting the world with paint down every path...
I don't think anyone can defend passing children at 28mph, except if you do it in a car in which case it's fine - even in a 20 zone, as the police advise they will not enforce them.
On the other hand, as WC rightly says, we don't stop (trying to) enforce good driving behaviour in motorists just because lorry drivers cause a disproportionate number of deaths, so I can accept that problem cycling shouldn't be tolerated just because problem driving is.
If it were up to me, rather than installing gates to block disabled people, unusual bikes, family trailers etc completely, and drive a lot of normal users onto other routes (possibly by car) I'd do the following:
Set up a police checkpoint with video surveillance of the route. Wait for the first cyclist who is clocked at 28mph while passing school kids and charge them with careless (or dangerous) cycling, and then advertise whatever fine they got, along with the fact that further random checks would be held, on posters along the path.
Although many are careless of the niceties of the law given the daily struggle to stay alive on the roads, not many outright deliquents can manage 28mph, unless there's a hefty downhill. I suspect riders doing this are established middle class and might be a little more susceptible to mind games.
I too get annoyed with "the punish the innocent" because we can't afford/be bothered to police rules properly. many ?most? speed bumps/chicanes are poorly designed and built, such that they neither deter the determined miscreant, nor allow less able persons to proceed in an easy manner. IIRC the barriers on the canal have been altered in response to complaints from wheelchair users.
@ crowriver
"Far more intimidating than a few cyclists are wee neds on (stolen?) motorbikes whizzing up and down shared use paths at high speed..."
Had a that several times, mainly Craigleith/Silverknowes section and Bingham (where the large grassy area is. Dialed 999 when I was nearly hit but by the time the operator (somewhere in Aberdeenshire by the accent) understood where I was, they were long gone and I never heard back from the Police about it.
The first examples I mentioned are usually travelling folk who have set up camp around the Cramond/Silverknowes foreshore area and clearly no laws of the land apply to them.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts