CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Places that don't give bike access/parking instructions

(118 posts)

No tags yet.


1234

  1. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Thanks for the video wingpig. That all seemed pretty straight forward, don't worry, I'm not going to get into a huge debate again. I'll set out what I think in better detail than twitter will allow, and leave it at that. You can agree/disagree as you please.

    That video confirmed pretty much what I expected the infrastructure would be like. Not knowing the area I thought the cycle path bit past the play park wasn't shared, so if going that way I thought that would have been a walk. So actually even better that you can get further into the retail park without having to walk than I originally thought.

    If it were me alone - I would turn right at the pedestrian crossing, go up the little hill, turn first left and arrive at the little roundabout.

    If I had children - I would go straight ahead at the pedestrian crossing, and at the end of the shared path, dismount and walk to the shop, it really isn't far.

    That bump off the kerb is not great, I'll concede that, but... I'm not going to use it either way, because if I were comfortable letting my kids cycle on the road I'm turning right at the pedestrian crossing as above, it's a quiet road.

    If I'm not comfortable letting my kids cycle on that, then I'm just not going to let them bump onto the road after only a short shortcut anyway. If I'm on that path I don't want my kids on the road, and they are staying on the path, full stop.

    EDIT: "Not knowing the area" - By that I mean, never actually cycled into Sainsbury's. I have cycled on that road whatever it is from A90 to join NEPN, so I do have some knowledge of how quiet that road is.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. SRD
    Moderator

    The traffic in this vid is much lighter than on any time I have visited, which is usually a saturday or sunday afternoon.

    many thanks wingpig for the vid. wish I'd had a camera to capture our attempt to exit on Saturday.

    I really don't want to rehash the debate we had on twitter. but yes, of course I do exactly what baldcyclist describes. sometimes even when i don't have kids.

    but that's not the point. the POINT is that this should have been designed with decent infrastructure that didn't require us to deal with it in an ad hoc way. and that stupid bike sign should never have been painted there with a 2 foot long psuedo-biuke path.

    And that it ought to be possible for local folk to cycle to their shops on that nice off-road path without having to 'accommodate' the inadequate infrastructure.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. Baldcyclist
    Member

    "
    should have been designed with decent infrastructure that didn't require us to deal with it in an ad hoc way
    "

    Okay, sorry, I'm going to get all technical and pedantic, which is what I think you are being with regard to this, so the best way to be pedantic is with some analogy....

    Sainsbury is service provider, and as such has a legal responsibility to make their shop as accessible to all users as is humanly possible.

    SRD is a content provider, and as such has a legal responsibility to make her blog as accessible to all users as is humanly possible.

    Some cyclists can't cycle all of the way to the front door of Sainsbury's, because they are not comfortable using the road.
    As a 'reasonable adjustment', Sainsbury provides a footpath. This allows some users who cannot access the shop by their preferred means, a safe and traffic free alternative to the road. Sainsbury has fulfilled it's legal responsibility of allowing users access to it's shop.

    Some readers can't see all of the links in the SRD blog because they don't meet current accessibility, and colour contrast legislation (sorry, pedantic, I checked).
    As a 'reasonable adjustment', SRD would provide a word/pdf/whatever format document to any user who wished to access the content behind the inaccessible links, or inform the reader of how to set up their local css so they could access the links. SRD has fulfilled her legal responsibility of allowing users access to all of her blog content.

    I am a service provider too (you even consume some of the services I provide ;) ), and even I don't provide services that are accessible to 100% of potential users. I make sure the services are as accessible to majority of users as I can, and make sure that 'reasonable adjustments' are in place for the minority of users who do have access issues.

    Of course, I am not saying that cyclists require 'special needs' as some people do, just that you provide for the majority, and ensure the minority can still access by some means (and you do that to with the content you provide).

    I promise this really is the last from me on this ;)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. fimm
    Member

    Ah, but is it good enough that I say to the person that cannot access the content on my blog in the usual way that they should ask me for a pdf or whatever? Surely I should be running an acessibility checking thing (technical term) over said blog to make usre it is accessible to all? (OK, maybe not for my little blog, but if I were a company providing a website with information to the general public, I don't think it would be good enough.)

    I also don't suppose it is Sainsbury's responsibility to make sure there is good access to their supermarket. It will be the council, or maybe the company that built the supermarket complex. It wouldn't surprise me if having lots of parking spaces for disabled people isn't very good commercially - what you want commerically is to have lots of spaces for all near the door so people feel like they don't have far to walk. BUT, we as a country say no, there should be a good number of appropriately placed parking spaces for disabled people and the able-bodied will just have to walk a bit further.

    So, "they" (whoever they are) should have similar requirements for bicycle access. But of course we don't. (I wonder how we got parking spaces for disabled people? It wasn't always like this, I'm sure.)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Woo hoo!

    Looks like they've done a Google route suggest, which does use roads that I'd probably not use. But better than nothing!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    Now with added bicycle directions!

    http://www.nms.ac.uk/our_museums/museum_of_flight/whats_on/airshow/directions.aspx

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. kaputnik
    Moderator


    Racking up Points by bikeyface, on Flickr

    Bikeyface has it nailed. As ever.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    As we found out on getting there. The bike directions made it onto the site, but they didn't filter down to the gate staff, who didn't really know where the bikes could go. We just chained to a fence in the end.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. crowriver
    Member

    Took my son to East Fortune Air Show couple of years ago. Found our own way from Drem station. Just rocked up at the main entrance, parking attendants waved us cheerily past the huge queues of cars saying "You guys can just go right in!"

    We carried on cycling, then dismounted when the crowds got bigger. Eventually found an old radio mast or somesuch with handy girders to lock up to. Saw about half a dozen other cyclists that day. Sunny, had a great day!

    Must go back sometime.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. HankChief
    Member

    I'm thinking of heading back to the Royal Highland Showground for Truckfest this weekend, so with nothing on either's website I wrote a couple emails.

    Truckfest replied


    Unfortunately I wouldn't know about the parking of cycles, this is something that you would need to contact the Royal Highland Centre about.

    RHS said

    Thank you for your email. I can confirm we do have secure bike parking located at the East Gate Entrance.

    Hope you have an enjoyable day at Truckfest.

    As per the bikeyface cartoon above it will be interesting to see if their and my interpretation of 'secure bike parking' are the same...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. allebong
    Member

    If I can divert this slightly I was up round Threipmuir reservoir tonight looking for bike racks or equivalent at the car park. I'm doing some running at the weekend which starts there so I'll be cycling up from town along the WoL path. Alas despite all the space for cars there's sod all for bikes as best I could tell. Except from a few tall signposts that may do in a pinch. Same for the visitor center car park at Harlaw.

    There's always plenty of cyclists around there at weekends but they're all passing through between the trails and roads. Guess there's not much demand for actual bike parking.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. Snowy
    Member

    @allebong Watch out for Threipmuir car-park - bit of a crime hot-spot. It's OK if it's busy and there are plenty of people around, but if it's quiet then ne'er-do-wells can work undisturbed with plenty of warning of your arrival back at the car-park (due to the lengthy approach track). I speak from personal experience to the tune of about £400 in March, as does a friend.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. BenN
    Member

    A bit of a rant maybe, but I forsee problems if nothing is done. after a visit yesterday to the newly refurbished Tescos at Cannonmills (the one right next to the Rodney Street tunnel):

    For attention of the Estates Team and the Store Manager, Edinburgh Cannonmills;

    I write to you to draw your attention to an incredibly dangerous and shortsighted layout design on the grounds of your newly refurbished Cannonmills superstore in Edinburgh. As you will be aware, your store is situated adjacent to one of the main North Edinburgh Cycling arteries, and you have kindly aknowledged this for years by providing substantial covered cycle parking, as well as a paved route from the cycle path to your main entrance. My family and I use this route several times a week, as do hundreds, if not thousands of other cyclists who visit your store, and form a large part of your customer base (as can be evidenced by the constant flow of people to and from your cycle parking area).

    I was horified when I visited yesterday (the 2nd of August) to discover that you have errected a large 'Hello' sign directly adjacent to this path - completely obscuring the sightlines of cyclists trying to cross the road, and even more negligently that of Drivers moving at speed down the hill into the car park (See attached photos). This crossing used to be well maintained with the bushes cut back so that Cyclists and pedestrians could see oncoming cars, and cars had plenty of warning if a family was approaching the crossing.

    The only way for a cyclist to see if the way is clear to move into the road is now to actually begin moving into the road. Indeed the entire front half of the bike has to be in the road before the cyclist has a clear line of sight; by which time an oncoming car has already hit them (Its vision being similarly obscured).

    I hope that you will agree that this poorly designed and implemented piece of signage presents a clear danger, both to the safety of your customers and to your reputation as a retailer (as you will surely be held negligently liable when the inevitable collision occurs). I regret that until this sign is moved (ideally simply a few metres further into the car park, so no sightlines are obstructed) I will not be shopping at your newly refurbished store.


    20130801_160024 by Ben_N1, on Flickr


    20130801_160055 by Ben_N1, on Flickr

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. panyagua
    Member

    ... and 'Goodbye!' X-)

    Your email gets the point across really well: let's hope it achieves the desired result.

    I assume the back of the sign reads 'Hope to see you again soon'... which is a bit ironic really, if 'you' are obscured from sight by the sign!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    That's dire.

    Do you have a direct email or just generic?

    They respond to Twitter

    https://mobile.twitter.com/uktesco

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. BenN
    Member

    Tweeted!

    @UKTesco Shocking estate design - throws Cyclists blindly into oncoming traffic at your Edinburgh Cannonmills store:

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10555&page=2&replies=43#post-120366

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. BenN
    Member

    Update - phonecall from Tesco! They advised that deputy store manager has said that this is the first complaint they have had about it (only went up yesterday...) and that they need more before they will act. Customer service guy also confirmed that they have complaint thresholds before they will take action about something like this.

    So rather than wait until a child scoots out here and is hit by a car, does anyone fancy composing a quick email so we can meet their threshold?

    customer.services@tesco.co.uk

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    "
    I am writing to add my complaint about this -

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10555&page=2&replies=43#post-120366

    The siting of this sign is very thoughtless.

    It is a great shame that Tesco has never bothered to 'look over the fence' and look at ways of greatly improving pedestrian and cycle access to your store.

    Clearly your company has never noticed the fact that The Rodney Street Tunnel has been open for a couple of years bringing hundreds of customers (and potential customers) from the affluent New Town.

    While you are looking at improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists please also consider adding extra covered cycle parking.

    If you need help/advise there are several people on the CCE forum with appropriate expertise.

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. HankChief
    Member

    Let me get this right. ..

    You have pointed out a significant safety issue to Tesco about one of their stores, but they won't act until enough people point out the same issue.

    Why?

    Do they need there to be an accident there before they do anything - just to prove it is a genuine safety issue?

    Yours etc

    Shocked of Edinburgh?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. BenN
    Member

    HankChief; because money.

    IF (cost of moving sign) > ((out of court settlement) + (bad publicity))
    THEN <ignore problem>
    ELSE <move sign>
    ENDIF

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. chdot
    Admin

    "Do they need there to be an accident there before they do anything - just to prove it is a genuine safety issue?"

    Isn't that how things work??

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. HankChief
    Member

    Surely the Branch Manager can take 2minutes to walk out of his store, stand by the sign, confirm that the visibility is seriously reduced and then make a decision.

    This complaints hurdle may be appropriate in more mundane customer feedback but surely not when safety is concerned.

    I've emailed

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Frankly I'm not suprised. Muppets.

    I'll add my voice to the complaints tonight as I occasionally head to that store. How difficult would it have been to put the 'Hello' sign after the pedestrian/cyclist exit? (the entrance is only one-way isn't it? So wouldn't matter to limit visibility the other way)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. BenN
    Member

    Thanks HankChief. Apparently the deputy manager did indeed go outside, look, stroke chin and make the 'hmm' noise.

    Then walked back inside to continue stroking the shiny new Virgin Travel counter.

    (In all seriousness, there is probably a lot of shifting of blame; not the duty manager's fault as Estates designed it, not Estates' fault as the Manager should have raised it etc)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. NiallA
    Member

    Added an email complaint, FWIW.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  26. NiallA
    Member

    Response from Tesco's customer service account:

    "Thank you for contacting us.

    I have logged your concerns and they will be passed to our Management team.

    I have also informed Mrs Susan Devine, the Store Manager of our Cannon Mills, Broughton Road store.

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention and if we can be of any further help, please let us know and we will be happy to assist.

    Kind regards

    Elisabeth McBride
    Tesco Customer Service"

    Posted 11 years ago #

  27. wingpig
    Member

    "...As the road is marked by pedestrian-crossing-stripes at this point it seems very lax to have blocked the views of path-users and vehicles from each other merely for the sake of saying "hello", especially when most of the height of the sign is blank. The sign also only points towards the road access, implying that you welcome motorised visitors more than those travelling actively to your shop. Please do something about this sign if you wish to retain or attract the custom of local pedestrians and cyclists.

    Regards,

    wingpig,
    Edinburgh"

    Posted 11 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Richmond Cycling (@RichmondCycling)
    02/08/2013 18:53
    @CyclingEdin I wouldn't hold your breath, @Teddington_Town having been pressing an issue with @UKTesco for ages

    http://www.richmondlcc.co.uk/2012/07/08/teddington-tesco/

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #

  29. BenN
    Member

    From Mark of Innertube fame; turns out the council consulted on this:

    "UPDATE: It has been pointed out that, sadly, it was the Edinburgh Council Planning Department who approved the application to site the new signs. They deemed there to be no “public safety issues” because all they took into account was the safety of motorists – “drivers using the foodstore will expect to see signs. There are no objections to the proposal on safety grounds”.

    Innertube Post

    Posted 11 years ago #

  30. Tulyar
    Member

    It may be worth noting that, as you have highlighted this hazard to the management and are aware of others bringing this issue to their attention, they would appear to be at risk of being charged with a duty of care offence under section 3 HSAW in the event of any incident which may arise from the sub standard visibility at this junction, which they have now been made aware of, and apparently taken no action to remedy.

    It may also be worth writing to the Council Planning Department, noting the standards for visibility splays at points where a footpath meets a carriageway at a crossing point on the public road (should be in Council design guide for cycling & walking infrastructure). You have advised Tesco's site management of this hazard and their potential liability in the event of any collision which may occur, after being advised of the hazard. Could the Planning Department perhaps explain how this dangerous feature has apparently been approved, and their position in the event of any incident which may arise due to the hazardous design (which they appear to have checked and endorsed).

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1234

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin