CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Shared Use - the debate (begins) continues

(234 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. amir
    Member

    TBH I don't think a choice between the two is necessary. Let's have both off-road facilities and safe road conditions.

    On the road, we just need proper acceptance by other road users and enforcement of the rules. That needs just a bit of energy from the government instead of the pussy-footing around.

    As a person who walks, cycles, uses public transport, I see frequent examples of bad and selfish driving around and it affects everyone, not just cyclists. I know that pedestrians and cyclists may be just as inconsiderate (I am tempted to roll out a smug cyclist line here but won't), but the effect of inconsiderate driving is much worse.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. Roibeard
    Member

    @amir - I'm becoming increasingly convinced that relying on people to behave safely isn't a good idea.

    It's recognised as poor practice in general risk management, and I see no reason that managing transport risks are any different.

    This is borne out by the aviation and rail industries, as well as military experience [citations needed!]

    Basically:

    Elimination>Substitution>Engineering>Policing>Behaviour>PPE

    So safe road conditions are only reliably about removing the hazard (segregation, HGV bans, etc), reducing road volumes (filtered permeability, lower speed limits, switch to rail, etc), and driver aids (automatic braking, blind spot detection, automatic speed limiters, etc).

    If we must, then we get to policing, changing behaviour (and underlying attitudes), and high-viz/helmets as a last resort.

    So I'm beginning to think a decision is necessary - we should do that which has the most reliable risk reduction for the environment in question, not simply start at the easiest ("protect yourself out there", and "be excellent to one another")...

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. Roibeard
    Member

    @amir PS - just re-read the above and it suggests you advocated the NWC...

    I didn't mean to suggest that!

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. amir
    Member

    Honestly I do think cycling infrastructure is needed and on a big scale but there will be limits and it would take time.

    In driving, behaviour has changed over the years. Drink driving is far less acceptable and most wear seat belts. Note drink is still available and seat belts were available in the 70s.

    I agree that we shouldn't rely on people behave safely but I am more optimistic in thinking that things can be improved. But it needs political weight.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. gibbo
    Member

    - Pedestrians and motorists will see another ***** cyclist cycling on the pavement - apart from the ones that shout at the cyclist on the road to get off it.

    That's my concern as well.

    Would it be possible to educate the people of Edinburgh that cyclists are allowed to cycle on certain pavements?

    We can't even educate drivers to follow basic rules on the roads - rules that apply on all roads. What chance of getting people to grasp the exceptions to the "don't cycle on pavements" rule?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. Baldcyclist
    Member

    Me:
    "I do wonder if you accomodate Insto, that you further marginalise Amir, and Fimm, and me...."
    Amir:
    "TBH I don't think a choice between the two is necessary. Let's have both off-road facilities and safe road conditions."

    @SRD / WC,

    I largely agree with what you are saying, I think it is a price worth paying. But what I mean by marginalising people is more down to the Great British state of mind... "We've given you cycle paths, use them!". I could see 'sport' cyclists that continue to use the road getting even more greif than they get now.

    In my own minds eye, I am in Amirs camp (just can't see the reality). I see a situation where urban areas have highly integrated off road shared use facilities where you cycle in your normal clothes for work, or shops, etc, and if you are a 'sport' cyclist these paths are still available to you to use almost as a warm up, to get you out of the urban area away from cars, where you can them 'let loose' and have your exercise in rural areas where the traffic is quieter. Lets face it, blasting along congested suburban streets isn't the most fun, even for the most die hard 'roadie'!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. amir
    Member

    "Lets face it, blasting along congested suburban streets isn't the most fun, even for the most die hard 'roadie'!"

    I often travel on Milton Road rather than the Innocent because there is a whopping big bike lane on the road (a bus lane) and the Innocent around Bingham has quite a few peds with dogs and there is glass and nasty slippy corner .... Sometimes there is less conflict on the road!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. ruggtomcat
    Member

    if its big enough for shared use, its big enough for a dedicated lane. *shrug* should be easier too.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. "I could see 'sport' cyclists that continue to use the road getting even more greif than they get now"

    That's certainly a possibility. I've some sympathy with the view that if you remove cyclists from main streets with segregated lanes in the city then drivers become les aware of how to deal with cyclists who are on the road. Although my experience of cycling in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Paris is that drivers adapt (perhaps down to that reasoning that more of them are cyclists themselves).

    It's a tough one, because I'm not sure how long it would take to completely overhaul the British motoring mentality.

    "if its big enough for shared use, its big enough for a dedicated lane. *shrug* should be easier too."

    Usually, except many of the paths that CEC designates shared use are very very narrow (the section from Seafield from the bridge over the railway to the prom being a prime example). And in some places it would be particularly unworkable (I'm thinking Porty Prom where many many pedestrians will be naturally crossing the cycling designated half to get to or from the beach, and it gets so immensely busy on nice days that you could effectively wave goodbye to any abiding by segregation of the pedestrians (and rightyl so)).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    I think 'we' discussed this one -

    http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/end-another-tour

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. PS
    Member

    I don't think more infrastructure would necessarily lead to increased marginalization of fitness/fast cyclists. If the infrastructure is good (wide and flat) it should be good enough for small groups of fast cyclists (as long as they show consideration to others) to get out of town. And I for one would use a good wide path like they have in the NL if it meant avoiding riding on the likes of the A702. But it would need to be of the same standard as the road - well maintained, clear of debris, not bobbling or undulating.

    Back to shared use paths: in theory they're okay in places, but too often they are a cheap excuse for the council to say they've put in cycle infrastructure when, all too often, they are simply increasing ped/cyclist conflict and are non-continuous (so slow and non-direct). They're simply a way of avoiding biting the taking space from cars bullet.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. Instography
    Member

    I wouldn't worry too much about me. I'm happy enough on the road. Happy to switch from being roadie(esque) on one bike to kid transport on the other. And when I'm transporting kids I really don't care: every pavement is a shared use path to me. I cycle reasonably, I don't believe anyone will ever complain about it and frankly, I'd quite enjoy it if they did. A bit like having the fun of having the Jehovah's Witnesses come round.

    My experience of the Netherlands was that older guys (and a few women) in lycra used the paths but we were out in the country and many of the cycle paths are not the segregated paths of our dreams. They are what we dismissively describe as paint (or a different coloured surface) on roads. Just with drivers with a bit of a brain.

    A lot of the paths weren't that great to be honest. They were surfaced with paving slabs and monobloc, were often uneven, making my beer bottles rattle like mad. They often had little scooters and mopeds on them and only theoretically allowed side-by-side riding (because they're busy). But, you know, overall, it was fantastic. I'd swap for it in a heartbeat. I'd take shared use for starters. This has all got to start somewhere. My comment on the full Dutch experience was joke because the discussion often reminds me of the Revolutionary Communist Party - denouncing anything that isn't the full overthrow of the state.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. RJ
    Member

    "It all depends", does't it? On the quality of what's delivered, and on what it's an alternative to.

    The most basic "quality" point is surely that there is enough room for cyclists and pedestrians to use the route together not just safely, but with scope for conflict minimised.

    On alternatives, there's maybe a useful distinction between shared-use off-road paths as alternative routes, and shared-use pavements to avoid specific points on the road network where cyclists and motor traffic might otherwise clash (more).

    There will be good and bad examples in execution of both types.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    "The most basic "quality" point is surely that there is enough room for cyclists and pedestrians to use the route together not just safely, but with scope for conflict minimised.

    ...

    There will be good and bad examples in execution of both types"

    Yes.

    Important that politicians and designers/engineers understand the difference.

    Also important to get across the message that in some places - which most people would call pavements - it's legal to cycle.

    In turn, it's important that this is done in a "responsible" fashion.

    Maybe on 'shared use facilities' dogs should be on leads.

    This sort of thing should just not be 'possible' -

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=6240&page=2#post-107017

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=9318&page=3#post-108687

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. amir
    Member

    Much of the traffic (but not all of course) is coming from the outskirts of Edinburgh towards the centre and vice versa. There are obvious advantages in converting some of this to cycle traffic (cheaper and quicker than buses, healthy ...).

    Shared use (with peds) facilities much be considered as second class facilities when the roads are wide enough for a proper wide segregated path.

    Consider Gilmerton as an example. The road here is mostly very wide. Pedestrian traffic is very high at times (schools, shops, etc). Like much of Edinburgh, it is hilly - going downhill it would be tiresome to keep at a "safe" speed for mixing with peds.

    There are painted cycle lanes, but these are not segregated, there's parking allowed on them, the surface is awful, they are too narrow (particularly going downhill), and they become unusable in icy weather.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. Uberuce
    Member

    There's a certain irony that the best shared use path I ride along regularly is legally segregated - the Broomhouse path. There isn't much footfall, you almost always have line of sight of anyone joining it and it's four or five metres wide so it simply doesn't matter that pedestrian observance of the bike markings is close to zero.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Matthew Hardy (@drmatthewhardy)
    16/08/2013 08:50
    @AsEasyAsRiding @highburyonfoot @jamesgleave1 Have a look at 19th century photos and gasp at how wide our streets are without parked cars.

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. I was tweetering earlier in the week about Lothian Road. At the top end just before the Tollcross mess junction there are six traffic lanes (four normal, two bus lanes), and a hatched wider-than-a-cyclelane divider between north and south bounds.

    It's immense. As was also pointed out by someone it's a nightmare for pedestrians. On that section there's ONE crossing point, and it's a little corralled-into-the-middle island crossing.

    And no bike lane (there's the bus lane northbound I guess, but the bus lane southbound is in the middle of the lanes, so for less experienced/confident cyclists can be a pig to get into, and for going to the Meadows the leftmost lane is ostensibly for heading up to Lauriston, so again you have to move into a central lane).

    It's a shambles, and makes a mockery of claims that the streets of Edinburgh aren't wide enough to accommodate. Especially when I've started looking at the streets through the eyes of PS, who has pointed out a lot of times that Edinburgh's roads actually aren't that busy, so taking space away from motorised traffic wouldn't have that much impact. Watching Lothian Road today from 8.15 till 8.45, the traffic flowed smooth as you like, with huge gaps between the traffic at times. And that's with most fo the schools back (I'll have to do it again when all of the private schools are back).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. chdot
    Admin

    EGSt used to be narrower - but still quite wide.

    Earl Grey Street Tollcross Edinburgh

    From Lost Edinburgh

    Was demolished because it started falling to bits - but that was likely to be because it was neglected as it was planned for demolition because it was in the Tollcross CDA.

    The Comprehensive Development Area was an update of the idea of 'slum clearance' with added roads.

    Earl Grey Street is probably the only bit of the proposed inner ring road that was built (maybe Picardy Place Roundabout?)

    That would have included a road on stilts through The Meadows, a tunnel through Calton Hill and mass tarmac instead of the tranquil Rocheid Path.

    None of that will ever happen so perhaps time to reconsider the 'space' at Tollcross...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. chdot
    Admin

    Re Edinburgh's road plans -

    "

    In the highest scale of human values the preservation of Edinburgh's environment is more important than the speed of a journey to work

    "

    http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3013341

    (1967)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. crowriver
    Member

    'In a publicity pamphlet the novelist and New Town resident Compton Mackenzie fulminated against "the plague of motor cars which is sweeping the world like the Black Death in the middle ages". '

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. cc
    Member

    I once knew a guy in Tollcross who said he'd bought his flat there for just a few hundred pounds. The whole street had been cleared of its residents, prior to demolishing the entire neighbourhood to make way for the new road; but then there was a delay, so they sold some flats cheap on the understanding that they'd be demolished in a year or two. He still lived there several decades later when I met him. Bargain! But I feel sorry for all the people who were cleared out.

    I'm sure I remember a BicycleDutch video illustrating how blocks had been razed in Dutch cities too to make way for very wide roads for cars; and how some decades later those wide roads had been narrowed once more, and new traditional-looking buildings rebuilt there; but I can't find the video.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. SRD
    Moderator

    Thrre's some very odd flats on Drumdryan st. - mostly unmodernised - that might explain that.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. chdot
    Admin

    Of course this is going OT CCE style.

    The way Edinburgh is today depends a lot on the fairly recent past and in many cases due to 'campaigning' - and even "protests" with all sorts of local and city-wide groups involved.

    After the 2nd World War there was a big push for 'modernisation' of cities. This was necessary in places that had been heavily bombed.

    Not Edinburgh then.

    Though of course in many places in Continental Europe the past was rebuilt.

    The 'visions for the future' usually involved tower blocks and big roads.

    Edinburgh got its version around the Calders. Is there any real justification (in traffic terms) for the continuation of the dual-carriageway and scary roundabouts??

    In the centre the 'civic bombing' was based on "slum clearance".

    This obviously wasn't a new phenomenon. Overcrowding and insanitary conditions in the Old Town led to the creation of Craigmillar - a settlement with a similar population to Musselburgh with high quality houses but not the number and range of shops etc. as an organically evolved town.

    Tollcross and the South Side suffered from "planning blight" due to various road plans (including The Bridges Relief Road) and expansion plans of both the University and Royal Infirmary).

    Then the 'mood' changed and the idea of 'people living in the city centre' was boosted by new sources of money for rehabilitation and new-build.

    "
    This change in Planning policy, allied to the availability of private sector grants and the promotion of Housing Association activity, produced a burst of residential rehabilitation activity throughout the South Side. This started in the mid 1970s and continued through the 80s and had the effect of restoring confidence in the South Side. The single biggest scheme was the partial restoration and rebuilding of a full street block on Nicolson Street between East Crosscauseway and West Richmond Street, which included ground floor shops and a supermarket. Edinvar Housing Association also made significant inroads into refurbishing blocks on Buccleuch Street, Drummond Street and Drummond Place.

    During the same period, the City Council and Housing Associations began extensive new build housing schemes along the Pleasance and St Leonard’s Street where clearance had taken place for the now deleted Bridges Relief Road.

    "

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1455/southside_conservation_area_character_appraisal

    Since then there has been more interest in cycling and cycle infrastructure and, peripheral, pedestrians and their less than ideal facilities.

    Perhaps we are at point where 'the future' can be one where peds and bike aren't increasingly expected to "share", and a serious attempt is made to reallocate road space??

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Planning for the pedestrian in the City of Edinburgh 1930-1990: a transport planning history

    "

    http://t2m.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Hine_Julian_Paper.pdf

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. SRD
    Moderator

    have you checked out #unbuiltbritain ?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin

  28. SRD
    Moderator

    There are some great lines in that paper you posted. I particularly like "Strangely none of the groups fighting against the proposals had pedestrian interests central to their concerns" plus ca change... http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/where-are-our-militant-pedestrians.html

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. SRD
    Moderator

    "in 1982 Lothian Regional Council proposed a one way system westwards along Princes Street ... Princes Street pavements were to be doubled in width"

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. gembo
    Member

    We love our cars in Edinburgh

    But remember, all those crazy proposals tunnelling through Carlton hill etc, that we are incredulous about? They actually happened in Glasgow.

    Cowcaddens was an actual community that was destroyed for the M8 motorway

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin