Cologne 199?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Shared Use - the debate (begins) continues
(234 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
By email -
"
Someone threatened to batter me last week for cycling on a shared use path near the bridge to nowhere in Glasgow.
"
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
In addition, improvements for pedestrians and cyclists at the Seafield Road/Seafield Road East ‘S’ bend are currently being investigated. This will seek to resurface and widen the shared use cycleway at this narrow corner."
Posted 11 years ago # -
"Pavement cycling" -
New related topic -
http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11732&replies=2#post-134760
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
PCycle8 : The Council’s approach to situations where a shared footway is an option will be as follows:a) shared footways will only be considered where they are necessary to provide cyclists with a reasonably safe route separated from busy traffic and they form a component in a longer cycle route;
Taking into account cost implications, impacts on other road users, and potential benefits:
b) where space is available provision of a cycle track physically divided (segregated) from both motor traffic and pedestrians will be considered (a segregated cycleway);
c) If a segregated cycleway cannot be provided then the usual preference will be for cyclists to be separated from pedestrians on a shared footway by a white line, difference in materials, or similar. However, this will not always be the preferred solution, for example, when pedestrian use is low and width is limited it may be better not to segregate; and
d) all new and existing shared footways will be equipped with ‘courtesy’ signs encouraging considerate user behaviour.
"
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2014/01/edinburgh-local-transport-strategy-2014-19
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago # -
Wow, great figures. So people on the pavement are 55 times more likely - 5500% - to be injured by a car than by a bicycle? And infinitely more likely to be killed by a car than by a bike.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago # -
@chdot That's on my walk to work. The allocation of space is routinely ignored by peds.
CEC will need to sort this if it's going to be the main link between George Street and Leith Walk as it is clearly not adequate to take the numbers of cyclists the council is targeting.
If I was riding that way, I think I'd cycle between the kerb and the tramline anyway.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"If I was riding that way, I think I'd cycle between the kerb and the tramline anyway."
Recently I've done Waverley Bridge to St. A. Sq a few times - past the Trams Only sign of course.
It would have included carrying on along the tram route next to the kerb - but they seem to be 'fixing' it still/again -
Of course this direct route from Waverley to the Sustrans' route is 'illegal'.
Posted 10 years ago # -
There is an awful lot of space on St A Sq allocated to cars which is very lightly used at the moment. Even St David St and the west side of the square is not *that* heavily used, including in rush hour, and it's plenty wide enough to re-allocate space, which will be important given the plans for improving George Street.
Maybe the Council have it in hand [here's hoping] for once the tram is running, but it seems a no-brainer to me to put in a nice wide (possibly even two-way) cyclelane behind a line of car parking on the north side of the Square. I really don't understand why the current cyclelane needs to be in the doorzone on a really wide street.
Posted 10 years ago # -
it needs more than a lick of paint on that pavement to make the cycleway obvious...
Most pedestrians watch not their feet, but ahead of them, or are staring at their smartphone, so won't really think too much of a white line on a grey pavement.
Posted 10 years ago # -
direct route from Waverley to the Sustrans' route is 'illegal'.
Naturally. This is exactly why trying to popularise cycling in the city centre faces challenges.
Think Fimm said something on the network thread about 'desire lines'. Easy to observe many degrees of road users trying to 'subvert' routes that are banned to them.
For some drivers this is using bus lanes or ignoring pedestrianised streets.
For some cyclists this means riding up on pavements between phases of traffic lights. A good example of this is the right turn down High St from George IV Bridge. Around half the cyclists I see get onto pavement to make turn to avoid being in middle of road, These include ones with lights, bright jackets and all the viz gear. I also note both cars and bikes ignoring red lights as this junction has been delayed for around four seconds so all lights show red.It's interesting how people adapt and just go round things - which is the case when the infrastructure is mere paint.
The solo bike at an angle on pavement looks like some sort of street art and disconnected from any obvious physical route.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"Looks like another tacit admission from the Council that shared use does not work where people are using their bikes for A to B transport (but without any proposals to sort it out with a segregated facility)."
http://www.citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13169#post-160188
Posted 10 years ago # -
I did say something about "desire lines" on the network thread, along the lines that you are saying, LaidBack. But I can't take credit for the initial idea, I read it somewhere, but I have no idea where.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
He added that cyclists should look for quiet backstreet routes to avoid dangerous roads and suggested that it was reasonable for cyclists to ride “slowly and carefully” on wide pavements.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
Actually, the debate started a VERY long time ago -
See p3 for what happened next...
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pall-corrected-p8.pdf
Posted 10 years ago # -
This thread has been dormant for 6 months, but the 'issue' hasn't gone away.
May even be more of a problem 'on the ground', and - I would argue - is in even more need of discussion and some clarity - especially on CEC's policies (explicit or otherwise) and practices.
This is how the thread started -
"
SRD and I (and others) were at the Cycle Forum yesterday.
'Shared use' was mentioned in various contexts - Princes Street, George Street, Porty Prom, and 'our' current 'favourite' Seafield Street.
I suspect this all could become a 'big issue' in Edinburgh, not least because it seems that various bits of the planned "Family Network" will be SU. Some important 'links' will be on existing non-shared pavements - the precise details about where and whether they will be widened are not known (or actually decided).
There are a lot of conflicting views - conflict is a relevant word.
"
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=10924
Since then (on this thread and quite a few others) there has been much discussion about individual bits of infrastructure (including bollards and chicanes!) and behaviour/etiquette - especially related to canal and NEPN users.
I think 'we' are slightly conflicted (humans before bicyclists after all!) about what is 'reasonable' in terms of expectations - of speed, riding to the conditions, pedestrian 'behaviour', dogs(/owners).
This (the 'shared use debate') is currently even more relevant due to various 'developments'.
Largely the debate is framed/defined by pavements and paths being used by walkers and cyclists (and buggies and dogs). Clearly these continue to be important but there is also the whole issue of sharing road space.
'Sharing road space' is something 'we' do all the time. 'We' want other people to do the same - which for some people would need significantly different conditions - less traffic, better behaved drivers, segregated cyclelanes, lower speeds etc. (AND - perhaps - less on-road parking...)
Obviously 'we' are (all?) in favour of more roads with a 20mph limit. Fortunately CEC see this as important and has put a lot of effort in to proposing and promoting this. There has been noisy opposition, but as the recent 'anti' demo showed, not that many people are particularly bothered about the new limit. Of course it could be that the silent motoring majority feel that there will be no need to obey as there will be little enforcement.
More worrying is that (almost in parallel) CEC is proposing to abolish all-day buslanes. The main reason seems to be 'because drivers are confused by the fact that some are p/t and some f/t'.
Hardly a good reason even IF there is a political 'thought' that 'it might make it easier to get drivers to 'accept' 20mph.
As has been adequately pointed out on the buslanes thread, there is not much 'off-peak' congestion and - according to the rules of the road - motor vehicles are supposed to be in the left lanes, leaving others for overtaking. So either drivers will ignore this and keep using non-buslanes or bikes will get more squeezed.
Another CEC innovation is George Street. Very bold (for CEC) - welcomed on CCE in principle, but less so in practice. It seemed that CEC had abandoned the necessary bollards (which keep getting knocked down, deliberately or otherwise) BUT then decided that they are going to be replaced! There is however a rumour that CEC intends to abandon the cyclelanes part of the experiment - and make it all shared use (pedestrians and bikes), but not re-opening the road to vehicles.
I'm sure some people on here will want the lanes to remain (and be improved, without the 'round the statues' route nonsense) others perhaps more relaxed about 'losing' the lanes and gaining some 'better quality' shared use space.
If that is what is proposed after the experiment ends in September it will be a good opportunity for CEC to indicate what it REALLY means by 'shared use/space'.
They have done a massive amount of work much of which is contain in 127 page Edinburgh Street Design Guidance
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1892/edinburgh_street_design_guidance
Whether this -
"The challenge of making places better for people whilst not causing undue congestion or delaying other street users (depending on the location or time of the day) is at the core of this guidance."is the best starting point is open to debate. Seems a bit too 'traffic flow' centric.
The executive summary includes -
"
To ensure that street design supports the Council’s wider policies, in particular transport and planning policies
To bring together previously separate Council guidance on street design, to achieve coordination and coherence
"Sounds good.
Recently there was a meeting of the "Golf Courses Path, Barnton - Working Group" first item for discussion "Cyclist speeds". There has been much comment on CCE about a) the actual speed and number of cyclists b) the number of pedestrians without dogs c) the speed with which the council reacted to a complaint, wrote a report and organised a meeting. Similar complaints about Jawbone Walk also led to a working group.
So it seems, more than ever, that there is a need for public discussion on the purpose(s) of shared use and whether there needs to be more/less, better design and also 'public understanding' of the benefits (in the right places) and also the responsibilities of users.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Posted 9 years ago #
-
From "Today's rubbish walking" thread -
"
Re Brandfield Street (above)
"
South West Team (@southwest_team)
11/03/2015 15:09
@CyclingEdin @LivingStreetsEd This area is not currently adopted by the council, however, the signs that are in place are installed in accordance with Traffic Signs: Regulations and General Directions 1994 and provides sufficient clarity. IF"
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8717&page=5#post-182957
Posted 9 years ago # -
Two more shared-use sections coming with (in progress) Meadows to Innocent route -
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11898&page=2#post-182964
Posted 9 years ago # -
which bits are still shared use? isn't it just the junction bits?
the long red stretches in the minimap are segregated i think? and the dotted stretches on road?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Don't know (a better map would be nice).
Just reading the legend on the council's illustration.
Suspect the section on St. Leonard's will be on the pavement segregated by paint.
Actually more interested in final on-road design for Rankeillor St. - presume not segregated between parking and pavement...
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Suspect the section on St. Leonard's will be on the pavement segregated by paint."
my recollection is that it is 'proper' segregation, but too narrow to be really useful.
"Actually more interested in final on-road design for Rankeillor St. - presume not segregated between parking and pavement..."
no. they have a huge mental block against designing anything like that.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"my recollection is that it is 'proper' segregation, but too narrow to be really useful."
The main bit of pavement is pretty wide.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Plans here:
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/download/809/meadows_-_innocent_path_ncn1_cycle_route_plans
Posted 9 years ago # -
St. Leonard's segregated by a chamfer kerb
Posted 9 years ago # -
Thanks.
I can't work out some aspects of the drawings.
It doesn't look as though any road space is being taken from StLSt but the pavement at present doesn't look wide enough by Hermits and Termits for what is planned.
It's seems they have managed to 'deal with' the private parking at the west end of Rankeillor St. - which is good!
Turning right off the new cycle path into Gifford Park is very poor. A CLEAR case of the need for the route to go inside the parking.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Posted 9 years ago # -
In my dream last night I was arguing with fictitious pedestripeoples who had shouted at me for cyling on a fictitious shared use path, they were standing underneath a big blue shared use sign too.
Re that photo above, I use that most days on the way home. It's a convenient but rubbish cut-through, avoiding the main road and a couple of sets of traffic lights.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
