CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years 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.
"
NEW 20mph speed limits in residential areas across the Capital have been given the go-ahead amid warnings that they must be enforced if safety is to be improved.
The move follows a successful pilot in the Marchmont, Grange and Prestonfield area.
The city’s transport and environment committee agreed to roll out 20mph limits to all residential streets, main shopping streets, city centre streets, and streets with high levels of pedestrian and/or cyclist activity.
"
Best comment so far:
"It seems to defeat the purpose of driving though, speed. Do we really want these surveillance technologies on our streets also.... Undoubtedly many elderly people will stand in favour of this but id like them to consider the further erosion of civil liberties and our community trust as a whole"
I like this too - it's as if people think that those who simply pass through an area in a car have as much right to say what happens in that area as those having to live there:
"Strong local support? Surely the support of motorists using the streets should be considered equally?
What about all these speed bumps we paid for previously - are they not up the the task of slowing traffic or are we just doubling up with needless wee clowncil speed limits."
(I drive to Aberdeen and Newcastle reasonably regularly, does that mean I should have a say about all the residential areas I drive through?)
"I drive to Aberdeen and Newcastle reasonably regularly, does that mean I should have a say about all the residential areas I drive through?"
Of course - and everywhere else, just in case you might want to pass by and wave.
Such comments (previous posts) show what some motorists think. Clearly things (in UK) haven't moved far enough for such views to be reserved for dinner parties.
"
Surely the support of motorists using the streets should be considered equally?
"
Equally with what/who????
Knock on a series of doors -
"Do you think people driving past your house should have the right to choose how fast they go".
Some just don't get it do they? A car passing through a town brings only disadvantages - pollution, noise, danger and loss of amenity. In return some don't even seem grateful.
And economic activity, prosperity and...
Must add some more bits from George Rosie book someone mentioned last week.
This may seem like 'drift'
Also relates to arguing for HS2 on basis that (some) rail lines are "reaching capaciity".
More of the same - or even status quo - isn't necessarily a good thing.
Space for People (not just cars/drivers).
Ah, I'd miss the ill-informed rantings of Fuel Head if he was to disappear up his own exhaust pipe:
""Greens called for a blanket 20mph limit across the whole city."
So the "greens" advocate driving vehcles in a manner that will cause them to use significantly more fuel than if they were driven steadily at 40mph then. Just goes to show how little they actually understand about these things.
I for one will not be numptying around at 20mph. I advise everyone else to ignore these ludicrous restrictions as well.[/i]"
There is a strangely held belief (as chdot says, amongst some drivers, but seemingly the most vocal ones, that 'we' (being tohse people who live in residential areas) should give up our streets to them because the car is a necessity and witout it the city would crumble to dust. Again all evidence points to the contrary (cities that restrict cars more tend to benefit in almost every way imaginable), but never let the truth get in the way of a good rant.
Still find it weird anyone can think that driving through an area tice a day on your way to work, but never stopping to enjoy the amenities of that place or contribute to the local economy, allows you an equal say in what happens in that area...
They fear change.
"Still find it weird anyone can think that driving through an area tice a day on your way to work, but never stopping to enjoy the amenities of that place or contribute to the local economy, allows you an equal say in what happens in that area..."
Yes.
There's obviously a large degree of inflated self-importance there, but it's hard to know how 'representative' such people are - having swallowed the various motoring = prosperity arguments.
Of course many such people driving into/through Edinburgh (and even more so in Glasgow) don't live here and pay local council tax.
That was what the Congestion Charge was (partly) about - too 'unpopular' to try again(?)
"...cause them to use significantly more fuel than if they were driven steadily at 40mph..."
Tut. Fuel Head forgot to re-state the bizarre claim proposed around the time of the initial 20mph pilot that driving at 20mph causes your gearbox to explode messily.
Worrying when they start to think Eric Pickles is getting it right:
"All the while our friends to the south councils are being told by Eric Pickles to stop making our cities and towns so unfriendly for motorists......."
But a prime example of how statements from MPs on this can be taken as an absolute defence of a daft position...
Good news. About time.
Well this is a result....
"Based on this guff, and also the fact you cant move in Edinburgh for road works and ludicrous parking charges, i have decided to stop driving in or around the town from now on.
The fact is i can get the bus into town quicker and cheaper than i can drive and get parked anyway! Maybe the council should think about providing something like the Boris Bikes that you see in London seeing as they are intent on forcing cars out of the city?
As ive said before though this is nothing about safety, pollution or any of the other poor excuses. Its just yet another cash cow."
Hehehehe, the classic comments keep coming!
"20mph means that its effectively impossible to overtake ever within Edinburgh. Unless you are a cyclist!"
Are residential streets in the city really places to be overtaking anyway?
"20mph will lead to more damage to car engines as they are not designed for such low speeds. They will need tuned and serviced more regularly otherwise they will get clogged up and become less efficient, use more fuel and create even more pollution and particulates."
Again someone who hasn't read various conflicting reports - depends very very much on how you drive.
"The economy will suffer because people will have to fill up with fuel more often to travel less distance reducing their disposable income which could have been spent in local shops and services thereby boosting jobs and the economy"
But surely if they're spending more on fuel then more duty is collected and therefore the money goes into the economy anyway?
"20mph limits will be a disincentive to companies setting up in Edinburgh as they will prefer to go to less draconian cities where they can transport goods with ease."
Really? Seriously? A 20mph zone, which encourages more people to walk and browse (and which has been shown to increase sales) is going to put off businesses.
I'm glad the morons who comment on these EEN pages are a minority, we'd be looking at a terrifying dystopian future otherwise...
PLEASE email Jim Orr and Leslie Hinds to say thanks - and generally encourage them.
And Gordon Mackenzie if you know where he is - he pioneered the Pilot and got voted out because his party became unpopular (for other reasons).
Rather amusingly Incey managed to link to an article from down south on a 20mph zone, pointing out specifically (as the article did) that 2 cyclists were amongst those 'caught' breaking the limit. It seems to have escaped his logic circuits that 142 people were caught in total, so there were 140 motorists, and so far he's been unable to bring himself to say those 140 were also in the wrong (presumably because that would bring an implicit call that motorists should obey 20mph zones). I swear I can hear the "how do I get myself out of this" thought processes from here.
"Travelling at 20mph does not reduce the risk of collision. Only improved driving skills and better observation reduce the risk of collision. Because of the psychological effect of being forced to drive at a speed lower than the appropriate speed for the road, concentration levels will be reduced so it will actually take longer for a driver to react to, say, someone stepping out in front of them. Consequently the actual impact speed will likely be higher than if the same driver was travelling at 30mph (or maybe even 40mph)."
Em... No, not really. Thinking time may be longer, but due to the slower speed any lengthening of time will still cover less distance, and then will be braking from an already lower speed (the additional thinking time is nlikely to count for 30mph down to 20mph...).
Unless you can point to a study that shows the contrary of course?
Okay, from the above chart, assuming the thinking distance for 20mph is TWICE as long as for at 30mph, this would mean 12m thinking time (compared to 9m for 30mph). The 'after' stopping distance would remain the same for both, so 6m for 20mph and 14m for 30mph.
So total, with twice the thinking time required for 20mph, would give 18m stopping distance, while 30mph would give 23m....
I doff my hat, he's managed to make it clear that the cyclists are worse because of 'statistical analysis'. Oh he's good. So very very good....
p.s. Smudge, he still loves ya!
Santh - You're not usually prone to such histrionics. Isn't that more the speciality of your logically-challenged, cross-site bullying acquaintance from the CyclingEdinburgh Forum (who has since changed his name - what was it again - Smuff or something similar)?
Anyway, I think most statisticians will agree that, given the comparative ratio of cyclists to motorists, and the physical effort required to attain such speeds on a bicycle, two cyclists speeding is indeed significant.
010203 - A 90kg bike/ rider travelling at 26 mph has a kinetic energy of over 6,400 Joules - easily fatal.
Er, yeah, that was High Octane Fuel Head's brane-logic not mine (added quotation marks and italics to previous post).
I suspect his special brand of thinking distance will throw your calculations way out.
I have written to three of my local councillors. Two sit on the relevant committee. and one is a Green: the Green councillors group have pressed for the 20mph zone to include all streets and roads in the city centre.
I kept the tone supportive and positive about the benefits of this important decision. I also asked them to push for Leith Walk and Easter Road to be included in the 20mph limit zone: it's far from clear whether this will be the case.
Everyone should write to their local councillor, especially if they happen to be members of the Transport & Environment Committee.
In fact you need to concentrate a lot more on your driving to successfully make your car go at no more than 20mph on a wide straight road, or that's my experience. Especially if traffic in front of you is breaking the speed limit. It's not possible to drift along in a dream and avoid speeding up over 20mph - unless of course you're lucky enough to be just behind one of those other lovely drivers who obeys the 20mph limit.
"Er, yeah, that was High Octane Fuel Head's brane-logic not mine (added quotation marks and italics to previous post).
I suspect his special brand of thinking distance will throw your calculations way out."
Argh! Apologies cb! D'oh! *flogs self*
I was about to let myself get drawn into the inevitable pointless back and forth of argument on the comments section - have now withdrawn, remembering just how pointless it is.
(though I did look at the statistical basis, and 2 out of 142 is 1.4%, while cycling makes up around 2% (uk-wide) of commuters, so the only real staistical basis is that 'people' will break the rules in roughly the same proportion - of course motor vehicles are capable of much more damage, and the potential is about so much more than just the energy transfer (bikes having better visibillity and manouevrability), but... ICBA).
Come on, folks, the EEN commenters are a waste of your time. Much more impact from writing to your councillors, supporting the 20mph decision and asking for your local shopping streets to be included in the zone. The Council needs to hear support from local residents or the EEN/motoring Mr Angries/Lothian Buses will force various 'compromises' to be made as they did in Southside/Newington/Marchmont...
Didn't realise that if you read the comments on EEN then you couldn't also contact your councillors.... ;)
(streets around me already 20mph, but quite a few on the commute would benefit too - mind you, one of the streets near me has three schools long its length, and STILL no-one sticks to 20).
As you said initially - it's really just about time this was done.
Come on, folks, the EEN commenters are a waste of your time
Au contraire. Whenever i feel the burden of guilt surrounding my uncharitable scowling misanthropic disdain for humanity, a glance toward the brainless EEN commentards tends to reassure me that i was not far wrong.
The number of cyclists caught exceeding the speed limit would be zero, as the speed limits for motor vehicles don't apply when your forward movement is not powered by a motor...
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts