This is the latest edition to Edinburgh cycle infrastructure http://edinburghcyclechic.wordpress.com/2013/11/18/why/ why seems to be a good question.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Latest edition to Edinburgh cycle infrastructure
(25 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
I suppose their (rubbish) excuse will be that it's in the right hand lane so approaching cycle traffic will see it in plenty of time.
Quite bemused what exact problem it is designed to remedy, though. You could still easily get a motor vehicle down the right hand side...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Didn't someone report seeing a taxi driving up there quite recently?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Another temporary addition that I could do without is the 'diversion' sign sandbagged in the cycle lane as you go down the mound, on the corner.
I didn't even consider stopping to get a picture.
Posted 11 years ago # -
That's obviously a mistake. The drop kerb doesn't match anyway so reckon it's a danger. Vehicles will still go into the park. I've seen a family car parked from time to time at playpark plus council vans do need to access. Wide enough to go round - unless more obstacles are planned.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If it is a mistake you do wonder whether the guy wot done it stands back and says "hmmm... that's not right"
Posted 11 years ago # -
@ SRD
I made a point of going that way today because it's been bugging me too:
A bit blurry but I was conscious of the fact I only had a moment to stop before the lights changed for the next flow of traffic and didn't want to inconvenience any following cyclists.
Sure enough, as I set off and rode past the sign, I was squeezed between it and a car.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If my bike's working tomorrow (dead BB I need to try and replace tonight without the necessary tool which you can't get hold of in Edinburgh for love nor money) I'll ride that way and if it's still there will somehow shift it. Guerilla sign moving.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Nice one :-)
When you think about it, that sign shouldn't even be necessary anyway. If there's a diversion, you should only expect an arrow pointing to a turn off the road you are on. Just as with destination signs, if you don't see the next one ahead you are expected to continue on the main carriageway until you are indicated to leave that carriageway. As that is the main road (and turning right would only take you back where you just came from anyway) why is it considered necessary? A "Straight ahead" sign at the crossroads with the High Street pointing to the Mound should be enough. On (or above) the pavement.
Posted 11 years ago # -
@focus. Yes. That was my feeling. I suppose there is a theoretical right turn there (is it legal?) but certainly no need for a sign in a corner. Especially in such an obstructive place, give narrowness of carriageway and sharpness or corner. Etc
Posted 11 years ago # -
Re the OP's bollard, maybe they aren't finished - maybe they are about to plant one of those staggered railing gates across the pedestrian side.
Posted 11 years ago # -
If they'd put it on the white hatched bit it would have made an interesting experimental 'segregated' cycleway!
Posted 11 years ago # -
@ SRD
There's no restriction on a right turn there, though I doubt there is much point in making it as opposed to going there from the High St itself.
@ Bikeability Edinburgh
I had a half a thought to stick it there myself! Besides, the Highway Code says (relevant part only quoted):
"130Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to separate traffic lanes or to protect traffic turning right.
If the area is bordered by a broken white line, you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and you can see that it is safe to do so." (Bold emphasis is Code's, not mine).
So, a motorist should not be squeezing a cyclist there, especially as the cycle lane is all but obstructed. If the sign was in the hatched area, the Code would be telling the driver not to enter the hatched area anyway. Job done!
Still a stupid, pointless and dangerous place for the sign anyway.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I believe the white hatched bit is there to remind people that the middle of buses (and other long vehicles) encroach there as they turn the corner. Before it was painted on, they used to squeeze right across the cycle lane itself.
I've Clarenced it.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Rode past that bloody stupid bollard on NMW today. Please somebody with influence, ask the council to remove the darn thing! It just promotes confusion and gets in the way of cyclists coming either way, but particularly entering NMW from the road.
Posted 11 years ago # -
That bollard. I saw the effect of it yesterday for myself. I'd pulled over to the extreme left of the pedestrian side to switch my lights on whilst keeping out of everyone's way. And sure enough, as soon as a few cyclists turned left onto NMW they had to come over onto the right-hand side of the cycle path if not the ped path to make the turn properly. Clearly nobody has considered the impact of its placement before it was dumped there. If required at all, it should have been in-between the cycle and ped paths with an arrow pointing to the cycle side to avoid confusion.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I've Clarenced it too, but it was still there when I went through that way late last night. Agree it's completely unnecessary - no driver could be in doubt where to go at that bend.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Apparently it will 'make sense' when a second bollard is in place to actually block vehicles.
Would also make sense to repaint the lines so that that bollard is in the middle of the lane!
AND put some more reflective stuff on it.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Or more precisely between cycle lanes, if they insist on having it.
We all know what you mean but I'd hate some council person to stumble across this and think we'd like it bang in the middle of one side of the cycle lane. Not that they'd do anything silly like that...
Posted 10 years ago # -
just received:
Thank you for your enquiry, dated 26 November 2013, regarding the above issue.
The bollard that has been installed at the east end of North Meadow Walk is to prevent unauthorised vehicles entering the park. It was placed at this location to ensure that the space to the removable bollard on the pedestrian side was less than a vehicle width.
We will review the layout of the bollards at this location to reduce the potential for conflict. We are also considering widening the dropped kerb further south and replacing the drain cover with a ‘cycle friendly’ design
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm confused. I can't see the 'temporary bollard' referred to. without it, this bollard is useless, right?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Pretty much. I think by "removable" bollard they mean one that is padlocked down but can be lowered (to allow maintenance vehicles, etc. in), rather than something explicitely temporary.
The same types of bollard have been appearing all along the Broomhouse Path. Council must have got a job lot in.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Replacing all of the highly-visible, wide plastic 'bollards' with these narrow, almost-invisible black ones on a poorly-lit path? Genius!!
Posted 10 years ago # -
You saw it here first! I can't believe (I can) they had more workmen out this morning replacing the not-that-old plastic bollards with the cast iron ones while only 2 or 3 were working on the crossing. By the sounds of it they weren't sure how to screw part A onto part B as I waited for a safe gap to cross.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Geez! The yellow ones were a bit on the wide side but nobody can deny they were visible. This beggars belief.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
