CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

When were these painted at the Mound?

(62 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from douglaswaring

No tags yet.


  1. Remarkably reminiscent of a desire line path I saw in Copenhagen (same situation, a no left turn road, so cyclists simply rode over the pavement and the city council there decided, 'ah well, if they want to go that way it must be for a reason').


    Untitled by blackpuddinonnabike, on Flickr

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

    Good question.

    Yesterday like the 'lane' at N St A St?

    Of course 'we' should be pleased about this 'new' 'cycle infrustructure'.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. SRD
    Moderator

    sadly, this must be a response to our complaint about the ad-hoc , not well signed version they'd done previously.

    really depressing. this is NOT adequate. the design at intersection of Gorgie/Dalry is better. but his intersection much busier.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. How has it been done there SRD? (It's not a bit I'm familiar with).

    The comparison with Copenhagen is valid in terms of what they put on the road - there wasn't much more at the interestion I was being told about as we walked around it, in fact there weren't even the signs indicating shared use that there are here. But, of course, in Copenhagen, people expect bikes, and know how to act around them.

    Early morning commuting this qworks because the pavement is clear. not sure about other times.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    "this must be a response to our complaint about the ad-hoc , not well signed version they'd done previously"

    Actually I suspect not.

    More likely getting round to the long list of 'when the tramwork is done'.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. Focus
    Member

    On the one hand, great that they've bowed to the inevitable - that some cyclists are going to use that as a route anyway. But seriously, that is going to be a bigger area for conflict than if they hadn't painted it! It's not even got those oh-so-effective white lines to segregate it, plus it's positively encouraging you to plow* through peds. Imagine that at Festival time. Or even... oh, I don't know, Christmastime!

    *I may have to change that word in case EEN commenters have that word copyrighted.

    What was wrong with simply re-instating a left turn from the lights for cyclists?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. "What was wrong with simply re-instating a left turn from the lights for cyclists?"

    Becuase when that road has a green light the pedestrians on Princes Street to the left have a green man to cross, which in itself would create conflict and cyclists going through a green man...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    "What was wrong with simply re-instating a left turn from the lights for cyclists?"

    Well - that would disrupt the free flowing traffic on Princes Street...

    The no left turn (for all vehicles) is to allow there to be a pedestrian phase when traffic is going to/from Hanover Street.

    'Of course' there couldn't possibly be a short left for a bike filter as it would reduce ped crossing time - fair enough (no chance of altering vehicle timings of course!)

    BUT there is now a real dilemma.

    Some people want Edinburgh to be 'more Continental'. In some places ped/cycle mixing 'works' without too much conflict.

    So 'shared infrastructure' like this 'should' mean more awareness/understanding.

    BUT another reality is that this (and some of the other current proposals) seem to be more about doing anything that won't reduce roadspace.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. fimm
    Member

    Yes, my boyfriend and I have now twice cycled eastwards along Princes Street and made an illegal left turn up Hanover Street. Fine at 9pm on a Thursday, not so good at peak shopping hours!

    They should put an extra "cyclists only" phase on the lights. Now that would be radical... you wouldn't be able to stop people trying walk across, of course...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. "you wouldn't be able to stop people trying walk across, of course..."

    And I don't think you'd want to. Any concession to cyclists should be at the expense of motorised traffic IMHO, which also improves things for pedestrians.

    Advanced greens for bikes, that's the way forward, but our Council/Government would actually have to take cycling seriously to even consider such a move.

    An advanced green for cyclists would take some of the green time away from motorised traffic, and not the (already woefully inadequate) crossing times for pedestrians.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. cb
    Member

    "the design at intersection of Gorgie/Dalry is better"

    @srd, are you referring to this:

    http://goo.gl/maps/Zcrlp

    I've always assumed that is for cyclists, but it's not very clear - no signage at all.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. jordanmiller
    Member

    Apologies for gatecrashing the debate. I'm writing a story to do with the shared-use arrangements popping up in the city centre. This example on The Mound and North St Andrew Street pose some pretty interesting questions about whether the design will work. We'd love a cyclist who was happy to pose for a photo at the Mound today and demonstrate how this bike path should be used. Private msg me if you're happy to take part. Dale Miller, Evening News

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. Hmmm, if it's that one then there 'are' differences, but I actually think the Princes Street one is better.

    That is an indistinct 'lane' with no signage to make clear to cyclists or pedestrians that bikes can be there; the one at Princes Street could do with lane markers, but at least has bikes on the ground and a shared use sign that, in case of anyone telling you different, you can point to.

    Of course the Google image might be out of date!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. DaveC
    Member

    fimm said: They should put an extra "cyclists only" phase on the lights. Now that would be radical... you wouldn't be able to stop people trying walk across, of course...

    Use the left turn before, as the buses do, just watch our for left hooks.

    @EEN guy, so you can turn it round and slag off cyclists again? Go cycle on the M8!!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. steveo
    Member

    I've always assumed that is for cyclists, but it's not very clear - no signage at all.

    Thats been there for a very long time but I don't think I've ever seen a cyclist using it.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. SRD
    Moderator

    We use it when going to Gorgie farm!

    But you're right. Not well signed, and not diff colour, except by accident of retrofitting.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. Morningsider
    Member

    Dale - I don't mean to be picky, but these facilities aren't really just "popping up" - they were authorised under a Traffic Regulation Order approved by CEC on 23 November 2010 - or three years ago, if you prefer.

    I'm sure you didn't just think the Council could paint cycle tracks onto a footway without legal authority to re-designate them as shared use...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. steveo
    Member

    We use it when going to Gorgie farm!

    You'll have to let me know next time so I can say that I've actually seen it in use! Generally I'll just use the same route as the motor traffic, though I'm not usually accompanying little 'uns

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. jordanmiller
    Member

    I do realise they are being done under TROs, Morningsider. But thanks for the tip

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. Roibeard
    Member

    Regarding the Ardmillan Terrace "infrastructure" - it would never have crossed my mind that this section was a cycle lane or shared use. I'd have dismounted/remounted if turning left with the kids.

    Hopefully the Google Streetview is out of date and it's now signed - we shouldn't be expected just to miraculously know when we can and can't ride on what looks like a footway.

    <sigh>

    Back again - taking a step backward on the Streetview and revealed the segregated-shared used sign.

    Oops, too quick to rant today.

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. Instography
    Member

    Idiocy aside (which would happen anyway) I can't see why this shouldn't work exactly as intended.

    I was going to say, OK, it's not Dutch, but then I realised that it is pretty Dutch.

    I'm sure Focus isn't serious because there's nothing in world, not even rights of way, that positively encourage anyone to plow (if you insist on the Americanism - we spell it plough) through anyone.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. SRD
    Moderator

    @morningsider - I did not know that and had been wondering how they got the TRos done (wondered if there was some 'tram' escape clause that let things happen without approval a la hay market).

    Tells you a lot about how far we have come in three years that this is no longer judged acceptable?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. Morningsider
    Member

    Dale - good to hear it, I appreciate you have to adopt a certain style when writing for the EEN - but it would be good if you could edge something into the article about the difficulty people have engaging with the Council during the development of the TROs that provide the basis for most cycling infrastructure, e.g. lack of publicity, difficulty understanding plans etc. Which can lead to some (and I stress, some) poor quality infrastructure being built where simple changes obvious to an experienced cyclist could have made all the difference.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. SRD
    Moderator

    @insto - would need to look at crow manual but pretty sure Dutch would have much more clearly demarcated pavements, possibly kerbs.

    Why all the bumpy slabs (forgetting proper name) in NMW but not here? (May raise issue that Dutch provision can be dodgy for pedestrians...but also that people are used to interacting with bikes and cyclists know better how to interact with peds too, I think)

    But again, issue to my mind is that this all feels very ad-hoc (ironic really if it's been planned for 3 years). Maybe once all the bits and bobs go in it will make sense, but it seems to me like all these little sections with different signage and ways of doing things confuse people and make people feel uncertain, when we want to be encouraging them to walk and cycle more!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. "But again, issue to my mind is that this all feels very ad-hoc (ironic really if it's been planned for 3 years). Maybe once all the bits and bobs go in it will make sense, but it seems to me like all these little sections with different signage and ways of doing things confuse people and make people feel uncertain, when we want to be encouraging them to walk and cycle more!"

    This.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. Instography
    Member

    I'm sure even the Dutch have variation between what gets written down in manuals and what actually exists.

    Progress is going to be slow, incremental and mostly crap. Of course it's ad hoc. We should't really expect to see anything other than ad hoc. Either that or we can hold out for something perfect. I'm willing to take it for what it is because for the most part that's what we're going to get. That doesn't mean we have to cheer and say that it's great but it'll work. It will allow cyclists to make a left turn denied to cars. Many would have made that turn anyway but now it's legitimised on the pavement and safer than making it on the road. Rather than dismiss it as UNACCEPTABLE, my inclination would be to say, thanks for that but it's a pretty shoddy half-measure that will work but increases the chances of cyclist/pedestrian conflict. When that happens, you should ...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. Luath
    Member

    Back again - taking a step backward on the Streetview and revealed the segregated-shared used sign.

    I took a forward step onto Gorgie Road and couldn't see any signs facing the other direction to alert pedestrians that they were now on a shared use path.
    So rant justified IMHO.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. "I'm willing to take it for what it is because for the most part that's what we're going to get. That doesn't mean we have to cheer and say that it's great but it'll work"

    Not sure anyone was saying it should be ripped up.... More pretty much as you've said. It ain't perfect, I'd use it if I went that way (I don't, can't think of any time in the last six months I've gone down the Mound and wanted to turn left), but need to constructively point out any issues with it (though I'm still not really sure what can be done here otherwise without imposing ourselves on pedestrians which none of us wants to do).

    Or put another way, "my inclination would be to say, thanks for that but it's a pretty shoddy half-measure that will work but increases the chances of cyclist/pedestrian conflict"

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. Min
    Member

    @EEN guy, so you can turn it round and slag off cyclists again?

    Guess what?

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/warning-as-trams-push-cycle-lane-onto-pavement-1-3198545

    Shoppers are being directed into the path of cyclists speeding down a busy city centre pavement

    etc etc

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. SRD
    Moderator

    "Cyclists, motorists, pedestrians and – soon – trams will all be jostling for space, leading to a nightmare for city planners.

    Yet, despite this, critics from the cycling fraternity have been quick to seize on the “ad hoc” bad design."

    NO. not despite this. Because of this.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin