CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 14years 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.
"
The famous Jawbone Arch is to be taken down after it was branded a health and safety risk.
"
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/meadows-historic-jawbone-arch-to-be-removed-1-3229063
Don't suppose there is any chance of widening the path and creating a decent crossing...
...but put back. Apparently.
"any chance of widening the path"
"...but put back"
Only way to satisfy both of these would be to harpoon a bigger whale.
The chipwrapper really is enjoying the misleading headlines to get your attention of late. We've just had "Ghost tours set to be banned from Royal Mile", aka "Ghost tours aren't being banned, just that they will have to tout for business in a single area". Now we have "Meadows historic Jawbone Arch to be removed", aka Jawbones to be removed and put back after examination"
What next? "Tram runs over bike abandoned on tracks" aka "tram runs over bike painted on bike lane"?
And the commenteers have already managed to get an anti-'bicycle brigade' comment in...
I've got to wonder about how hazardous it really is. It's pretty solid when you are close up. A year's supply of firewood for a small town fell off the Meadows trees in the wind last week, trees came down, fences down, roofs were damaged....but the jawbone arch didn't budge an inch.
Someone's department sounds somewhat less than busy.
@Snowy, maybe the same department that seems to have found plenty of time to install chicanes across shared use paths?
I can't figure out why anyone cycles along Jawbone walk when the MMW path is but a few tens of metres longer, and offers much better separation from peds.
When I am walking the jawbone way, cycles weaving in and out and getting stuck at the railings are really annoying.
"I can't figure out why anyone cycles along Jawbone walk when the MMW path is but a few tens of metres longer, and offers much better separation from peds."
The simple answer is that it provides a more direct route to Marchmont Road and Bruntsfield.
"When I am walking the jawbone way, cycles weaving in and out and getting stuck at the railings are really annoying."
Which clearly shows that the infrastructure isn't adequate for the number/type of people using that path.
The Jawbone Arch adds marginally to the 'problem' but the real issue is the crossing and, particularly, "guardrail".
The bigger issue of course (which most concerns the council) is 'maintaining traffic flow' on Melville Drive.
More could have been done for pedestrians (and cyclists) when Meadow Place was closed.
A 'bigger picture' solution would be to close the road to motor vehicles between Marchmont Road and Argyle Place, but...
chdot
Are you arguing that every single path on the Meadows should be widened to provide for a separate marked path for bikes? Every path is going to be the shortest route from somewhere to somewhere. I think that would impact on the amenity of the park as a whole.
While I like your long term vision of a traffic free Melvilee Drive, in the short run the provision for bikes to cross the Meadows is much closer to adequate than most places. It is just bloody mindedness for cyclists to use the more direct paths designated for pedestrians only rather than the routes provided for them.
"It is just bloody mindedness for cyclists to use the more direct paths designated for pedestrians only rather than the routes provided for them"
Spookily similar argument by EEN commenters about cyclists using roads where there are near(ish) cycle paths.
I'm with you in that I wouldn't use the Jawbone path because I can't be bothered with weaving in and out etc., but I can understand why people do do it, and if it was such a wildly dangerous and negligent activity there would be umpteen reports of pedestrian carnage on the path. And it's not illegal (as has been established for the Meadows, you are actually allowed to ride on any of the paths). So actually the 'paths designated for pedestrians' are no such thing really (whether there's an expectation that they should be is a separate issue).
You wouldn't like the continent, it would be scooters and vespas on those paths! (actually, I did see a fully-blown motorbike being ridden up the diagonal path behind the croquet centre a couple of days ago, and when I lived in France the big public squares were legitimate (not legal, but not stopped by the police) cut-throughs for scooters and kids on scramblers).
"Are you arguing that every single path on the Meadows should be widened to provide for a separate marked path for bikes?"
No.
That particular path is unusual as it a direct (diagonal) link between two key paths.
The unsignalled right turn in the redesigned island at Argyle Place means that isn't really a convincingly adequate route for many people.
Since the council finally acknowledged the Access law and took down the signs in The Meadows (and Porty Prom), it is clear that cycling is legal.
I'm not defending poor/inconsiderate behaviour by people with bikes but that crossing and the jawbones make things worse.
My optimum would be a parallel path the east side of the cherry trees, but I am aware that there is a strong 'preserve the grass lobby'...
"as has been established for the Meadows, you are actually allowed to ride on any of the paths"
Actually, due to the legal designation of individual paths, it's not legal on one path (possibly two).
Responsible cycling is definitely legal on Jawbone Walk.
"My optimum would be a parallel path the east side of the cherry trees, but I am aware that there is a strong 'preserve the grass lobby'... "
+1 (for the path, not the grass).
Make up the grass loss by turfing over some of the bottom of Meadow Place?
"Actually, due to the legal designation of individual paths, it's not legal on one path (possibly two)."
Ah, interesting, which two?
(not that I ride on any paths other than those with the bike lanes on them, and the one to the left of PY occasionally, which actually probably isn't part of the Meadows)
I never argued that cycling on Jawbone Walk was not legal, only that it was not desirable.
For the cyclist, you have the choice of powering down MMW and along the good track to the right, or weaving through people (including angry people), jawbones, railings, etc. For the pedestrians, there is simply not space to share the area around the jawbones comfortably with cyclists.
I have never even imagined the possibility of a problem at the Argyle Place junction, one of the safest places I regularly cycle.
A path the other side of the cherry trees would be stunningly ugly.
"For the cyclist, you have the choice of powering down MMW..."
Urgh, no! Plenty posts here before (where are you SRD?) about people flying down and across the crossroads at stupid speeds given the pedestrians about. And frankly even on the segregrated bits the possibility of a pedestrian or dog suddenly running in front of you means that 'powering' through there should be the last thing you're doing.
I'd go so far as to suggest that slow weaving on the Jawbone was actually safer and more likely to allow anticipation and reaction to matters than powering along the segregated section.
Removal of the barriers at the Jawbone that line up to the main road would be a good de-uglifying measure, and they're merely there to corral pedestrians to maintain that 'traffic flow' (always stated that they're for safety) - get rid, and move the crossing to eactly where Jawbone comes out and you've made it look better AND got ride of a narrowed point of conflict.
And apologies, I thought 'paths designated for pedestrians' meant you were stating that they were only for pedestrians. My misinterpretation.
Removal of the barriers at the Jawbone - which are there, at least in part, for the safety of children using those paths.
But, hey, let them run into the road if those barriers are getting in your way. Yep?
"A path the other side of the cherry trees would be stunningly ugly."
Hardly. It's not exactly HS2 through the Chilterns.
As for removing barriers - that is supposed to be part of Edinburgh's Active Travel plan is it not (I mean in general, not specifically here)?
"Removal of the barriers at the Jawbone - which are there, at least in part, for the safety of children using those paths.
But, hey, let them run into the road if those barriers are getting in your way. Yep?"
But are they really? I mean there are no barriers at the end of MMW, and none off the paths at the eastern end where there is a playpark! None at the western end either. The only, one, single path which has a barrier up is at the Jawbone, so what is it about the Jawbone that makes it so unsafe for kids that the other paths aren't? There also aren't barriers on the other side of that very crossing, nor barriers on any one of the paths on the south-west section of the park. Are children running out in front of traffic willy-nilly on those paths?
And they're not getting in 'my' way, as I mentioned, I'm with you on that path being, for me, too much of a hassle to even consider using.
"I have never even imagined the possibility of a problem at the Argyle Place junction, one of the safest places I regularly cycle."
Even after the rejiggling of the kerbs the capacity for the kerb up to the path between Argyle Place and Meadow Place to be slippery when wet-leafed up can defeat even a spikey-tyred regular cyclist.
Only real issue I've had with the Argyle Place Junction is that when the No. 41 bus is waiting at bottom of the road it blocks exit from the cycling bit. It's fairly confusing with people approaching it from multiple directions but I find it generally serves to make people thread amongst each other and get on just fine.
"what is it about the Jawbone that makes it so unsafe for kids that the other paths aren't?"
Re traffic light crossing points, unless things have changed since google took its pictures, all (3?) of the pedestrian crossings have some barriers, and neither of the cycle crossings have any barriers.
"Re traffic light crossing points, unless things have changed since google took its pictures, all (3?) of the pedestrian crossings have some barriers, and neither of the cycle crossings have any barriers."
Interesting, this has rather challenged my memory of Melville Drive! (especially given I ride it every day). It's all very inconsistent still.
Most easterly crossing. North side has simple opening between two railings, south side only has a railing to the east.
Next crossing, only has barriers on the south side, which this time are staggered a smidge, so not a simple opening.
Next up is MIddle Meadow Walk, no barriers whatsoever.
The Jawbone, which only has barriers on the north side, staggered a smidge, and none on the south (so an exact mirror of the second crossing).
Last crossing before breaking out the park into Tollcross has no barriers at all.
So. One crossing with barriers both sides (though one side is partial); two crossings with barriers on only one side (and different sides from each other); and two crossings with no barriers at all.
Very strange. So for the non-barriered crossings, and partially barriered crossings, the query still stands as to whether children are running out into the road whereas they're not at the barriered crossings because of the barriers.
But, mea culpa, I was somewhat (i.e. completely) wrong in my assertion!
Meadow Place is currently all HERASfencinged-off. I assume it's a compound for a crane or whatever to lift out the jawbones.
Or maybe a better solution to the bollards / planters being put in?
Whatever they are planning to do, I hope they get on with it soon. Pretty chaotic round there at peak times, and about 50% of pedestrians are crossing 20 yards away from the pedestrian crossing, on the west side of the junction.
It is obviously safer to encourage schoolchildren to cross a busy (30mph) road away from the crossing than it is to take one's chances under some jawbones which have stood for a hundred years without falling down.
This is becoming a bit farcical. Jawbone still in place. Pedestrians still being encouraged to cross away from the actual crossing.
Got to wonder what goes through the heads of these people. Risk of ancient jawbone falling down: negligible. Risk of pedestrians getting run over at t-junction which is famous for inexperienced and/or late and/or drunk pedestrians: vastly increased.
But hey, sod it, they're on the road, they know the risks they're taking, right?
snowy very good point. I guess the council have risk assessed the jawbones. So must act. But haven't risk assessed the road? Or maybe have risk assessed the road? Both worrying.
When I was looking for a new office within the buildings owned by the corporation I asked if establishment X was available and was told no as it was in the blast zone from the distillery. strangely, I worked in this establishment for a number of years, not knowing the incredible risk I was taking. curiously, establishment X was only available because a new establishment X+1 had been built across the street. Just outwith the blast zone? The blast was only going to reach the middle of the street?
Tynecastle? Jings I never new the danger I was in!! TBH the wafting smell some days was probably more of a risk...
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts