http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/vandals-target-mural-days-after-it-goes-on-show-1-3855014
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Meadows-Innocent consultation (and subsequent building & use)
(485 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Real shame. Lovely mural but I kinda thought this would happen.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I saw that on the day it appeared - my thought was "It could have been worse". Haven't been along for a few days, maybe it is now!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Interesting that the artist can't quite bring herself to say that it has been vandalised.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Seems to be a rash of this type of numpty behaviour just now. A fence near us has been hit twice in the last month, and painted over in the meantime.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Posted 9 years ago # -
What is going on now? Workers spotted chiselling up the tarmac at the Gifford Park end of the new cycle lane this morning...
https://goo.gl/photos/sRDwXKBLFRSXKAoL6Posted 9 years ago # -
Hopefully they're removing the kerb at the point where Gifford Park joins the cycle lane. It's not particularly well 'dropped' and making the join a continuous piece of tarmac would emphasise the continuity of the route.
Could be for an entirely different, less sensible, reason though!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Totally o/t, but I noticed @paulmilne shared a google photo above - questions
(a) how does one do this on here?
(b) is it easier on mobile device, as getting the Flikr bbcode on non-desktop these days is inordinately difficult.Posted 9 years ago # -
Re. the cycle path, they have made the drop kerb flush by infilling with tarmac on the street side: https://goo.gl/photos/HHjURChAbdpSjdxg7
@Nelly, in the sharing bit of Google Photos, there is an option to get a "shareable link".
the link doesn't seem to work with the img tags here though:
ADMIN EDIT
That's because it's a link not an image URL - which Google seems to not want you to have!
Posted 9 years ago # -
On a related note, which I don't have a photo of, there was a van backed up on Gifford Park to where the ramp goes up between the bollards to the newly-muralled/tagged passageway, completely blocking it to a couple of people on bikes coming from Clerk Street. Unloading for one of the shops there, I reckon.
Posted 9 years ago # -
No van when I went through yesterday, but people will have to get used to the genuine shared use space.
Probably needs some thought about the bins and another row of bollards to stop vans.
OH NO might need to remove a couple of parking spaces...
Posted 9 years ago # -
"they have made the drop kerb flush by infilling with tarmac on the street side"
Nice job.
If they are looking for work there are many more places!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Gifford Park bins have moved -
Posted 9 years ago # -
New parking too -
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=15294#post-196031
Posted 9 years ago # -
They actually listened! They actually moved the stop line!
Untitled by Anthony Robson, on FlickrEdit, also this morning a car rolled up, the driver pulled forward and blocked the lane, then saw me (stopped waiting to take the pic) and he reversed! Wahey! Ah, it's the little things (I waved him out, he waved thanks).
Posted 9 years ago # -
Yes - it's got some good points.
Have actually used bits commercially a couple of times on tours and bike ghosting operations.
Angelo admiring the mural
20150802_130428 by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr
Posted 9 years ago # -
Well done @Wilmington for all your efforts. Do you sense a a but coming?....
...but there are still problems with the road markings on the St Leonard's exit which make it sub-optimal, and I think you mentioned in your letter. There should only be one hatched double line positioned immediately before the cycle lane, not before the pedestrian footway line, and there shouldn't be a further hatched double line at the main road.
This may seem picky but it prevents this junction from operating properly, and prevents us citing this example as best practice for future developments.
I watched about a week ago as 3 cars exiting (must have been rush hour on St Leonard's) all pulled up to the road blocking the cycle lane. If there was no final hatched line it would emphasise the continuity of the cycle lane and that cars should treat the road and cycle lane as a single roadway (which I think it is) and not cross either until both are clear. The first hatched line is still too far back making sightlines still difficult and inviting the drivers to cross them one by one.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I think that is much better. I think there still needs to be a hatched line at the road, otherwise it implies that drivers can then just drive out into the road and have to be given way to by those already on the main road. We may have to accept that at times, a motorist coming out of there has checked to see if there are any cyclists coming, moved forward to the second give way then gets stuck for a bit, potentially getting in our way.
Posted 9 years ago # -
What Min said ^^^
Posted 9 years ago # -
It's definitely much better. Result WC!
there shouldn't be a further
hatched[dashed] double line at the main road. -> Agreed. Drivers should ensure the cycle lane is clear and the road is clear before making their move, all in one maneuver.There should only be one
hatched[dashed] double line positioned immediately before the cycle lane -> Agree there should be only one line. Do not agree it should be positioned immediately before the cycle lane. The aim is to give pedestrians priority across the crossing as well as cyclists.Posted 9 years ago # -
See figures 6 & 8 of:
showing the dashed double lines positioned before the cycle track on exit from the side road, and positioned before the cycle track on entrance to the side road (one half of the road only in each case).
Note the exit give way lines are shown prior to the cycle track, not the footway, but I see no reason why the footway couldn't be included.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@edd1_h thanks for finding that doc, I was looking for it. Diagram 6 was exactly what I was suggesting. The problem with the dashed (thanks) line before the footway is that it is ambiguous as implemented here. If the footway were genuinely continuous, it would be clear that pedestrians have priority, but the footway isn't continuous, it looks like a normal road crossing. I am massively in favour of making road crossing easier for pedestrians, but here it's confusing and it isn't very difficult (and is safer) for pedestrians to go behind a car that is waiting there, whereas cyclists don't have that option. I go with the traffic engineer's diagram 6.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Colleague who comes in from Portobello made a point of saying how good the new route is for her. Hope council is hearing this.
Posted 9 years ago # -
just saw this on cameron rose's blog:
"There has been some concern from cyclists about the bumpiness of the new cycleway surfaces in St Leonard's Street and Buccleuch Street. Not good.
I am told the surfaces have been checked and they conform to footway standards - which I can believe, but many cyclists will just switch to the carriageway which is smoother. However, I know there are further discussions going on within the Council and with Sustrans (who part funded the route) on whether another skim surface should be put on it or not."
Why are these supposed to conform to 'footway standards' and not 'road standards'? and why are footway standards (presumably?) less stringent than roadway standards?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Well, I'd say they don't conform. As someone pointed out earlier, there was an original surface that was machine laid and lovely and smooth. But it was the wrong colour so it was taken up and the subsequent surface was hand laid, and resulted in the bumpiness. I'd get the contractors back in to do it correctly this time.
Posted 9 years ago # -
And I'd question whether the people who are liable to use these paths *would* switch to the roadway. Those who are minded to ride in the road wouldn't be using these anyway. I think the feeling of safety would trump slight bumpiness for the intended audience.
Posted 9 years ago # -
From CB's blog -
"
The contractor expects to have the traffic signals work completed by Monday 31st August - it may be sooner. That is the crossings at St Leonard's Street, Clerk Street and Hope Park Crescent at the Meadows.
"
"may be sooner"
That's today then...
But question is - 'will Scottish Power be on site shortly after contractors finish?'
Posted 9 years ago # -
But question is - 'will Scottish Power be on site shortly after contractors finish?'
But of course. It is the natural way of things.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I have an appointment in town which has been rescheduled, so am killing time walking round Meadows/Newington. I took the opportunity to look at this cycle lane.
My initial reaction is "is that it?!"
I know it's going to make things simpler and safer for a lot of people, but if this is the trouble and effort it takes to get such a small stretch of infra built then we have a long long way to go. It has left me slightly delflated to be honest.
(Wandering around with no purpose, I've noticed loads of other rubbish things that normally I wouldn't see).
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
