And this is the justification for the wildly overdone markings? Because some hypothetical "male macho" cyclist would otherwise charge through on a green light, and the markings will prevent this? I remain to be convinced. I suppose part of this is the council sticking to the letter of the law in a back-covering exercise.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Meadows-Innocent consultation (and subsequent building & use)
(485 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
I wish they were hypothetical!
Posted 9 years ago # -
If the Council really wanted to build an effective link from the meadows to the innocent, with minimal conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, it would have gone via Hope Park terrace, and taken out of a lane of traffic/parking. They didn't, so we get a twisty, windy route that has potential for conflict with pedestrians, but with minimal space lost from cars.
Posted 9 years ago # -
the "male macho" sub-class of cyclist
Sounds a tad misandristic?
Posted 9 years ago # -
They didn't, so we get a twisty, windy route that has potential for conflict with pedestrians, but with minimal space lost from cars.
The issue in the proverbial nutshell.
Again, it's the problem of (a) will people use this as an intuitive piece of infrastructure that sufficiently evidences demand and (b) how future proof is the design so the council can easily and meaningfully incorporate what's been built into a better system.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The flaw in the argument that a "male macho sub-class of cyclists" creates a danger to pedestrians, is that this very small and totally unrepresentative sub-class is the very group that is most unlikely to pay any attention to this garbage, whereas the vast majority of users of the vennel understands that there's a pavement at the crossing and they just need one give way sign and triangle at the end to remind them and cover the council's backside (just like you find at a regular road junction in fact).
Posted 9 years ago # -
Seems to me there are two issues
1. people blasting out of Gifford Place across the crossing. some idiots will do it. hopefully not too many. Some will not adequately judge the 'subjective safety' of those who are less nimble, easily off-balance or partially sighted, and cause unease unintentionally (also issues re parents walking with toddlers who may run on ahead etc).
2. cyclists stopping for lights with bikes perpendicular to pavement, and blocking it for pedestrians wishing to continue on their route - as i see happen every single day at the various melville drive crossings - a relatively low use pavement. on clerk street, with higher footfall, i can see it being a much bigger issue.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@ih - the marking for a path crossing a stream of traffic is a zebra crossing, not a give way.
I know the council are attempting to use give way markings to denote that cyclists should give way to pedestrians, but such non-standard use won't be readily recognised - the Highway Code expects give way markings to denoted that one should give way to traffic on a main road, not pedestrians.
Granted, drivers (and hence cyclists) should be aware that when turning into a minor road, pedestrians crossing that road have priority, however this is a little known rule, and a priority that pedestrians are quick to cede in the face of the rules of physics.
Robert
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Roibeard I don't particularly want to dance on the head of a pin here, but I don't think this can be categorised as a "path crossing a stream of traffic". The pavement is continuous, and pedestrians clearly have priority. So it is more like a route where cyclists have been given licence to cross the pavement (with care and consideration) similar to the way cars can cross the pavement to get to a driveway. So a zebra would be inappropriate.
If you want to arrive at the best signage for this situation there are government/agency publications on signage on shared paths, but as any sign here is unlikely to meet a Highway Code use, I don't have any problem with the use of a give way, which would be perfectly clear in its meaning. There are plenty of give way triangles on this path already, and other paths in Edinburgh. In answer to @paulmilne's question, "are the markings overkill?" Yes, massively.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"There are plenty of give way triangles on this path already, and other paths in Edinburgh. "
Can't comment on this junction specifically as I haven't been on it, but just because the council have suddenly taken to painting give way markings on cycleways (for instance just opposite Peter's Yard in the Meadows) doesn't change the fact that they have a specific legal meaning which doesn't help pedestrians.
The law states that where there is a give way sign, *vehicles* (this does include bikes) on the major road have priority over those crossing the give way line. It doesn't place any extra onus on cyclists (or motorists) to give way to pedestrians.
There is obviously the catch-all of driving without due care etc. etc. if you deliberately ran someone over, etc. etc. but we can hardly start expecting people to obey a ghetto version of road legislation where signs are co-opted for each council's preferred local purpose?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Yes, it seems like a case of bikes should obey all the rules of the road and act like cars, except where they shouldn't.
Either this is a shared use path, which has appropriate signage, or it's a separate bike path with pedestrian access. In which case a give way marking to pedestrians wouldn't be appropriate.
Or else it's something completely unique. Perhaps a shared use sign and a single line across where the cycle button is with a sign that says "Caution, pedestrians crossing".
Posted 9 years ago # -
I don't particularly want to dance on the head of a pin here,
Don't worry, this is CCE, we can budge over a bit to make room for all on the pinhead...
;-)
but I don't think this can be categorised as a "path crossing a stream of traffic". The pavement is continuous, and pedestrians clearly have priority.
I agree that the pavement is continuous - the difficulty is that (some think) it isn't clear that pedestrians have priority. We don't have markings that say "hey you're now crossing a continuous footway", so we have to make do.
Using an existing, "the footway continues with priority across your trajectory" marking seems better than misusing a "give way to vehicles crossing your trajectory" markings, simply because there are no vehicles to which one should give way...
However, I'd question the need for markings too. But we may be in the lamentable situation where the "get off my carriageway" mentality (where pedestrians have the right to be present, and drivers only a license to use it) extends to "get off my cycleway".
Perhaps a shared use sign instead?
Robert
Posted 9 years ago # -
As I think SRD was hinting, it may be that the excess of markings are there mainly to reassure pedestrians.
Posted 9 years ago # -
And apologies to the poor woman I spoke to at the Clerk Street crossing. Walking up along Clerk street I saw the temporary light turn red but the cyclists stopped there weren't moving off. I didn't know they were waiting for a (delayed) little green person to appear, and I spoke to a woman stopped there and tried to indicate that the light was red and she could cross. She was naturally confused, and it took some time to explain my meaning, in the meantime she missed her crossing - but she was patient and adamant that I explain myself. She thought I was being cheeky and saying something to her about jumping red lights, which was the exact opposite of what I was trying, and failing, to get across. But all was clear at the end. Sorry for the confusion!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Just imagine if there was a nearby example of exactly the same situation, compliant with road legislation, which has been in place for many years (since the last millennium at least): https://goo.gl/maps/HHhn1
You'd think such a successful local example could simply be repeated 200m to the south, but TiE.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Dave - the difference here is that the cycleway is continuous rather than the footway.
I'd like to see a UK solution that prioritises the footway, so I'm happy to see experimentation here. Granted, this may not be the correct place for such priority, but I would like to see it routinely in design/infrastructure for footways crossing side streets - yes, we do have it enshrined in law and the Highway Code, but in practice...
Robert
Posted 9 years ago # -
Didn't quite follow your first para. Ride along East Crosscauseway, get to the crossing, ride across to West Crosscausway, continue down it. The same as the new bit of path fundamentally?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Dave, I think @Roibeard's point is that according to the plans for Clerk Street, the area between the bicycle button post and the carriageway is designated as "new footway" with a stop line for cyclists. Whereas the excellent example at East Crosscauseway is a continuation of the cycleway, as you rightly pointed out, that pedestrians are expected to give way to.
But I take your point that the new crossing could have taken a cue from the old crossing.
Will cyclists ever have priority anywhere in this city? When cycling becomes so inconvenient, it's a invitation to law-fudgers (to coin a phrase). Why oh why can't it be made easy for cyclists to obey the law?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Well, I went that way last night.
I was expecting to come on here and say "far to fiddly, I'll stick to the roads", but actually - yes, it is fiddly, but you don't have to cycle uphill over bumps while keeping out of the door zone with a taxi driven on your back wheel, and you get lights to cross both the roads; so I think I may continue to go that way...
... it is much less stressful.
I'm just a bit concerned that it is so narrow. How long before it gets overwhelmed by volume of traffic? That would force me back onto the roads (unlikely at the time of the day I use it). Well, you say, you are a confident cyclist, it isn't aimed at you. Yes, but why shouldn't I get a safe and stress free route too?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Hopefully it will get busy! Then we can point the council to it as proof of the efficacy of segregated infrastructure. Ideally of course we'd have that width on both sides of the street ...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Posted 9 years ago #
-
And hooray! They've burned off the white line wheelie bin areas that would have obscured the mural. Why did they put them there in the first place? It does look though that one of the stone bollards will stay down so that the bin lorries can get in to empty all the bins in the non-mural section of the passage. It would have been nice if they could have been kept outside, to keep the passage clear and give space for pedestrians.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Why did they put them there in the first place?"
Either not reading the plans properly, or a realisation that it was a mistake because of the mural.
Either way I'm surprised it's been done so quickly.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Popular already -
Posted 9 years ago # -
Don't know what they were doing today, but it 'needed' 4-way temp lights at the Hope Park crossroads which took ages to go through a full cycle.
Posted 9 years ago # -
At the Clerk St crossing, the cyclist button units (to indicate desire to cross) are positioned on the wrong side of the cycle track, as though we drove on the right. The one on Rankeillor St can perhaps be fixed easily because the pole is central on the track and the button unit could be switched to the other side of the pole. At the Gifford Park side though the pole has been placed to the right of the track, so cyclists have to cross sides to activate the button, which will then put them into conflict with cyclists coming the other way. These pole positions are different from the plans.
Posted 9 years ago # -
'The engineers don't know what they're talking about, the drawing's wrong, put them there instead' instructed he gang leader realising he could knock off an hour earlier by using a pre-existing cable
... Or something along those lines
Posted 9 years ago # -
Tweet Lesley hinds about the wrong pole positions @lahinds
Posted 9 years ago # -
@paulmilne I don't do twitter, but I'd be very very grateful if someone else were to point it out. I'm happy to email her if you think that would work.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Twittered. Tweeted. Twote. Twelt.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
