It suffers from thermoplasia.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Meadows-Innocent consultation (and subsequent building & use)
(485 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
what's the vintage/provenance of the ones on west richmond?
1929
Yes, 'Tardises' are his.
Well, the Edinburgh Police Box, which the Tardis is not based on... Glasgow used the London-type box, but traditionally painted red.
The 1930s expansion and extension to Portobello Power Station was his "Bankside".
Speaking of Bankside, I found out by accident the other day that the R.C. Church on Marionville Road (next to Marionville House) was designed by Giles Gilbert-Scott, but never actually completed. It was meant to have a steeple and bell tower which was never built, hence the bell being stuck on the side, externally, as a bit of an afterthought.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"which the Tardis is not based on"
I knew that...
Posted 9 years ago # -
From ponding thread -
"
Buccleuch Terrace and Bruntsfield Place – New Works Team The ponding issue highlighted as “…end of The Meadows… new route to the Innocent” is the same issue as that of the last location noted in the attached PDF. I can confirm that work is nearing completion to install an additional gully at this location, which should remove the water build up following the installation of the new cycle route.
"
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14898#post-191653
Posted 9 years ago # -
More baffling paint patterns there
Posted 9 years ago # -
I would like to refer to the post three up from this one in which CHDot says he knows the inside of an Edinburgh polis box is not a tardis. Please note the picture above of the ncp parking hut is not a polis box.
There are two polis boxes in juni green, clearly a hotbed of crime.
Ebenezeer macrae who designed Edinburgh polis box is part of an excellent display of 100 years of planning in Edinburgh. Also has paddy geddes, Davie begg, Rico mirales, Terry Farrell. All on pop up banners. I have asked that this good wee lunchtime read be placed on the public side of the Waverley court turnstile. However, it is on the move to another destination on Tuesday. If I find out where I will alert you all.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"CHDot says he knows the inside of an Edinburgh polis box is not a tardis"
I thought I meant the outside!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Ah, maybe you meant the inside and the outside and were possibly unconsciously referring to the newspaper article in the link where the chief inspector is sitting inside the box beside a 1980s push button phone where he says I know it is not a tardis.
Oh wait, maybe that was me. Apologies, I have been reading a book of loosely connected short stories by Johanna Skibsrud called This will be difficult to explain where she monkeys around with perspective a bit and I have become confused with inside my head and outside my head. As well as inside the tardis and outside the tardis/ not tardis. Also the quote from CHDot was the same as the quote from the chief inspector. Actually, the quotes are not the same but they are similar.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Just tried the Pleasance stretch of this since my route home takes me south bound up past the Commie rather than down to the Innocent. It is easy enough to join but the exit at Hermits Croft is impossible. They have totally missed an opportunity here to support merging so now I get to have people yelling at me to use the cycle path - yay!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Yes, I agree. They have several breaches of the traffic side kerb to facilitate access to utilities covers, but nothing here to allow cyclists to roll back onto the road, as you can on the Buccleuch Terrace stretch.
Just did a walk around and it's pretty obvious they are waiting until all the infra is built until they finally put up the lights and signage. Still need to sort out the stopping line at the Meadows/Buccleuch Street toucan crossing.
Work is progressing on Clerk Street, the giant concrete bollards that have stood sentinel at the east end of Gifford Street have been uprooted and currently lying on pallets. A pity, somehow sad to see them go!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Oh, yes, forgot to mention workies laying some sort of white gritty surface on the narrow raised strip separating Buccleuch St. path with the main carriageway. Probably a good idea as it introduces visual separation to reinforce the point.
Posted 9 years ago # -
My 8yo was taken along here on a group ride earlier in the week and thought it was fab. apparently a passing policeman stopped traffic so they could get across.
I know we all see its limitations but it was kind of cool to have a dinner-table conversation that went 'hey mom, you'll never guess...' and ended with a bit of cycle infra...
Posted 9 years ago # -
I agree Sarah, and is a good example what can be done with the political will. Just need more and more of it! I especially like the priority over side streets on both St Leondards and Buccleuch Street.
Posted 9 years ago # -
How's that priority over side streets working out?
Only fair to wait till it's officially open, but the road markings are all there....
Posted 9 years ago # -
That's a confusing set of markings. The first lot of give way lines are way back from the cycle track, and it isn't obvious what the driver is giving way to. Once you have driven over those, the next set are right at the road. I think I would have done what that driver did (unless I was used to the cycle track being there and therefore looked for cyclists).
Or am I missing something?
Posted 9 years ago # -
But the road markings ARE give way markings, which I think is my point. There was no attempt to stop and look. By saying it isn't obvious what is being given way to, does that mean we should just carry on driving rather than give way, or stop to see what we might have to give way for.
Personally I'd stop at a give way line, even if not obvious, because I'd assume it was there for a reason. I don't honestly think there's much that's confusing about it. Give way = stop and give way, simples?
Put it this way, if I'm driving somewhere I've never driven before then I'm not used to roads, pavements, cycle paths and so on 'being there', but that doesn't mean I just drive without having regard for the road markings. That's surely just asking for trouble?
Posted 9 years ago # -
To be fair I should go back and see how much of the path you can see from the give way line - I suspect you can see the cyclepath and then make a judgement on pulling forward, but I may be wrong.
I'm still worried, fimm, that when you're driving somewhere you don't know the infrastructure that you ignore give way lines! ;)
Posted 9 years ago # -
If what I'm thinking is the give way line is indeed the give way line, then is it not possible that the driver stopped the car at the line (out of sight), was unable to see anything coming in either direction on the cycle lane or pavement, but was also unable to see if anything was coming on the road, so then proceeded slowly forward to consider pulling out onto the road? It looks like the give way line is positioned rather too far back to me...
Posted 9 years ago # -
That's why I'm going back at lunchtime to take some photos of sight lines. My own feeling at the time was there was the chance to see me, and I'm pretty sure I saw him just drive over the give way without the merest hesitation (my head positioned a bit higher than the cam) - but only fair to check :)
I suspect the line is positioned to stop cars blocking the pedestrian bit of the path, though could possible be another yard further towards the main road and still not be doing so. Like I say, will go and check.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm a rubbish driver...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Suspect that's not actually true, as admission of fallibility is missing from most people behind the wheel, which is one of the big problems!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Good god was I wrong? Couldn't have been more so. Massive apologies to fimm, sight lines here are awful - pics when I'm back home.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Looking at the video, it would seem that the driver (might have) thought you were far enough away that it wasn't a question of 'giving way', but could have been one of 'waiting'.
The problem is that vehicles from the side roads need to wait at the give way markings at StLSt on the cycle path.
What is the 'Dutch design solution'?
Posted 9 years ago # -
From further up, Give Way does not equal stop. That's what Stop signs are for. Could maybe do with one here?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Give Way does mean stop if there is traffic on the road you want to go onto doesn't it? Granted we allow a roll up to three line then over if it's clear without stopping, unlike in the US where you must stop.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Give Way does mean stop if there is traffic on the road you want to go onto doesn't it?"
Yes, but the problem is (will be) getting people (drivers) to 'understand' the notion of this as being a road even assuming the paperwork has been done to make this a road.
At least it's in the right place for enforcement...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Give Way does mean stop if there is traffic on the road you want to go onto doesn't it?
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002:
"
Road marking shown in diagram 1003: give way25. - (1) The requirements conveyed to vehicular traffic on roads by the road marking consisting of the transverse lines shown in diagram 1003 shall be as follows.
(2) Except as provided by paragraphs (3) to (6), the requirement conveyed by the transverse lines shown in diagram 1003, whether or not they are placed in conjunction with the sign shown in diagram 602 or 1023, shall be that no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the major road into that road in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident.
(6) Where the transverse lines are placed in advance of a length of the carriageway of the road where a cycle track crosses the road along a route parallel to the transverse lines, then the requirement shall be that no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the cycle track, in a manner or at a time likely to endanger any cyclist proceeding along the cycle track or to cause such a cyclist to change speed or course in order to avoid an accident.
"Doesn't say "you must stop".
Posted 9 years ago # -
It was pertly mentioned as a point of pedantry but, yes stopping would be requirement if there was traffic in the way.
I always wondered why the chosen route didn't go down St Leonard's Lane as that would have removed side road conflict on this stretch.
Buccleuch Terrace will presumably also cause similar conflict.
I think the main issue will be that when the main roads are busy you will unavoidably get cars queuing to get out of these side roads, and they will be legitimately allowed to do so due to the road markings.
You really need to either have either:
- a single Give Way (or Stop) line behind the cycle path and pavement (so a driver would have to wait until pavement, cycle path and road were clear)
or:
- space for a car to sit between the main road and the cycle path, with perhaps a yellow box junction to keep the cycle route clear.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I always wondered why the chosen route didn't go down St Leonard's Lane as that would have removed side road conflict on this stretch."
Partly the cobbles and partly the path exit at the Tunnel end of the (former) Engine Shed yard.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
