CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

2 New Dropped Kerbs on Craigs Road

(119 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by HankChief
  • Latest reply from boothym

1234

  1. HankChief
    Member

    Well, CEC have come back to me and said that they have left the railings in to protect the high school children and more surprisingly that the path heading North from Craigs Road isn't shared use.

    So it looks like me and the other regular cyclists are being 'naughty' every time we use it and won't be getting a accessible dropped kerb here anytime soon.

    They did say they will speak to the cycle team to look into getting it re-determined, which would great in getting satisfying our newly acquired guilty conscious...but we'd still need to work on getting them to put in dropped kerbs around East Craigs ( which will also be very useful for wheelchair users and pram pushers)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "more surprisingly that the path heading North from Craigs Road isn't shared use"

    I thought 'we' had established on here (many times) that 'shared use' (or not) is essentially about 'pavements' - the bits next to roads.

    All the rest are (subject to responsible use) 'ok' courtesy of the access legislation.

    (Apart from certain paths - like certain ones in The Meadows - that are legally roads and have had bikes banned.)

    Or something(?)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. HankChief
    Member

    This was the quote
    "I understand the particular path at this location is not defined as a shared cycleway/footpath."

    So maybe it isn't defined as a shared cycleway/footpath because it doesn't need to...and I can sleep easy at night knowing I haven't transgressed today

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    "I can sleep easy at night knowing I haven't transgressed today"

    That's good...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. Kenny
    Member

    The thing is, the NEPN has big blue signs which clearly show users that both peds and cyclists can use it, and the NEPN is clearly not next to a road. The paths around where HankChief and I live are also not next to roads, but there's no blue signs. I can only therefore assume that the right for cyclists to use said paths is lesser than on the NEPN? Otherwise, why would they have such signs on the NEPN?

    That said, I'm now wondering whether I'm imagining such signs on the NEPN. They are there, right...?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    They will have originated before access legislation.

    It would seem they are no longer necessary.

    But...

    I assume all the answers are here (but I'm not going to read all 53 pages.) -

    "

    Our statutory rights of access and the establishment of core path networks have resulted in most paths being available for shared use by walkers, cyclists, horse riders, other non-motorised users and persons with a disability using a motor vehicle built or adapted for their use.

    "

    http://www.pathsforall.org.uk/component/option,com_docman/Itemid,69/gid,727/task,doc_download/

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. Kenny
    Member

    (The NEPN does indeed have blue ped/cyclist signs)

    Cheers for the update chdot, it sounds like HankChief and I are no longer going rogue!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. Morningsider
    Member

    Think this path is fine for cyclists to use. I've quickly checked the list of public roads and can't find any mention of it - so cycling along it can't be restricted through roads legislation. That means it is simply a "path" - which cyclists and pedestrians can use under access rights granted by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003.

    It might not be defined as shared use - but it effectively is by default.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    "It might not be defined as shared use - but it effectively is by default."

    That's pretty much what I assume(d).

    As ever, M has the skills and resources to confirm the (almost) certainty.

    Of course it further highlights inconsistencies and confusions.

    I've 'taken for granted' shared use signs. Plenty on NEPN - presume pre-date access legislation and are 'useful'. On ex-pavements like Seafield Road they are 'necessary'. On Porty Prom they are probably 'essential'! As 'we' know, cycling on the Prom was (almost certainly) made legal by the access legislation. But it was a while (years) before CEC (and some locals) accepted this.

    Similarly with The Meadows. Though here it's complicated by the dominant presence of the segregated use paths.

    AND there are two paths were cycling is actually illegal!! (NOT Jawbone).

    As far as I can think, there are no shared use signs in Meds/B Links(?)

    It's possible there may be in future as there is 'short term working group' looking at walking/cycling in the area at the moment.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. HankChief
    Member

    Thanks guys.

    I've fired off my responses - I'm in the fortunate position of having 2 local councillors on the Transport committee so we'll see what they come back with.

    I'll also be able to sleep easily tonight.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    "I'll also be able to sleep easily tonight."

    Again?!

    Posted 10 years ago #

  12. HankChief
    Member

    It was quite a worry....

    Posted 10 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    You'll be be fine, you have a stealth bike...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  14. HankChief
    Member

    uh oh...

    Latest response from CEC has just come in...

    It is not currently legal for cyclists to use the footpaths to which you refer as they are adopted by the Council for pedestrian use only under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. In order for cyclists to be permitted to use the paths a redetermination order would need to be undertaken to convert them.

    Given that mkns 'spotted' me using the path only yesterday, I'm currently deadlocking the front door and turning the lights off in case they come looking for me...

    On a more serious note they did go on to say

    This is subject to objections through a statutory consultation process and before we initiated this we would need to be satisfied that:

    • The paths are suitable for shared use according to our own, and national, design guidance for these type of facilities. Typically this would require them to be a minimum of 2.5m wide and to have adequate sightlines.

    • There is community support for the conversion of the paths to shared use.

    Our West Neighbourhood team have agreed to approach local community stakeholders to establish their support for this proposal. Should this be forthcoming we will progress the conversion of the paths to shared use.

    Sounds positive - I do wonder who the local community stakeholders might be. Any ideas?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "Sounds positive"

    Yes

    "I do wonder who the local community stakeholders might be. Any ideas?"

    Bound to include Community Council - worth asking.

    "
    Typically this would require them to be a minimum of 2.5m wide and to have adequate sightlines.

    "

    Yes?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  16. HankChief
    Member

    "Typically this would require them to be a minimum of 2.5m wide and to have adequate sightlines.

    "

    Yes?

    I'm not sure.. That's quite wide.

    The route I normally would take is pretty good for sight lines as it is across open grassland but on the width I'd have said it was probably nearer to 2m than 2.5m. I'll take my tape measure next time.

    There are parts of the path network that definitely aren't wide enough and are between 2 high fences so poor sightlines will probably preclude it.

    Hopefully we can still get a workable route or two (or even a network) rather than a hotpotch of shared / not shared paths.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  17. Kenny
    Member

    Alas I doubt it is all 2.5, especially down near fauldburn park :(

    Posted 10 years ago #

  18. Morningsider
    Member

    How annoying. Perhaps someone who knows the area better then me could check the list of public roads to see where this path is listed, as I can't seem to find it:

    http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/1107/list_of_public_roads_a-c

    If it isn't in the list, then it isn't adopted. I'm not accusing the Council of telling porkies - I just want to see where I went wrong on this, perhaps the path has a name that I'm not aware of and isn't listed under any of the surrounding streets.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  19. Snowy
    Member

    "Typically this would require them to be a minimum of 2.5m wide and to have adequate sightlines."

    Well, the utterly blind corners where the Broomhouse Path meets South Gyle Access would appear to be utterly non-compliant. They'd better demolish that retaining wall for the tram embankment immediately..

    Posted 10 years ago #

  20. HankChief
    Member

    Hmmm.

    The only bit I could see is

    CRAIGIEVAR SQUAREFrom CRAGIEVAR WYND extending
     eastwards including 2 branches.Carriageways and 
    adjacent footways adopted for maintenance.  
    Including footway extending eastwards linking to existing
     public footpath. Excluding all parking
     and landscaped areas.

    The 'existing public footpath' is the one I've been using.

    The other local roads that I recognise just had carriageways and adjacent footways.

    Shall I ask?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  21. HankChief
    Member

    I've moved onto D-K section.

    I found this for a section of path further North

    FAULDBURNFrom NORTH BUGHTLINFIELD extending eastwards,
     northwards and westwards with 5 branches.Carriageways
     and adjacent footways adopted for maintenance. Including
     remote footpaths on north, east, south and centre of hooked
     carriageway.  Excluding landscaping and parking areas.

    Doesn't affect the paths that I use but is part of the network.

    Roll on L-Q

    Posted 10 years ago #

  22. HankChief
    Member

    L-Q has the following gems

    MAYBURY DRIVEFrom MAYBURY ROAD eastwards, north‐eastwards and south‐ eastwards.Carriageways and adjacent footways adopted
     for maintenance. Public including central reservation and roundabouts and remote
     footway from south side of roundabout at end 
    of  Maybury Drive south to South Bughtlin Burn footway.

    I think that South Bughtlin Burn footway is another reference to the paths that we use.

    Only R-Z to do...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  23. HankChief
    Member

    Here the last thrilling installment from R-Z

    STUART GREENFrom CRAIGMOUNT VIEW south‐westwards and north‐westwards 
    then including a loop round a central island.
     Carriageways and adjacent footways adopted for
    maintenance. Public including footway running 
    north‐westwards towards STUART PARK and 
    a link footway from CRAIGMOUNT VIEW to EAST CRAIGS
     footpath.  Excluding landscaped and grassed areas.

    The EAST CRAIGS footpath is the one I use.

    The next one is a bit long, but from my reading it is just the link paths and not the East Craigs Footway or the South Bughtlin Burn footway, which are the one's we are interested in.

    STUART PARKFrom CRAIGMOUNT VIEW westwards and 
    southwards with a branch on the south side. and 
    parking areas on the southern end of each branch.
    Carriageways and adjacent footways adopted for 
    maintenance. Public including footways: south to
    Stuart Wynd; from No.7-10;  from No.27 south to link footway
     between Craigmount View and East Craigs footway;
     from No.27‐33; from No.24 Stuart Park to No.25
     Stuart Wynd; From 39‐47, 38‐48,48‐53, 53‐57,47‐60,
     58‐62, 62‐68, 60 west to Craigmount View, 
    69 southwards; and from opposite No.14 north to
     South Bughtlin Burn footway. Including parking 
     on south of main stretch;  on west side of and
     at south end of each branch south.  Excluding 
    landscaping and grassed areas and all other 
    parking areas.

    So in summary - they have a name for the paths we are talking about (South Bughtlin Burn footway and East Craigs footway), but nothing specific in the list of public roads.

    Where does that leave us?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    "Where does that leave us?"

    Perhaps that someone thinks that "Carriageways and adjacent footways adopted for maintenance" means 'adopted as roads'.

    Which it doesn't - "adjacent footways" must be pavements, which isn't the issue here.

    It's possible that the process has been gone through to make them "roads".

    In which case they should be on a/the list...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  25. Morningsider
    Member

    Hankchief - great effort! I suppose the only thing to do is ask the Council where the "foot" path in question is listed - if someone with your amazing local knowledge can't find it, then I doubt anyone will.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  26. acsimpson
    Member

    I've just read this thread with interest. I think a lot of the East Craig Path Network (ECPN) is shown as acceptable on the spokes map, although I don't have a copy at work.

    I'm no expert on the law but I do think it's a little disingenuous of the council to quote 1984 legislation without making any reference to the later access laws and why they don't think they apply. Perhaps they would rather we cycled on the grass next to the paths as if they've adopted that it appears in a different list.

    If the council does think that my regular use of the network to avoid cycling down Maybury Road during the rush hour is in fact illegal then I am quite happy for them to use me as a guinea pig to test their theory in court. In the meantime I'll continue cycling on the paths and courteously slowing down when passing dogs/pedestrians/other path users.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. chdot
    Admin

    "I'll continue cycling on the paths and courteously slowing down when passing dogs/pedestrians/other path users."

    I think that's what counts as "responsible" in access law terms...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. acsimpson
    Member

    "I think that's what counts as "responsible" in access law terms..."

    That's my understanding. After all you never know when a dog owner will shout "Bongo, keep in" and make their dog stop standing at the side and perform a slow u-turn into the middle of the path.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. i
    Member

    ^ oh this. So true, it makes me smile =)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. Dave
    Member

    It is not currently legal for cyclists to use the footpaths to which you refer as they are adopted by the Council for pedestrian use only under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. In order for cyclists to be permitted to use the paths a redetermination order would need to be undertaken to convert them.

    This smells very familiar to this ancient discussion about the Meadows.

    The council's legal opinion seemed to be that LRA 6.1.d means that all previous restrictions on access from < 2003 still apply.

    However, the relevant bit of the 1984 act is presumably 129.5 : "commits an offence ... [except]... (b)in relation to a pedal cycle which is either not being ridden or is being ridden on a cycle track;" - if we take this at face value it means that the Land Reform Act did not actually achieve its goal of allowing people to cycle at all (except on designated cycle paths) which is contrary to the whole aim, and all subsequent branding of, the Act.

    tl;dr - smells a bit fishy to me.

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1234

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin