CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

"GOLF COURSES PATH IMPROVEMENTS, BARNTON"

(338 posts)

No tags yet.


1…9101112

  1. gibbo
    Member

    there's a number of traffic reducing measures in Clermiston; I'm guessing it must also be posher than where you used to live? Or was your comment about council inaction because of lack of poshness simply facetious?

    There was "traffic calming" methods there, too - but there was nothing done about double parked cars both pushing road users to the wrong side of the road and blocking the view of on-coming traffic.

    So, yes, it appears you don't have to be very posh to get speed bumps, but if you're in a posh area, the police/council seem to take more of an interest.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. barnton-to-town
    Member

    Traffic reduction measures are all intended to improve safety.

    It doesn't matter where you live.

    The police are undermanned and overstretched; they don't rock up and attend to every complaint of a traffic violation, no matter where you live.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. Snowy
    Member

    The police are undermanned and overstretched;

    That's certainly true. I know of a recent collision near Blackford where both cars were completely written off. Police were 'too busy' to attend! (Fortunately the paramedics were highly competent and sorted everyone out.)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. gibbo
    Member

    Traffic reduction measures are all intended to improve safety.

    It doesn't matter where you live.

    I understand that's what you're saying. And I'm saying - based on the experience of having lived in not so nice areas and nice areas - that the council/police seem to be far more attentive to the needs of people in well off areas.

    Maybe I'm wrong. But, unsurprisingly, your unsupported statements that I'm wrong aren't swaying me.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. DaveC
    Member

    There is only one way to sort this....

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. barnton-to-town
    Member

    I've lived in some of the worst and some of the better.

    The police do what they can. The council do what they can.

    There is no preferential treatment either way.

    Although, I'd grant you that the fire brigade prefer to do the rounds of hydrant checking in the better areas.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. Colonies_Chris
    Member

    I think I see an easy solution to the problem of bike-pedestrian conflict at the Barnton chicane. Close to the exit (if you're going eastward), there is a drainage channel on the left of the path that runs upward to the left of the boulders. All that's needed is to tarmac over it; it's an obvious desire line for pedestrians coming up the path, taking them safely onto the pavement, and completely avoiding the chicane. It wouldn't be used by fast-moving downhill cyclists entering the path because it's at an inconvenient angle on the wrong side of the road; cyclists would enter the path via the chicane. Problem solved.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. Instography
    Member

    It's only an inconvenient angle if you stay on the correct side of the road right to the bottom. But before the path was upgraded, when that was the start of the path, cyclists could happily come flying down the road (there's no traffic) and join the path. Can't see any reason why people who don't like to slow down wouldn't just do that. Unless you also put a chicane on the pedestrian side.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. Dave
    Member

    Given how good planners are at cocking up the actual cycle facilities, it seems impossible to doubt they could make a pavement connection which is less attractive than the cycleway. Even simply maintaining the grade separation of the kerb onto the grass would probably do it, although for wit and banter, my vote would be for the pavement to also bend left (looking downhill).

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. Colonies_Chris
    Member

    Connecting the drainage channel route straight on to the existing pavement, without any sort of dropped kerb, would make it an even less desirable option for riders approaching downhill. And the angle of it means that a downhill rider who nonetheless tried to go that way would have to lose a lot of speed just to negotiate the change of direction from road to path.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    All too sensible.

    Don't forget -

    "

    There had been reports of conflicts arising with cyclists travelling on the wrong lane and vehicles manoeuvring at the end of Barnton Avenue.

    "

    As has been suggested previously, maybe some of this has been done because of the last house..

    Still no rational explanation of why CEC thinks that making pedestrians go through the chicane is good for pedestrians!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. Dave
    Member

    "There had been reports of conflicts arising with cyclists travelling on the wrong lane and vehicles manoeuvring at the end of Barnton Avenue."

    I don't understand this rationale at all. There are going to be fifty times as many conflicts arising between cyclists and pedestrians at this artificial pinch point as there ever could have been with vehicles turning.

    Worse, manoeuvring vehicles are used to dealing with each other as part of the fundamental activity of travelling around the road network.

    I can't imagine a realistic risk assessment where the solution to vehicles manoeuvring is to force pedestrians to walk head-on to high speed cyclists coming off a downhill. It just makes zero sense.

    You more or less have to cross to the "wrong" side of the road on approach to the chicane anyway...

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. JohnS
    Member

    To pick up the last point, I've already said that the chicane is the wrong configuration and you are forced to the wrong side of the road to approach it. Some warning signage might also help ahead of the approach. There's actually more traffic at the other end on school drop offs for Cargilfield; this morning it was chocca, including bikes, with a higher risk of conflicts arising.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. gibbo
    Member

    To pick up the last point, I've already said that the chicane is the wrong configuration and you are forced to the wrong side of the road to approach it.

    That's an inevitable part of a chicane (especially one "narrowed" by boulders): in one direction, you're going to have to go on the wrong side of the road.

    PS I was coming back from S Queensferry yesterday lunchtime and a Post Office van helpfully parked at the exit of the path (east side). Maybe the driver felt it just wasn't narrow enough?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. Dave
    Member

    I've been meaning to post this for ages but couldn't be bothered to finish it: http://mccraw.co.uk/manufactured-conflict-postscript/

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. crowriver
    Member

    That's an inevitable part of a chicane (especially one "narrowed" by boulders): in one direction, you're going to have to go on the wrong side of the road.

    Careful now. Don't want the 'engineers' to notice this and dream up a 'solution' eg. a double chicane!

    Then you'd be on the right side of the road, going downhill at least.....still on the wrong side going up, right enough.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. PS
    Member

    PS I was coming back from S Queensferry yesterday lunchtime and a Post Office van helpfully parked at the exit of the path (east side). Maybe the driver felt it just wasn't narrow enough?

    Post Office drivers could really do with parking awareness training. They are top offenders in the parked on double yellows/parked on the pavement stakes.

    Regular transgressors near me are:
    - the driver who parks in the evening rush hour on the double yellows by the post box right at the bottom of Broughton Street as it meets the roundabout, then invariably proceeds to sit in the van playing with his phone;
    - the driver who parks on the double yellows/pavement just up from Albany Street in the morning rush hour.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. Focus
    Member

    Re Mail drivers (another thread beckoning?):

    One van is always parked here (right where that sand is) in Maidencraig Cres before driving round to the Blackhall PO to pick up the mail.

    That's the NEPN entrance at the very top left. The van is right round a blind 90 degree corner as you come off the path, forcing you onto the wrong side of the road when you can't see what might be coming. It's normally (but not always) the same driver, bearded and smoking his pipe outside a lot of the time. I've thought about politely asking him if he would park further away from the corner but wonder how he'd react. Alternatives are to contact the RM or maybe speak to the postmaster at Blackhall who is a decent guy.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. Instography
    Member

    Aside from the theoretical conflict manufactured here, has anyone seen any actual pedestrian cyclist conflict? I mean proper conflict not just someone having to pause while someone else negotiates the chicane in their proper turn.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. Focus
    Member

    Haven't seen anything myself, but I'm not a daily user. When is the highest ped use anyway, early evenings for dog walkers perhaps? Presumably for bikes it's rush hour or thereabouts.

    Sunny summer days aside, I'd imagine the two parties don't share the same peak period but I stand to be corrected by those who use it day in, day out.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. Dave
    Member

    I mean proper conflict not just someone having to pause while someone else negotiates the chicane in their proper turn.

    When I get into the office I'm going to ask our project management team if they have any real scheduling conflicts, you know, not just merely being unable to schedule something because something else is in the way, but physical violence in the board room :)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. Kenny
    Member

    physical violence in the board room

    If you want to see physical violence, you need to look in room 7 when they're playing table tennis...

    Posted 9 years ago #

  23. Instography
    Member

    Seems like a reasonable enough question since all the discussion is about the chicane creating conflict with pedestrians or between cyclists so I'm wondering, if the chicane is so awful and conflict-inducing (fifty times more conflict-inducing) we should have seen some by now.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  24. SRD
    Moderator

    Insto - I think you're misunderstanding what is meant but 'conflict'. Not suggesting people will get knocked over (hopefully) but that pushing through narrow space will make it more uncomfortable for both. Very much joking most cyclists will slow down enough that it won't result in physical conflict, but can't see how this would make it more pleasant for anyone. Again 'subjective safety' is key - if walkers find themselves fighting with cyclists to squeeze through, then they are less likely to feel like they have a safe, conflict-free environment.

    He obvious analogy is pinch points on a road. You can channel cyclists around them with cut- throughs or you can force both cars and cyclists through a narrowr space. I know which I prefer.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  25. neddie
    Member

    Apparently there was a crash between a cyclist & a ped on this section of the path on Friday evening (28th Nov).

    The cyclist came off and the front wheel buckled. The pedestrian suffered bruises.

    Did anyone see or hear anything more about this...?

    (or please PM me if it was you)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  26. panyagua
    Member

    Not in any way suggesting this is what happened, but the runway-style lights, while welcome, could be a factor. Cyclists might be tempted to hurtle down there with only a 'be seen' front light, using the path lights as a guide for which way to point. Their chances of seeing a dark-clad pedestrian would be limited.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  27. Instography
    Member

    See its own thread. What panyagua describes seems to be exactly what happened.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    "

    Trying to make one path suitable for everyone might be difficult to achieve, the main point to consider is how to allow as many different activities to take place safely. This section will help you decide how to provide multi-use paths.

    "

    http://www.pathsforall.org.uk/pfa/creating-paths/multi-use-a-accessibility.html

    Posted 9 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    There's a meeting about this next week -

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14061&page=5#post-181321

    Posted 9 years ago #

  30. ih
    Member

    Any news from the meeting that was going to be held on 25th February to discuss "ongoing issues of conflict"?

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…9101112

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin