Crummock were "responsible" for Argyle Place remodelling and also the works on the Broomhouse Path.
Their reputation of being considerate to non-motorised persons when digging up / blocking paths and pavements is very low in my experience.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
"GOLF COURSES PATH IMPROVEMENTS, BARNTON"
(338 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Its the ususal 'do the bare minium' to maximise profits I assume.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The bricks are supposed to be speed bumps, which are going in at the Craigleith intersection as well. They will become a real hazard at Barton as they will get buried under leave mould; it will be like riding over moguls!What other politicaly correct spec. is going into the section between Cramond and Dalmeny? I doubt any of this went out to consultation. Last years works on the A9 had car sized warning notices. The absence of anything other than a laminated sheet stuck to a lampost is actually a H&S issue. It's a real choke point in the route either side of this section so advance notices would be sensible. As regulars we now know, but what about those unaware of the closure?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Its the ususal 'do the bare minium' to maximise profits I assume.
They'll build to CEC's spec. It is for CEC to specify it correctly, inspect it on completion and take action if there are any shortcomings.
What's the odds of the specification and inspection being done with a 15mph cyclist perspective in mind?
Posted 10 years ago # -
The OP (quoting from somewhere, I don't know where) says "These improvements will involve widening and resurfacing the path, while solar LED lighting studs will be installed to delineate the path edges."
Nothing about speed bumps. Neither does the plan have anything about speed bumps.There are rumble strips and anti-wheelchair barriers on the Craigleith junctions plans, alas.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Its the ususal 'do the bare minium' to maximise profits I assume.
What I meant was, they don't spend money on things like proper signs informing users its closed.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Gosh darn. There's a thumping north easterly and the long way home feels mighty attractive. However, I'll be risking the workies having knocked off by 5:30 so I get through. Cannot be bothered to fight along the A90 or the rat run to the north...
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think the idea of the bricks is to act as speed bumps, to moderate the speed of people who seem unable to work out for themselves that a junction or a descent on a curve is a point where slowing down and looking out for other path users would be appropriate.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I suppose the difference between speed bumps in a car and speed bumps on a push bike is that when driving you don't need to worry about blowing your tyres on a half-buried brick and coming to a crashing halt.
Other than that, lots of parallels.
You'd think a nice standard speed bump could be taken from the standard design manual. I wonder if it's worth challenging on this now, before the work is complete?
Perhaps the EEN would like to report on death trap buried bricks? :P
Posted 10 years ago # -
"...when driving you don't need to worry about blowing your tyres on a half-buried brick and coming to a crashing halt."
Maybe not a brick but I think speed bumps are designed on the basis that if you take them too quickly blowing a tyre is exactly what might happen or you'll lose your exhaust, a suspension coil or maybe a bumper.
But really, they're about 1cm proud of the surface. Think you could blow a tyre on that?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"But really, they're about 1cm proud of the surface. Think you could blow a tyre on that?"
Yes - especially if unexpected and you hadn't adjusted your weight/balance.
You can argue that people were going too fast - ignoring the fact that there is no speed limit and few will be doing the sort of speeds that humps on road were introduced for.
This (and the discussion on Craigleith) shows that bicycles are a problem - there are too many of them (or is just in the wrong place - cycle paths, er mixed-use social infrastructure?)
And the council wants to double cycle use by 2020 - better get on to creating PROPER on-road cycle lanes.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I don't think it does show that bicycles are a problem but it does indicate that some cyclists are problematic. This seems undeniable given the amount of discussion of Strava riders on NEPN, close passing of pedestrians on the paths and the canal, the etiquette of bell-ringing, people barging through the middle of passing cyclists and the potential and reality of conflict on shared path etc. I don't really understand why anyone can be surprised or outraged that part of the quid pro quo of widening the path at Barnton (where the narrowness failed to act as much of a constraint and I imagine there is some real local concern at the speed of cyclists on that stretch) seems to be some fairly minor rumble strips. Similarly at the Craigleith junction where some people simply do not slow down regardless of who else is on any of the paths.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I don't think it does show that bicycles are a problem but it does indicate that some cyclists are problematic"
I was inflating my case.
The 'real' issue is - are the numbers of such 'anti-social-cyclists' significant, and will these measures improve things?
As 'we' (on CCE) have observed, cyclists aren't saintly.
Their range of behaviours mirror those of people using cars.
I think most people here know that the really bad drivers are a minority, but when they are approaching/passing too fast/close or not stopping at junctions/roundabouts they can be a REAL danger.
Not defending inconsiderate cyclists, but they are less of a KSI problem.
Will rumble strips reduce anti-social-cycling?
Don't know but I hope someone will be keeping before/after stats.
Will they annoy self-styled responsible-cyclists?
Clearly.
Will they encourage/discourage cycling?
Impossible to predict or (probably) tell afterwards.
One of the joys of NEPN is that (generally) there is a large amount of smooth tarmac.
For most cyclists the value isn't speed but comfort.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Will rumble strips reduce anti-social-cycling?
Do speed bumps and "traffic calming" (Build outs, etc.) reduce anti-social vehicling? Or just make it harder for the anti-social to behave in an anti-social manner?
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's a really interesting question. I've come to believe in risk homeostasis and so I think path widening, lighting and so on will inevitably mean that people ride faster.
Similarly, it can't be denied that putting hazards on the path will deter cyclists on the whole.
Sure, anyone who wants to go fast can still go fast - just like I can drive over most speed bumps at 40mph with no obvious ill effect on the car. But *on average* I'd be amazed if it doesn't slow things down a teensy bit.
However, there's nothing that exciting about debating basic incentives - the interesting question is on the effect as a whole. We're changing shared space into a environment where there are now formalised rules that some people have priority over others, so only some people need to slow down, some of the time.
It then gets more muddy because NEPN isn't really a road, so it's doubtful that the give way sign actually imparts any meaningful responsibility on people to give way. What happens when someone on foot relies on an advisory-only give way sign and comes to grief?
Perhaps the next step is to formally reclassify it as a road, with the flying motorbike sign to keep cars off, and go at it with real laws?
It's entirely too tempting to compare safety measures between motorised traffic and cycling as though somehow 10,000 KSI each year requires a similar response to one death by pavement cycling every two years.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"...just like I can drive over most speed bumps at 40mph with no obvious ill effect on the car"
Are you saying that for inflammatory effect or is it something you've actually done? If so, where did you find a road with a >=40 limit yet also speed bumps?
As with national-speed-limit twisty country roads, just because there's a specified speed limit (for vehicles required to have speedometers etc.) it doesn't mean it's always wise to drive at that limit. Take Lincolnshire, for example. Similarly, though no specified absolute speed limit is or can (currently) be stated for pedal cycles on the NEPN, some speeds are neverthless quite clearly too fast; failure to recognise when speed has become too fast is an operator error, as it would be with a motor vehicle.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I was out for a pootle, so I went and had a look.
Coming from Sliverknowes:
New path (not finished yet, & fenced off)
Heavy duty stuff.Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Further to my email of 24/03/14,
Please note that the path between Barnton Avenue and Barnton Avenue West will now remain closed up to the evening of Monday 7th April 2014 and will re-open thereafter.This extended closure duration is to allow for the resurfacing of the narrow carriageway at the residential tie-in on Barnton Avenue West and also for the installation of solar LED lighting on the path itself.
It had been hoped that the above elements of the work could have been carried out without the need for the path to remain closed. However, the volume of pedestrian and cyclist users experienced on a daily basis prior to the closure being in place has raised concerns regarding the safety of all path users and the site workforce. This has led to the extended duration of the closure.
The diversion signage via Gamekeeper’s Road and Cramond Road South will be updated in due course to show the new end date.
Apologies for any further inconvenience that may occur during this closure.
"
Posted 10 years ago # -
I took another detour this morning on the way in. Its slower than the advised detour and I'm told cycles are not officialy permitted on the woodland section but it was a little different from the busy sections of Gamekeepers etal.
Can bee seen here:
http://www.strava.com/activities/125535844
Look at 45 mins to 1 hour.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Looks like a good option! Interestingly, we struck off the idea of looking for houses out Barnton way by the perception that you couldn't easily get onto NEPN...
The detour was much better signed the second time I went through (as seen in pics above - excellent and the minimum we should expect).
Amused that they have extended the closure because they realise that quite a lot of people use the only way to get between Edinburgh and Fife :)
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ DaveC
"I'm told cycles are not officially permitted on the woodland section"
I've used that section on a few occasions. Who said it wasn't permitted, I wonder? There's certainly no signage banning it and I've never had any problems from the (very few) peds I've encountered.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Focus, just the other day I read in one of these topics that the council thinks the Land Reform Act doesn't apply to any of these paths (their logic seemed a bit spurious, but IANAL).
Posted 10 years ago # -
"the council thinks the Land Reform Act doesn't apply to any of these paths"
Presume that's the path behind the wall leading to the Royal High?
Owned by 'Barnton Park Residents' or similar.
But unless it goes through their collective gardens, it 'must' be subject to LRA(?)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Dave I am not enjoying that acronym? I am not a lawyer? Possibly I am not a legal expert would be better IANALE?
Posted 10 years ago # -
It was the chap I was cycling in with who claimed it was a private path.
Apparently someone said "no cycling". He stopped and pointed out their incorrect grammar :0) He told them he was cycling therefore there was cycling. He asked them if they meant to say 'no cycling allowed'. Pmsl...
Posted 10 years ago # -
"who claimed it was a private path"
It is.
And there used to be a "No Cycling" sign.
That was before the LRA.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I never spotted a no cycling sign. Did the LRA remove the "No Cycling" sign?
There were lots of children walking to school. I felt uncomfortable cycling through them all. I won't use that rpute again unless the Golf course path is closed during End of Term holidays. Its a nice route which children can use instead of along the A90 so I'll stick to the detour or the prom if headwinds don't make it difficult.
Also as we emerged into the park on the east side we saw John Muir Way signs. I assume its the pedestrian alternative to the Barnton Golf Cpurse path?
Posted 10 years ago # -
O hate this smart phones small keyboard.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ Dave
Considering the time you're passing through, I can understand you avoiding it in future. As I say, never had a problem myself but I'm not using it during commuting hours. If you were passing outside those times I wouldn't worry about it if I were you. I don't actually remember a no cycling sign but it was always one of those, "I wonder where that goes?" paths until I tried it one day.
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's been a few months since I last went that way but there was at least one section last year with a sign (incorrectly) stating no cycling and labelled BPPA or something similar.
If your ride doesn't mind a rough surface you can link to the NEPN via a cut through at the back of the Davidson's Mains tesco.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
