But these guys (and they're all guys) aren't riding like that because they're still full of the adrenalin of car battles. They've just come off the NEPN and they're all race-faced, running 52-12 down a big long hill. In their heads they're descending to escape some imaginary peloton.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
"GOLF COURSES PATH IMPROVEMENTS, BARNTON"
(338 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Again - perhaps.
So is it a solution to an aberrational problem, or is SRD's view the new norm?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Comparisons between driving and cycling obstacles don't hold up IMO. No council has ever dared to build something on a road where there was a real risk of a pile-up even for people driving at just 15mph. Building something equivalent on a cycle path - unlit, non-reflective, close-set barriers on an unlit stretch of path with non-compliant tramline paving?
Even the speed bumps are laughable - trenches that meet the standard for pothole repair (when new) and will only deteriorate from there are hardly the product of a world-class cycling city. I just speed up to jump over them, surely a bit of an own-goal, but I like my wheels to stay round, thanks all the same.
Now it's been revamped, this path is as wide as the street we live on (taking into account parking). We're just a few meters from a primary school but strangely we have no crazy gates to tear the wing panels off cars while forcing drivers to go head-to-head. It makes me chuckle to think that if my street was to be built today as a cycle only route, it would have that kind of gate built on it, and we couldn't object for fear of being compared to the lunatic drivers union?
Posted 10 years ago # -
All the same - this particular gate is OK IMO. You can get through it at a fair pace but not a ridiculous one - dropping it down to 15mph isn't much of a hardship.
The irony is that huge amounts of money are being sunk into the next section of path right now because it's too narrow for cyclists riding both ways.
On this part of the path which was previously fine, and only improved because the council doesn't know how else to spend our 7% without upsetting drivers, a much worse obstacle has been added that means when it's busy, people riding uphill are going to have to stop and unclip.
Is this irony? Still, worse things happen at sea.
Posted 10 years ago # -
But these guys (and they're all guys) aren't riding like that because they're still full of the adrenalin of car battles.
Isn't the point rather that the surviving demographic of cyclists are all people who are comfortable with high speeds and aggressive traffic / riding?
It's like that old chestnut about people with headcams "creating" trouble, when really the answer is much simpler (people whose route etc. doesn't regularly expose them to crises certainly won't buy a camera)
If we didn't invent pavements and slow pedestrians got side-swiped, cut up, sworn and beeped at, and constantly ripped in national media, I'd bet that the only remaining pedestrians would probably be predisposed to like moving quickly too.
If Sustrans built pavements?
"Concern was expressed over people jogging too fast"
Posted 10 years ago # -
This is a great thread.
I'd started a blog on chicanes, but don't think I can compete....
Posted 10 years ago # -
"don't think I can compete"
Sure you can!
Think there are two things emerging -
'if some cyclists go too fast what do we do about it?' (Related - " @Greenroofer, do you think all the Scottish canal signs saying cyclists reduce your pace, share the space just annoyed them?")
and
Does having chicanes (for cyclists) and tactiles (for pedestrians) in the same place make ANY sense(?)
Posted 10 years ago # -
This is what it used to be like -
Is there still a pedestrian route on the right?
Now (photo DaveC)
Posted 10 years ago # -
@chdot Is there still a pedestrian route on the right?
Nope - that's a gutter.
Slightly better angle on this photo (also showing the tactiles - any guesses why they are there?)
Barnton Ave by HankChief, on FlickrPlenty of space to get through the chicane on a tandem ( or other 'unusual' cycle / combo)
These are the rumblestrips talked about above
Rumblebstrips by HankChief, on FlickrAgain, I just don't see the point of them. Maybe it is the price we have to pay to satisfy the dogwalking lobby that it won't turn into a race track.
Would be interesting to know how much of the contract cost went on tarmac and how much on metal & brick work...
Solar lights look good though.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"This is what it used to be like"
I remember when it had one of these:
(From http://www.ex-parrot.com/pete/cycle/ridethedragon.html)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thanks HC for pic.
So, in short.
CEC has created a dogleg swerve that it doesn't think will cyclists enough so has added a chicane - fair enough, judgement call.
And removed the direct connection between pavement and path (for pedestrians) - curious.
AND made the pedestrians go through the narrowing, with cyclists, straight onto the road - WEIRD
Posted 10 years ago # -
"straight onto the road"
"any guesses why they are there?"
Council says the round topped tactile paving is "to warn pedestrians leaving path they are about to enter a carriageway without a crossing facility".
YES, BUT -
Why are they being made to go on the road??
I presume the tarmac strip that used to be the path is still under the 'new' earth - or did the contractors dig it up?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"
Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
10/05/2014 18:02
GREAT new golf path But why are pedestrians forced through chicane?citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.…
@CllrNormanWork @LSPaterson @agshields @LAHinds
"
"
Norman Work (@CllrNormanWork)
10/05/2014 18:20
@CyclingEdin @LSPaterson @agshields @LAHinds I believe it was in response to pedestrians concerns. Same issue at Cramond Brig"
"
Lesley Hinds (@LAHinds)
10/05/2014 18:22
@CllrNormanWork let's have a chat about this issue?"
"
Norman Work (@CllrNormanWork)
10/05/2014 18:24
@LAHinds more than happy to"
Posted 10 years ago # -
The rumble strips are awful. I briefly chatted to a workman installing them, who wasn't happy with his quality of work at one strip at
least, but they weren't redone.The tactiles that are parallel to the direction of cycle travel just seem to have been installed the wrong way round.
The chicane is not an issue. It's easily navigated, the only time it will cause congestion is at times like glasgow-edinburgh when it will probably be opened anyway.
The route isn't a racetrack; the chicane hardly adds massively to your travel time.The change to alignment causing a break between the pavement and the path, forcing walkers onto the road? The road is really nothing more than a turning area at that point. There's hardly any traffic that far down, and the only manoeuvre they can perform is a turn in the road.
I'm glad it's been done; it's not a great replacement to an existing facility, there would be better candidates for
cycling infrastructure .... but is it really so deserving of all the negative comments?Posted 10 years ago # -
"but is it really so deserving of all the negative comments?"
Even you are finding things that are 'less than wonderful'
My main point is the bizarre way they have channeled pedestrians and cyclists together when it's unnecessary.
If (fear of) speed is an issue, surely there should be chicanes all along the nice smooth tarmac??
Posted 10 years ago # -
I just think they given the width they had available & the amount of Tarmac they have put down, it would have been better to build two segregated paths. Or at least one path with a defining curb down the middle. Instead of which they gave built a speed track which they then have to slow down
Posted 10 years ago # -
"built a speed track which they then have to slow down"
And a chicane at one end and rumbles at the other isn't going to do that.
I hope 'everyone' treats everyone else with respect. I think there are times when cyclists (including me) underestimate the effect of speed/passing distance on pedestrians - especially if 'we' assume they know we are coming or 'ought to be aware it's a shared use path'.
I presume there are (or will be) shared use signs.
Posted 10 years ago # -
it would have been better to build two segregated paths
My recollection of the path may be poor, but I don't recall the entire path being wide enough to have it segregated? While the Barnton Avenue end of the path in the photos above show plenty of space for segregation, if the whole path isn't wide enough, then the way they've done it seems to be the best solution as they have to slow the traffic down at some point?
Posted 10 years ago # -
"the way they've done it seems to be the best solution as they have to slow the traffic down at some point?"
I haven't been since upgrade. I'm surprised they have managed to improve path as much as it seems to have been done.
I can't understand why they 'took away' the existing route along the pavement and are 'forcing' pedestrians through the chicanes.
The tactiles are for the pedestrians and (can) cause problems for bikes.
It's probably a good idea to slow bikes when they join the path, but that will (probably) have no effect on their speed on the rest.
Obviously bike(rider)s need to take care and be considerate, CEC's 'chicanes with everything' approach is not (IMO) optimal.
They are failing back on 'Transport Scotland guidelines' which may be wrong or just not appropriate in all circumstances (like here).
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's probably a good idea to slow bikes when they join the path, but that will (probably) have no effect on their speed on the rest.
I think it should. It's easy to get some serious speed going down the road, so if you're forced to slow to say 15mph at the start of the path, rather than continuing tanking along it until you're forced to slow for a ped, then it's a winning solution AFAIAC. I can't think of a significantly better solution, I can only think of alternative solutions.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I can't think of a significantly better solution, I can only think of alternative solutions."
In general yes, but here they didn't need to put the pedestrians through the chicane causing (potential) conflict or put in the tactiles.
Posted 10 years ago # -
they didn't need to put the pedestrians through the chicane causing (potential) conflict
What other solution is there that prevents cyclists using the same route?
Posted 10 years ago # -
i ain't seen this, right
but, without a race-face on
i'd say that on the downhill here, i just want to maintain a nice easy average speed, throughout
so what this new chicane does, is force me to review that, and then want to "kick on" afterward, to "make up" the imagined "lost average"
therefore i will actually speed up after the chicane rather than maintain my nice easy average
so is this a counter-productive measure?
i don't think they care about that
its all about appeasement
reality can take a hike
Posted 10 years ago # -
its all about appeasement
Yes. "Something must be done" about those pesky cyclists and their scofflaw ways so that the fine, upstanding dog walkers of Barnton can let their pooches roam unfettered by leash, whistle or common sense.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thing is, as "barnton-to-town" has already rightly pointed out upthread, this section has always been quite cool, as opposed to the brae park vibe.
Its an appeasement in advance of imagined complaints which may never have been required.
Anyway i'm still in Germany and "more than happy to" get back on the pilsner
Tschüss !
Posted 10 years ago # -
"What other solution is there that prevents cyclists using the same route?"
There are probably people on bikes (coming from the west) who would prefer to go straight ahead onto the pavement rather than through the chicane.
There are probably people on foot who don't like the idea of getting off the pavement and going through the chicane.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I took the dogs for a walk that way this afternoon to have a look for myself. The improvements are IMHO excellent - the path is now much wider for most of the length; the bit at the far end can't be widened due to private property, but the rest is now a lot better than I recall it being before.
The gates discussed look fine. There's loads of space to get through them, and I watched many cyclists (far more than I imagined used this route during the time I was there) navigate it easily, at a reasonable pace, and continue said reasonable pace. This included at least one MAMIL.
There's also plenty of paint advising everyone to SLOW and that it's a shared path. Also, the rumblestrips look fine and again were navigated by the cyclists I saw easily, as if the strips were not there.
I'm sure there will be cyclists with the mindset suggested by bax who wish to increase their speed, but there's possibly not a lot to stop that. The downhill to this section is very steep and it appears ludicrously easy to get up a +20mph speed just freewheeling, so I would think it did need something like this to slow the speedsters. Again, I'm struggling to imagine a better alternative.
Its an appeasement in advance of imagined complaints
Does this mean there were no complaints?
Piccies:
Posted 10 years ago # -
If CEC were serious about cycling, there would be a compulsory purchase order on the property at the narrow bit. To 'take back' 2m of garden for the path. I mean they managed to destroy a whole pub for the Trams.
Still, I suppose there's lower hanging fruit to get first.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Came up that way this morning and at my usual ceremonial 10mph or so the chicane causes no difficult at all. Can't see any problem negotiating it on the tandem or hauling a trailer.
Bax's description of himself 'catching up' is amusing because that's exactly what drivers do with speed bumps and speed cameras.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"If CEC were serious about cycling, there would be a compulsory purchase order on the property at the narrow bit."
I was talking to my local councillor cycling mate a couple of weeks ago about another bit of potential cycling infrastructure, and how Fife council could judt compulsary purchase the section for a nice path. His response was that it would cost the council many £1000 in legal fees to try to get the compulsary purchase, and all the present land owner has to do was to object to tie the council up in court. It would be quite cheep for the land owner to defend his claim and very expensive for the council to try to force the compulsary purchase.
Add on that this is not just a spare bit of unsed feild/old railway line, and instead is someones private garden/drive, and I'm sure the council would be in court for a long time trying to convince a sherrif (or who ever) that the benefit however small, was worth it.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
