it would make MUCH more sense if the paralell ribbed side was the pedestrian side and the perpendicular side was the cycling side. Would still work for the visually impaired and the rumbling effect would remind the dozy cyclist they are on a shared bit of infrastructure without causing a slip hazard.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
"LEITH TO PORTOBELLO CYCLE ROUTE IMPROVEMENTS"
(231 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
I don't find there's any slip hazard when they're only 2 tiles deep. It's the four deep ones that can feel a bit tram-tracky.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"I don't find there's any slip hazard when they're only 2 tiles deep. It's the four deep ones that can feel a bit tram-tracky."
You mean there are official/technical options?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Well, I'd certainly like to know how they decide how deep to lay them. Dn't think the guidance makes recommendations on that? Was thinking about asking the council if there was any rhyme or reason. It appears that 4 tiles indicates bigger junction than 2, but I'd like to know if they've just made that up, or if it is some sort of best practice.
Posted 10 years ago # -
To my mind it would make more sense to have the parallel ribs on the ped side, and the perpendiculars on the cycle side, but the official guidelines from the TRRL say different. So CEC are correctly following some (rather poor) advice from central government.
Posted 10 years ago # -
'Correctly' only in the sense of direction. Not the type of tactiles.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Another pallet of non-bike-side tactiles next to the next slot this evening...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Thursday must be a scheduled rest day on all sites...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Must say that, apart from the rumble strip bits near St Mary's school, the path looks pretty good. Don't like the reduced radius junction coming off the bridge, but I can see why it was done. Better than a chicane, I suppose... Speaking of which, are they getting rid of the chicanes at the school gates or just re-spacing them?
Posted 10 years ago # -
One of the chicane-gates looks a little bit less perpendicular-to-the-ground than I recall it being, so it might have been driven-into by some form of path-hacking plant. Some of the blue-paint-lines intersect with the chicane areas, suggesting that some of the new blocks of tactiles might be intended to take over the chicanes' function, particularly as the chicanes can be circumvented since the railings between the path and the field were removed.
Posted 10 years ago # -
East-to-west today as I wanted to check the path-smoothness by the lamp-posts, after one felt a little dippy last weekend. Note the visible wibbles at 50" and 56": presumably the trenches for the new wires for the lighting haven't been re-filled quite as well as they could have been, so it'll be worth keeping an eye on them to see what happens after a few rains and a few council vans.
Posted 10 years ago # -
They have removed the chicanes!
They have installed near-identical chicanes in exactly the same places!
IMAG1243 by wingpig, on FlickrI only realised when I got home that I'd had a tape measure in my bag all the time. The gates are about 1.8 metres apart and overlap by just under a foot. Vid later...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Oh dear. Could just be the perspective in that shot but the gap 'twixt wall and chicane looks very narrow.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Looks like you can ride round it on the grass anyhows
Posted 10 years ago # -
It's getting dark.
I presume some reflectives were added after that photo was taken...
(Or does it need to be painted black first?)
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
-
The chicanes are too close together, and the gap to the wall is too narrow. They need to change that if the facility is to be of any use to cyclists. Otherwise folk will just go on the grass as they do currently...
Posted 10 years ago # -
I wonder what the discussion was which ended up with the railing going less than a foot of the edge of the path.
"If we put a chicane in here people will just go round it on the grass."
"Ah we've thought of that so we'll make the chicane a few inches wider than the path to stop them."
"Sounds like a plan."
"Lets have another cup of tea."Posted 10 years ago # -
East gate end - wall: 1200mm
Inter-gate gap: 1900mm
Gate overlap: 190mm
West gate end - edge of path: 1400mmPosted 10 years ago # -
What were the numbers? (And who remembers where the council guidance is?)
I'm presuming the overhand onto the grass is because if it had been out on the pavement it would have been too narrow? It looked awfully narrow as it is, at least for a tandem.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Numbers added above. Kappers had some recommended measurements on the post about the Broomhouse path island staggered crossing, I think...
Posted 10 years ago # -
Link from hermiston thread : http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/strategy-and-research/publications-and-consultations/j185500-06.htm#accesscontrols)
Measures to slow cyclists down can include rumble surfaces, SLOW markings (Diag 1058.1) or staggered barriers. If staggered (chicane) barriers are used, the arrangement should be designed to slow cyclists rather than force them to dismount (refer to Figure 6.14). Chicane layouts should provide gaps of at least 3.0 metres between barriers and walls to permit access by tandems, tricycles and child trailers. Tonal contrast banding and night-time reflectivity will normally be required.
Chicanes should be placed at least 5.0 metres from any bend or junction, so riders can approach them straight on.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Figure 6.14 Gives 2m preferred and 1.5 'absolute minimum' for equivalent space that wingpig measures at 1.2
And 3m minimum for gap between gates, which wingpig measures at 1.9
I hope someone who uses this more than I do will write and ask why they have ignored the guidance.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I thought "Visirail" was a pedestrian guard rail, not a medium for the construction of cycling obstables?
Posted 10 years ago # -
More innovative construction-hacks from the contractor who brought you sunken-brick rumblestrips...
Posted 10 years ago # -
greener leith has picked up on this. Wonder how they found out?
http://greenerleith.org.uk/blog/q-big-budget-cycling-bad-thing-3913
Posted 10 years ago # -
and me. http://deceasedcanine.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/policy-not-implementation.html
just looked at first post here. hadn't realised this is sustrans designed.
sigh
Posted 10 years ago # -
After many complaints on Twitter (wrong slabs, incorrectly telling visually impaired folk how the path works, barriers unusable by cyclists), Lesley Hinds said:
@branaby following the comments by cyclists I will ask for a response from officers at the Council on Tuesday
Posted 10 years ago # -
If I get a chance (might not be before Thursday) I'll pop along to the new chicane with our widest hand-propelled child-conveying mechanism to see if it fits. They surely wouldn't want to be seen approving of a barrier which forces child-conveyors around onto the grass, into the path of speeding cyclists. And footballs.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
