CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Cyclists v pedestrians

(15 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. SRD
    Moderator

    Okay, so we talk a lot about 'active travel' and how it's a good thing, but when push comes to shove, are we (cyclists) willing to pedestrian interests seriously?

    The council's cycling forum - which has reps from spokes, CTC, cycling Scotland, bike station, pop, and which is serviced by council staff - seems to have now twice rejected the idea of becoming an active travel forum. The first time was because neither the pedestrians (living streets) nor the cyclists (spokes) were keen. Now, my understanding is that Living streets accepts that they are unlikely to get a dedicated walking forum with the same level of council staffing, support etc, and discussions were begun about how to integrate their interests into the cycling forum, transforming it into an active travel forum.

    To out my cards on the table - I am absolutely convinced that it is important to consider both cycling and walking, and that by doing so both will be enhanced. The cycle forum is not a decisionmaking body, but it is a useful area through which we can channel demands and through which council can manage interactions - eg briefing us about what is going on.

    I had to leave the meeting yesterday so was unfortunately unable to participate in the discussion. Neither do I know what concerns were voiced, nor who said what. I'm hoping to find out. The issue of better walking representation has not been shelved - it is still being considered by the Transport Forum, which has formed a short life walking subgroup, which may suggest other ways of dealing with this. Maybe their suggestions will turn out to be better.

    But as cyclists, do we feel that our interests are better represented singly? And that holding the cycle forum to its original mandate is in our interests?

    It is obvious that there will be some cycling issues of no concern to pedestrians - eg sheds in gardens. I happen to think there would be benefits to joint engagement - perhaps partly because I am also engaged in working with the living streets edinburgh group under new leadership to build up membership and engage more effectively in various ways.

    But I'd like to know what other cyclists think.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "But I'd like to know what other cyclists think."

    I suspect you mean "what other people/CCEers think".

    It is disappointing that people 'representing' cycling interests can't see the benefits of working more closely with people 'representing' pedestrians.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. Baldcyclist
    Member

    It seems silly not to engage with walkers, one of the the things we want to do in Burntisland with our new group, is to connect with both pedestrian, and disabled groups. It seems that we all have similar objectives, essentially being able to get to the shops without getting crushed. The future is shared*....

    *Oh, that's another thread. ;)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. algo
    Member

    There's no question in my head it is a good thing that active members of each group are aware of each other and can share goals and fears alike. There are many parts of the city where we have shared use paths for example, which are ostensibly safe for both cyclists and pedestrians, but lack of understanding from either side still can cause problems - e.g. inconsiderate cycling, dog walking etc... One of the biggest problems on the roads is that cyclists and car drivers don't share the same understanding of what recommended practice is, let along sometimes the law. I think it would be great to be able to feel united with pedestrians in campaigning for active travel.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. fimm
    Member

    I agree. As a cyclist (in whichever mode) I don't want to use a narrow space that is also used by pedestirans. We cyclists need our own space, and we need pedestrian groups to object to having cyclists forced into their space.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. Dave
    Member

    Much of the above is equal justification for expanding the group to include representatives from Lothian Buses, driving groups and so on - after all, the same people are making the same sorts of journeys regardless of mode, don't we all want to work together with mutual understanding etc.

    You might complain that this would dilute the effectiveness of the group for people who travel by bike, as the interests of other modes are often tangential (or directly opposed to) ours. Blind groups' attempts to undermine continental-style cycling provision is just the first example that springs to mind.

    Not sure personally where the balance lies.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    "Much of the above is equal justification for expanding the group ..."

    CEC already has a Transport Forum - much newer than the CF.

    Issue here is about benefits (or not) of changing CF to ATF and broadening remit.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. sallyhinch
    Member

    My understanding is that blind groups have a problem with shared space, not other continental style provision (and no wonder, it must be an absolute nightmare to navigate, let alone dealing with traffic able to go anywhere). As silent, swift moving things, bikes are a problem for the visually impaired - but properly curbed tracks would make life easier for them not harder, as then they'd know where the bikes would be likely to be. When I did speak to someone from RNIB about it they were quite surprised as they'd got the impression that cycling groups were all for shared space, and they had not really heard of Copenhagen-style tracks. So having a shared forum is all the more important for stopping these sorts of misconceptions from getting around

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. Dave
    Member

    @sally - IMO the interests of blind people and cyclists are ultimately not that well aligned. The widespread use of bikes is going to involve widespread riding of them very close to blind people (for instance, between every shop front / railing and the kerb-separated bike track, in practice).

    I have no idea if this is something that is really going to be an issue or not, compared with everything else that goes along with being blind (I won't attempt to guess). I suppose there are blind people living in places even where the bike modal share is extremely high, it would be interesting to know if they have similar views to the domestic blind.

    Note I don't necessarily think that cyclists should trump the blind in any particular conflict or that we should avoid giving blind people an inside vote through cycling / active travel group representation (to bring this back to the OP).

    Indeed it could be that bringing opposing interests under the umbrella of an active travel group will simply allow us to win them over. Who knows. I just wanted to point out that replacing a cycling group with something having substantial non-cycling interests will not automatically benefit us. What happens if the ped element of an active travel group decides that they want to discourage or prevent cycling on the canal towpath, etc. etc.

    Personally I'd accept the advice of those who are familiar with the existing transport / cycling groups as it's not clear to me how important the outcome really is - the council is so good at ignoring everyone when it suits them anyway ;-)

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. allebong
    Member

    It's a tough one alright. We certainly don't want to be seen - or I should say, portrayed as being seen - as 'anti-pedestrian' or some other guff when we fight for cycle infrastructure. At the same time though there's a danger in going for the we're all united in one general goal angle (improved road safety etc) because when you get down to specifics of who should have what infrastructure and what priority in what situations there is and will continue to be much conflict and disagreement.

    Also worth remembering that people on foot are every bit as varied as those on wheels - everything from casual everyday walkers to lycra clad runners. On pretty much any running forum you'll find a fairly broad spread of opinion regarding bikes which usually includes an alarming amount of EEN level geroff ma roads paths fuming.

    There's a passage in one of the BikeSnob books about how cyclists have something of a unique perspective on things, as we can go so seamlessly from being at the mercy of traffic to peds being effectively at the mercy of us, and given that we all walk and many drive as well we can see it from every angle.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. SRD
    Moderator

    My suspicion is that it's not so much about different decisions being reached, as people having own hard fought access to council being reluctant to share.

    That doesn't sound very nice, but the main cost seems to be agenda space/time in meetings. Something that was dedicated to cycling is now having to include another set of interests. I.e. seen as zero-sum/winner takes all.

    Which is possibly true in the short-term, but I would suggest that the long term synergies would provide more benefits.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.sustrans.org.uk/scotland/what-we-do/communities/make-your-move-kirkcaldy

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Instography
    Member

    Kirkcaldy is full of shared paths on pretty narrow pavements. Right into the centre of town. Worth a visit even if it's just to walk from the train station to centre and see what's been. Thankfully you'd be lucky to see any bikes using the. Not sure it's the sort of thing you'd want Edinburgh to aspire to.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. Morningsider
    Member

    SRD - I think you have very laudable aims, but I feel this is a bad idea. The advances made on cycling issues have come about (mainly) by direct pressure from groups specifically focused on cycling. Remove that focus and you introduce enough wiggle room for politicians to effectively do nothing on either walking or cycling. That isn't in anyone's interest.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "The advances made on cycling issues have come about (mainly) by direct pressure from groups specifically focused on cycling."

    True, but the CF isn't really a campaigning channel.

    It's a place where ideas/info are exchanged (that's simplistic, but certainly not 'instead of' campaigning).

    Adding people (more) interested in pedestrians issues could strengthen things.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin