CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

George Street Improvements

(1175 posts)

1…222324…40

  1. Fountainbridge
    Member

    If I was driving a car northwards on Hanover street, I am banned from turning left in to George Street. There doesn't appear to be any ban on me driving round the "roundabout" 270 degrees and entering George Street. Seen it done a few times. There are no "no-entry" signs etc.

    There's very few tourists in Edinburgh at the moment - will be interesting to see what happens in the summer.

    If traffic cameras were to be installed on George Street, who would pay for them and who receives the revenue from them? I seem to think the council would have to pay for them, and the police receive the revenue.

    I'd also bet anybody receiving a fine would have a fair chance at an appeal due to unclear signage.

    Has any body lodged a complaint with the police? I've been told many times that the council has no powers with regards to pavement parking and to contact the police. The police say they won't act unless an official complaint is made.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. gembo
    Member

    My camera fine wish is merely at the points where they have bollards so it can be clocked who is driving over them. Random or same vehicle etc

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    @Fountainbridge, no entry signs are not a requirement where there is a cycles sign. Morningsider posted about this somewhere I think. Basically the cycles sign IS a no entry sign, so I'm afraid driving into it from anywhere is an offence.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. Morningsider
    Member

    Fountainbridge - safety cameras are the responsibility of the Lothian and Borders Safety Camera Partnership, which includes all the relevant councils, NHS, police, fire service and Transport Scotland. They can only install cameras at locations that meet pretty strict criteria set out in the Safety Camera Programme handbook - generally there has to be a history if injury accidents at the site.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. Edinburgh Cycle Training
    Member

    If CEC have decided this is the jewel in their cycling crown, and advertise it as Cycle Only, Traffic Free and Family Friendly, they have a duty of care to ensure it is so.

    They know the bollards are deliberately destroyed or removed. They know motorists wilfully use them. They know Police Scotland make no attempt to enforce regulations.

    If there is an accident, the council must be partly responsible for creating and doing nothing to mitigate the conflicts that are occurring.

    Number plate recognition cameras must be easy and relatively cheap to install at access/egress points. I have seen these in small hotel/restaurant car parks to ensure they stay customer only!

    If I have to keep my wits about me in these lanes, pretty much as I would on Princes street then what's the point! I feel safer and better protected in bus lanes.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. Fountainbridge
    Member

    no entry signs are not a requirement where there is a cycles sign

    Taken earlier today. No cycle signs etc. No signs at all

    150214124300IMG_0381 by fountainbridge, on Flickr

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Cycle lane signs/symbols on the ground, solid lines, mandatory lane.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. Edinburgh Cycle Training
    Member

    Most prominent thing is the keep left sign! If I were in a collision on that lane I'd be arguing CEC were directing traffic down there, not protecting me from it!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. dougal
    Member

    Yeah what's with that keep left sign?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. wingpig
    Member

    I suppose it's one-way eastbound-only in the lane to the right of the keep left sign, but as there's no such thing as a cyclists-only keep-left a no-entry-except-cycles would be clearer, though so close to the no-entry-full-stop required at the east end of the eastbound-only bit they maybe just gave up and left the existing hardware from the roundabout in place.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. slowcoach
    Member

    WC "Cycle lane signs/symbols on the ground" - I think there would need to be upright signs as well (and not just the direction sign), unless they have been specially authorised. If there are no-left turn/no-right turn signs on the approaches that might cover it, but it would be much clearer to put a cycles only sign on the rear of the traffic signals and change the bollard (left behind from the old layout) to cycles only or blank face.

    The poles which have been knocked down could be replaced with ones which are specifically designed to withstand damage and return to upright position. They would no more deter the deliberate running down than the old poles, but would discourage careless unintentional violations by later drivers.

    Morningsider: The Safety Camera Programme handbook only applies to cameras/staff etc that they fund ie red-light or speed cameras at specific sites. A new handbook is due soon but might not be any better. The Programme Office (used to?) seem to pride itself on not funding Police/Councils for cameras to deter/detect offenders unless the met their strict but not sensible criteria. But the Council/Police could use their own funds for cameras at sites like this.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. ARobComp
    Member

    When did the drop kerb at the charlotte square exit appear? I saw it today alongside a sign describing how to join the main carriageway again. (this is something I suggested at a meeting with the council recently but this seems rather fast) Has this been put in recently or has it been there a while?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. ARobComp
    Member

    Also is there a similar descriptive sign at the St Andrews square end?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    "

    CityCentreLeith Team (@CityCentreLeith)
    24/02/2015 16:43
    @CyclingEdin @LAHinds @fountainbridge Project Officer update: preference is to leave as is as long as safe for cyclists/pedestrians. 1/2

    but will reconsider if dangerous driving resumes. I'll feed back your concerns ^K 2/2

    "

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Apologies slowcoach, I've only just seen your reply.

    I've more reading to do, but this far I can't actually find anything that states a cycle path or track must have a sign in order to be operative, merely that there must be a correct order for it, and it be marked correctly on the ground.

    I genuine,y don't think the lack of signs absolves anything (though, granted, it does make it more confusing).

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    Good news!!

    "

    CityCentreLeith Team (@CityCentreLeith)
    25/02/2015 13:24
    @CyclingEdin @RangiRevo @LAHinds @fountainbridge Hi response from Project Team: Thanks, this type of dangerous driving is banned. 1/2

    Keeping the scheme safe & successful so we’ll introduce new bollards & report to Police 2/2

    "

    What a difference a day makes.

    Odd.

    May be as a result of this -

    https://twitter.com/bccletts/status/570522238283358208

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. slowcoach
    Member

    WC re whether or not signs are needed - I think the solid line to show mandatory cycle lanes (Diag 1049 of TSRGD) needs to be accompanied by an upright sign Diag 959.1/960.1, because of table 2 of Direction 18 of TSRGD. (unless they have special authorisation and if I've not lost track of various amendments to TSRGD). But that would be where the boundary line is with a lane alongside that other vehicles are allowed to use.
    I think it would be insufficient to rely on markings to show that other vehicles were not allowed to enter this part of the road, if it was physically possible for them to do it without bumping over a full height kerb or over a bollard.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. Arellcat
    Moderator

    I commuted home today via George Street, just to see if there were any drivists on the cycle lanes. There weren't, and it was in fact an entirely relaxing experience.

    Until I reached St Andrew Square, and then Princes St, which was fraught with buses and taxis and potholes and tracks as usual.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. Fountainbridge
    Member

    As others have said it's not easy to see road markings when the road is wet. I understand restrictions must be clearly signed - ass already discussed the signs are not clear.

    Photo below was taken on Saturday.

    The white car was about to drive in to George Street but stopped. They then saw the other cars already in the street and drove on, coming head to head with the cyclist.

    CityCentreLeith Team ‏@CityCentreLeith · 7h7 hours ago
    @CyclingEdin @RangiRevo @LAHinds @fountainbridge Hi response from Project Team: Thanks, this type of dangerous driving is banned. 1/2

    CityCentreLeith Team ‏@CityCentreLeith · 7h7 hours ago
    @CyclingEdin @RangiRevo @LAHinds @fountainbridge Keeping the scheme safe & successful so we’ll introduce new bollards & report to Police 2/2

    150221122232IMG_0460 by fountainbridge, on Flickr

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. Morningsider
    Member

    slowcoach - Diagram 959.1 is for a "with flow cycle lane" and 960.1 is for "one way traffic with contra-flow cycles" - which wouldn't apply in George Street.

    I do agree the signage is a bit messy on George Street, although probably all technically correct (just about). I think our discussion is getting into the realms of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". These cars are clearly driving down a cycle lane - there are bikes clearly painted on the road, lots of signs at various points and some of the photos show cyclists heading towards the errantly driven cars. There would be bollards to stop this, but they have all be driven over.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. Instography
    Member

    I still haven't worked out, if I were a driver parked at the west end of George Street and wanted to go to John Lewis, what the route would be. Walk, obviously, but these are drivers.

    Actually, Google maps knows. Maybe if it were possible to just go round Charlotte Square and onto Queen St...

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Weird. I think you could still certainly go into Charlotte Square, go round four sides of the square, turn at the turning point / painted on circle, and come back out and down to Queen Street. Okay, a bit convoluted, but not as convoluted as Google's suggestion I hazard! (But yes, why can't you go all the way round Charlotte Square, is it blocked off cos the FM residence place is there?)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  23. Instography
    Member

    Yes, the turning circle. Hadn't thought of that. I can almost see the thinking - unimaginable convoluted route or just nip along the empty bike lane?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  24. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    To get some more Angels dancing on that pinhead...

    I still don't actually think you need the sign for it to be affective. The TRSGD is changing as well, which makes things more complicated. I was looking at the 2015 regs which should be coming into place this year, and the diagrams have been shifted about, but it only seems to be suggesting that 'where' used this is how they should look and what size and so on, not that they 'must' be used.

    By way of (admittedly possibly tenuous) comparison, there is within the TRSGD a sign for the number of the Sustrans route that the cycle path forms part of. If that sign is not present does that mean that it's not part of the Sustrans route?

    I've still yet to dig out anything that says in order for a segregated cycle lane to be effective it must have a cycles only sign. I don't think there's any doubt that to do so would clearly be best practice, but I'm still not sure it's a requirement, and I'm still of the opinion that a clearly demarcated on the road cycle lane such as this should be, surely, clear (I don't really buy the 'in the wet' argument either - when I'm driving in the wet I can still see 'normal' lane markings and stop lines...).

    But above all else, clearly we need the blinkin' bollards back.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  25. PS
    Member

    For my money, the real problem is the look and feel of the street - they haven't changed enough to make drivers think "I shouldn't be here". Maybe that will come with the next redesign?

    What it really needs is a complete repaving and, I'd suggest, removal of parking between Hannover and Frederick, so the area in front of the Assembly Rooms has the feeling of a plaza. For pedestrians.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  26. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I'm not sure what it's like during the weekday daytime, but if you go along George Street in the morning then the parking is almost universally full of trades and office supply vans. i.e. people who are not shopping in the boutiques or eating in the eateries of George Street.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  27. wingpig
    Member

    "...the real problem is the look and feel of the street..."

    I got the impression that that's what the sightline-blocking planters and pedestrian-concealing grey-painted noticeboard things were misguidedly implemented to achieve. Unfortunately, the only really unmistakeably noticeable THE WAY IS SHUT thing was the "Festival Compromise" collection of fake hedges and fences outside the Assembly Rooms, which even the doziest driver could probably see from the Frederick Street entrance, possibly aided by the portable barriers with the big red ROAD CLOSED notices. If it's done properly then the best solution if van-mediated delivery/servicing vehicles have to be allowed in at some point would be carefully-spaced big fat indestructibollards across the whole of the inlets, albeit ones of a type which work properly rather than the Waverley entrance variety. Painted yellow/black stripey. With flashing lights on top. If a UNESCO inspector turns up, just switch off the lights and retract the bollards.

    The usual means of denoting a space as pedestrianish usually means ending up with block paving or setts, which then have to be robust enough to withstand the occasional delivery vehicle or construction-device. Whatever they did on Multrees seems to be staying quite level, though it presumably hasn't been ripped-up and badly-replaced many times yet.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  28. gembo
    Member

    Went along during daytime twice today, route nice, parking largely private cars. Bollards back.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  29. slowcoach
    Member

    Glad to hear that the bollards are back.

    If we have to rely on signs/markings to keep some classes of vehicles out, then the signs have to be the right ones. Otherwise drivers will say they didn't see them or understand them, the Police will say it's unfair to try to enforce them, defence lawyers will argue that the signs aren't valid, and/or a fiscal will drop cases if they don't know that signs have been authorised. I think all of this has happened with previous traffic schemes involving George Street, even where the council had special authorisation for the signs they used then.

    WC re the draft 2015 regs, I've got 2 different versions and even the later of these (notification_draft_2014_545_UK_EN.doc) isn't finalised yet with ?? in places, and bits I think are missing and/or very hard to understand.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  30. kaputnik
    Moderator

    The bollards are back? Will they last longer than the last sets did? I think the first lot suffered a first casualty within 2 days. The second lot about a week. Perhaps we can get a month out of the new lot?

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…222324…40

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin