CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

"That" tram path

(40 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Dave
    Member

    Kenny of this parish introduced me to the path alongside the tram the other week (it's convenient to connect the office with Screwfix on a homeward bound commute).

    Interestingly it's in danger of becoming my preferred route home for the winter. Ordinarily I come off NEPN and go up to the canal, then come off at Westburn for Donkey Lane.

    Instead I can now hook across on the mud by Murrayfield to the eastern end of the tram path, then cut up the canal at Cutlins Rd.

    I have picked up a couple of tips already - I use Saughton Mains Rd so that I can force my way across the road even if the crossing is red (left turn then right turn is much easier to time than straight over). I then wait for a gap in traffic as I'm riding west down the straight before the Broomhouse Rd roundabout and bunny hop onto the road (so far I haven't had to stop at the roundabout, just zoom straight over). I continue on the road to the next junction and either use the right filter to get back onto the path, or use the straight ahead light and hook across (at the crossing) onto the path anyway as there's so little traffic coming the other way. Probably illegal.

    Thanks to all the anonymous commuters who've been showing me the secrets over the last week or so!

    At the end it's a bit odd. Cutlins Rd has a few metres where it's one-way, so I bounce from one pavement to the other (east side of Cutlins rd) and ride up it for a few seconds first. I'd be surprised if this was technically legal, despite there being hundreds of cycle pavement signs everywhere, but the alternative is a massive detour.

    Anyway, you'd think all of this would be much slower than the direct route along the canal, but I've already got my time from NEPN to Westfield down to 17:45 compared with a PB of 18:15 on the canal. Much room for improvement too.

    I have no idea why they haven't built light bridges to extend the path over the top of the main roads. There's a huge amount of room to foot the bridges on and it would cost peanuts.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. Nelly
    Member

    "I have no idea why they haven't built light bridges to extend the path over the top of the main roads"

    Neither do any of us who use The Broomhouse daily !!

    Seems like the proverbial No Brainer which was descoped by a project manager without a brain..............

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. chdot
    Admin

    "I have no idea why they haven't built light bridges to extend the path over the top of the main roads"

    It would cost MONEY (CAPS do not indicate LOTS...)

    "Neither do any of us who use The Broomhouse daily !!"

    Ah yes but then no-one cycled so there was no need for anything that might encourage people to...

    Oh and the tram was just about the TRAM - nothing to do with 'transport'.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. gembo
    Member

    @dave are you talking about the path from the jenners suppository to Stenhouse? It is very good. Thankee Mr Tram

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. Dave
    Member

    That's the one. It goes like this: http://www.strava.com/activities/218042849

    I did have to have the chicane pointed out to me as I didn't notice it the first time. Much easier than the one at Westfield (or even at Barnton) and the peds seem well trained at standing to one side, so I didn't see too much to be upset about.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. SRD
    Moderator

    Why in earth should the pedestrians be expected to stand to one side? Do you not expect them to bow down as well?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. stiltskin
    Member

    ^ You mean, they should assert their rights to have a conversation in the middle of the path rather than politely stand in a place where other people can get by?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. SRD
    Moderator

    I mean that 'we ' should avoid using such condescending language about other path users. At least they're not in their cars.

    If our behavior to pedestrians mirrors the language we use to describe them then we're no better that drivers who think equally hierarchically about us.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. gembo
    Member

    @srd I would judge that dave was using what is known as irony.

    The crossing is a bike and pedestrian combined but there is little or no conflict

    I used the path the other day (there have been various posts about it and the chicane which we complained about). Was good, several dogs off lead and I slowed though the path East west has great downhill sweep.

    When crossing towards Murrayfield you are directed onto the pavement then onto the road. So care required with pedestrians and car drivers alike.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. "... onto the path anyway as there's so little traffic coming the other way. Probably illegal."

    "I'd be surprised if this was technically legal, despite there being hundreds of cycle pavement signs everywhere, but the alternative is a massive detour"

    Ah, the little known "It's a hassle to obey the law so it's okay not to" defence.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. Dave
    Member

    I think I've just reached the point where I'm too old (or my idealism has been too eroded) to worry about some things. Is it actually a cycle path but the signage is incorrect? Was it supposed to be a cycle path, the signage went up, then the council realised they'd filled in the wrong form so took it down again temporarily? Is it actually not a cycle path, even though it is signed that way, because the paperwork isn't valid despite the signage being up? Was it all just waiting for the end of the trams project but now been long forgotten? Is it a Core Path under the LRA and therefore not subject to any of this crap anyway? But wait, nobody's quite sure if the LRA actually achieved anything!

    There are few areas in life where people would not only tolerate such nonsense but also try to hold passers-by to account for it. Cycling's intractable self-righteousness problem?

    re: the chicane, I thought it was worthy of comment merely because it caused a furore on this forum when it was put in, yet it seems fine to me. However, I do love the idea of people bowing when I ride past. How can we progress this?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. steveo
    Member

    Cultins road is legal up to an undefined point. Its typical stupidity from the council.

    Ah, the little known "It's a hassle to obey the law so it's okay not to" defence.

    Perhaps more, the road is so badly designed its not clear that the road is one way from my entrance until I have a head on with a bus defense. Seriously no part of even Edinburgh's road network is a badly signed as that bit of Cultins Road

    Posted 10 years ago #
  13. AKen
    Member

    Ah, the little known "It's a hassle to obey the law so it's okay not to" defence.

    I agree with Steveo here. In this particular location, I can't work out how anyone is supposed to use this 'facility' legally.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. AKen
    Member

    However, I do love the idea of people bowing when I ride past.How can we progress this?

    Pu Yi, the last emperor of China, managed to get people to do this. However, you probably need a bike like his to carry it off:

    http://www.dragonsinn.net/Hoard/dragonbike2.jpg

    ..and it helps if you're an emperor.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. Min
    Member

    Best bike ever! :-D

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. "Cycling's intractable self-righteousness problem?"

    More cycling's hypocritical double standards (though we've moved onto "if we don't know if it's legal then assume it is I guess). I don't know the facility, granted, I just know that when adriver states they did something that was wrong, but the signs were confusing to them, there would be adifferent response...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  17. steveo
    Member

    There is a sign, there is paint on the pavement, there is no indication of where it starts or ends. If a driver was caught doing 60 in a 40 but there was no sign where the speed changed they would get off with it and no other driver would be chastising them for not noticing the some subtle change in the landscape that might indicate it had gone from national speed limit dual carriage way to suburban dual carriage way.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  18. There would be a different response 'here'.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  19. wingpig
    Member

    "In this particular location, I can't work out how anyone is supposed to use this 'facility' legally. "

    I'm always wary of this bit seeing as gembo was hustled into the back of a police van a few years back for using the BUS ONLY bit. When half the path on the north side of the road was blocked off it was trickier, but now that it's re-opened it's either:
    1: bike along path, past the turn-off for the puddle-prone underpass, past the desire line, cross the tracks at the officially-designated official track-crossing point, across to the shared-use footway next to Hermiston Gait, back to the corner, up the shared-use footway until the road opposite stops being BUS ONLY, then up the road.
    2: (for people in too much of a rush to go the long way round) stop at the point where it looks like it might be illegal to continue. Dismount, scuttle across, remount when on shared-use footway.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  20. steveo
    Member

    There would be a different response 'here'.

    Possibly, doesn't mean the council hadn't failed in their duty to provide clear road signs to either group though.

    Lets be clear, the ask here is for a 5 minute detour with rat running traffic and kamikaze RM lorries vs 20m of path with ambiguous legal definition that is wide barely utilized and going up hill.

    We shouldn't need Morningsider to go check on every pavement in the city.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  21. chdot
    Admin

    "20m of path with ambiguous legal definition that is wide barely utilized and going up hill."

    This'll be the 'convenient direct link between the popular canal commuting route and the Edinburgh Park centre of employment'.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  22. steveo
    Member

    back to the corner, up the shared-use footway until the road opposite stops being BUS ONLY, then up the road.

    TBH I'm not clear when that road becomes two way. I usually ride up to the Tesco back entrance and try to cross there or if the traffic is heavy continue up the pavement till after Bankhead Trc and cross there for a few hundred meters before crossing back.

    Seriously there is no road in the city that would expect drivers to try and work it out in such bloody detail.

    This is why I generally say stuff it, continue on the "pavement"* after the "bike path"* goes down to puddle tunnel and cross at the cycle/ped crossing, ride up ambiguous road and cross to suicide drive with the RM lorries. Also, this is the family connection to the canal...

    *there is absolutely no change in path surface, width or occupancy at this point or any other point where it suddenly becomes a pavement.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  23. Dave
    Member

    Hmm. Rather than say that this can't be a legitimate complaint because it might legitimise some drivers' complaints, I suppose it's possible that this demonstrates the legitimacy of some drivers' complaints.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  24. Dave
    Member

    Or... I guess the moral high ground is to say, since we're not sure if it's possible to legally cycle between these two endpoints, we shouldn't do it.

    If in years to come this is clarified, we could always change our minds then, but until then we can rest assured that subjecting ourselves to dozens of dangerous manoeuvres at the hands of crazy white van men every day is the Right Thing to Do.

    Got the car keys here somewhere.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  25. kaputnik
    Moderator

    If I was cycling a 1.5 ton bike at 40mph on the pavement then I might be more of the opinion that we need to apply the exact same standards required to provide and enforce infrastructure for cycling as we do for motor vehicles.

    The bicycle is infinitely more benign than the motor vehicle and the cyclist is far, far closer to being a wheeled pedestrian than to being a lightweight motor vehicle. This needs to be accepted when it comes to provision and enforcement.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  26. Is that like with like? What if adriver was to break the law 'carefully' (because they weren't sure of the legality our otherwise)?

    Dave, Your post on legitimising was kind of what i was getting at.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  27. steveo
    Member

    If I was cycling a 1.5 ton bike at 40mph

    Oi, I am not that heavy!!

    or that fast...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  28. Kenny
    Member

    I am confused.

    I cannot see any one way section on Cultins Road which prevents legal progress to the canal path. And I've "walked" up the road on Google Streetview to try to spot it. What am I missing?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  29. wingpig
    Member

    At the time of gembo's apprehension it was like this:

    IMAG0197 by wingpig, on Flickr

    Posted 10 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    Haven't been for a while, but used to be whole mixture of issues in the area about whether cyclists where exempt/included - eg in 'bus only' sections.

    Also for Cultins Road, marked cycle path turning into pavement.

    18 months ago -

    More at -

    http://www.everytrail.com/view_trip.php?trip_id=2083833

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin