I think you've nailed the real issue there @gembo.
Does anyone know the FoI process and have any tips on its use? I would like to obtain the communications to the Council that have led to the meeting.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
ped/cycle crashes do happen
(192 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
"No, the problem is a perception among the Barntonites. The question is, why do they have that perception? @ chdot can the person who attended the meeting help here?"
Further comment from someone who went.
"
The actual volume of traffic on the golf course path was not given, nor the number of accidents or complainants
"
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Kim -
"Looking through this thread it strikes me that the real problem is lack of capacity which is leading to the inappropriate mixing of cyclists and pedestrians. The major problem is that Council Officers seem incapable of understanding the amount of space needed to accommodate cyclists if they want to achieve a 10% modal share. Also a total failure to understand the use of the bicycle as transport and provide appropriate infrastructure for commuting."
I think that is partly true but probably shouldn't be - at least in terms of this thread.
I'm quite sure CEC hasn't really considered the implications of its own policies adequately.
More cyclist will need 'more space' - but very little effort is being made to 'take it away from motor vehicles'. This has been done on George Street (I would say not really for cyclists, though that is touted as the main reason.)
Elsewhere it is mostly about 'off road' and predominantly shared use paths. Whether these should be 'for bicycle commuting' is, I think, going to become a key question - IF (as implied) it means cycling at 'speed'.
Most people accept that the canal towpath is too narrow for the speeds that a minority seem to think is 'appropriate'.
I think there will be increasing pressure to 'persuade' cyclists to 'slow down' whether this is by 'education', unenforceable rules, or more chicanes and bumps/tactiles remains to be seen.
Meanwhile will there be a parallel/'new' set of routes ON main roads??
Of course part of this 'debate' - the part usually 'left out'/marginalised/ignored - is 'pedestrians' - ie most people, some of the time.
'We' shouldn't be just trying for 'better' for 'us'.
There ought to be closer working between those who have an 'interest' in 'cycling' and those who seek improvements for 'walking'.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I suspect @gembo has hit the silver nail on the head. That path separates Royal Burgess and Bruntsfield Links golf clubs. Neither are organisations lacking in members familiar with the levers of power in Scotland. Entry to Royal Burgess famously hinges on an apparently trivial question during the interview, and it isn't 'Rapha or Decathlon old boy?'
Posted 9 years ago # -
Much of what Kim says is true - and i (and doubtless others) have said as much about the Canal-meadows-innocent links in our feedback -- , but to brand council officers as 'incapable' and their actions as a 'total failure' is neither accurate nor helpful.
As this thread makes extremely clear the constraints aren't imposed by their capacities but by presumed political limitations.
I'd like to see them push those limits more, and acknowledge the limitations of the infra they're building - i'm sure they know it at least as well as we do...
Chdot is totally correct that pedestrians are under-represented/ignored by much policy, but then when a vocal minority expresses concern, it always seems to come down to 'anti-cyclist', which is infuriating. And the double standards of how pedestrian complaints are dealt with (chicanes, magic chicanes) versus cars (we'll reposition the signs indicating a blind corner) is beyond infuriating.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The capacity of the inter-golf-course bit of this path (even the chicaned point where it meets Barnton Avenue) is always going to be greater than the narrow wall-bordered bit where it meets Barnton Avenue West. Perhaps the lesser slope and narrower path persuades even whizzing numpties to ease off.
Seeing as both ends of the stub roads leading to the cut-through are not exactly close to anything it'd be very interesting to find out how much non-dog-relieving foot-traffic it carries.
It'd also be useful to know whether the golf-people are just against lighting in general or just low-class lighting such as manky concrete posts with low-pressure sodium-vapour orange lights atop them - would they accept delicate glass globes like those atop the entrance-posts to Holyrood Park?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"but then when a vocal minority expresses concern, it always seems to come down to 'anti-cyclist'"
There is a long history to this. The Pedestrians Association was started in 1929 ("The Pedestrians Association explained is purpose as follows: in view of the serious danger of motor traffic today an Association be formed for the defence of public rights, especially of pedestrians.")
In 2001 it became Living Streets and (sometimes) it seems they are more concerned about things like 'cycling on pavements' rather than the reasons that (some) people ride on pavements.
Clearly there are good reasons for people with walking/cycling/pedestrians 'interests' to work together more/better.
Posted 9 years ago # -
It's news to me that Living Streets (or anyone else, besides some individuals with the right connections) is involved in this?
Posted 9 years ago # -
a total failure to understand the use of the bicycle as transport and provide appropriate infrastructure for commuting
Spot on.
Around Cramond/Barton/NEPN NCN1, the general perception of fair "shared-use" is the unrestricted freedom to let the dog wander about off the leash, with the expectation that cyclists will proceed gingerly at walking pace to accomodate.
Instead, I commute on the busy Queensferry Road dual carriageway, while wishing I lived in a modern progressive country, that would provide a direct segregated cycleway.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"It's news to me that Living Streets (or anyone else, besides some individuals with the right connections) is involved in this?"
If you mean the Barnton path, probably not. References to LS here are are about more general issues.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Let's hope neither of these 'cause' any incidents -
MMW
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499&page=2#post-183168
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=14499#post-182891
Posted 9 years ago # -
It seems to me that as cycling has become more popular the thrust of the council's efforts seems to me to be more aimed aimed at restricting cyclists than at accommodating the increased traffic levels.
Not condoning inconsiderate high speed pedalling on shared use paths, mind you. But my experience of the Criagleith junction is that putting Give Way lines across the natural flow of the path inevitably causes a problem.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
