Now there is a video someone posted showing how all cyclists crossing on green are perceived to have jumped a red light at the top MMW joining Forrest Road…
| [+] Embed the video | Video Download | Get the Flash Video |
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Forrest Road Misconception
(88 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
I do find that the crossing at the top of MMW can cause issues, although I usually manage to slot into traffic coming from Teviot Place without much trouble, despite the fact that I immediately signal right and move into the right-hand lane to turn right at the Bedlam Theatre. What really doesn't help is the vehicles parked on both sides of the road especially towards the end of the day. On one occasion a taxi driver seemingly tried to ram me as I filtered in from the crossing in very slow traffic casued by parked vehicles.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@jdanielp - yeah I also often go right at the end and usually it's fine with good signalling and shoulder-checks etc but the times I've had real problems were (I'm fairly sure) when cars coming from Teviot Place thought I was jumping a red a light and should be punished - just as in this case…. interesting to have this exact suspicion documented...
Posted 9 years ago # -
"cars coming from Teviot Place thought I was jumping a red a light and should be punished"
Definitely some of that.
It is far from clear whether cyclists (legitimately there) are supposed to give way to vehicles coming from the right.
There is plenty of space to do different/better in Forrest Road. Last time it was redesigned there weren't so many bikes using MMW (and obviously no 'planning' for a significant increase).
Nothing was done as part of the QBiC 'design'
Simple/cheap interim measure would be COMPLETE ban on parking/loading on one side. Perhaps even a short section of segregation at the south end.
I know that 'guardrail' is going out of fashion (for good reasons) but a section by the ped/cycle lights would stop peds walking out in front of bikes there.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The expectation that the junction appears to be designed around is that any cyclists coming up from MMW will then be heading straight along Forrest Road on the cycle lane - the only conflict resulting from that assumption would be for cyclists from MMW and cyclists from Teviot Place. Obviously the practicalities are far different though. A complete ban on parking/loading on the bicycle lane (and the other side of the road for good measure) would help, but a complete redesign of the junction may be better...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Maybe it's just the way the camera shows it but he does seem to be driving way too fast. It actually seems like he deliberately speeds up when he sees the bike.
Posted 9 years ago # -
How about closing Forest Rd and making it an extension of MMW... ?
Posted 9 years ago # -
How about closing Forest Rd and making it an extension of MMW... ?
Yes. Should be a bus and bike lane only and other traffic can go round the long way. Delivery trucks would still need access though but with less traffic then one side could be for that. This falls into line with making bike and pedestrian routes shorter and more pleasant. To meet any mass use of bikes in the city this would have to be done as current route is quite unpleasant as noted here.
I feel I have no 'right' to expect cars to give me space as I merge and have had a driving instructor argue that I was breaking the law - created by this unique layout. I don't think you'l find any other merged bike lane of this type in city.
Like 99% of merged toucan crossings the average driver just regards you as a pavement cyclist cheekily trying to gain advantage. Add to this the random way people walk over the bike lane on conflict island and they just 'know' you are in the wrong....
Posted 9 years ago # -
I complained to the Council about this junction last March but never received a reply. I suspect that the council expects the bikes to use the cycle lane here but I never do, partly due to parked cars/vans and partly as I will be turning right onto Chambers Street and I feel that being in primary makes this safer.
I personally think that the rules on changing lanes apply here so that cars wishing to move from the right lane to the left should do the whole mirror, signal, manoeuvre thing and then change if the lane is clear. However, it's easier to try to time it to slot in with the traffic coming from Teviot Place.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Should be a bus and bike lane only and other traffic can go round the long way"
Agreed.
Unfortunately (and this is what CEC will see) that leaves no no logical car based alternative to traffic crossing from University/Meadows areas to George IV and on to North Edinburgh.
Of course if the master plan was to rid Edinburgh city centre of cars.....................
Posted 9 years ago # -
Unfortunately (and this is what CEC will see) that leaves no no logical car based alternative to traffic crossing from University/Meadows areas to George IV and on to North Edinburgh.
Make Bristo Place two-way? It's plenty wide enough.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@davidsondave - what address to you send your complaint to by the way? I have previously complained by filling in the web form, but I'll do it again and send this video as the driver has unwittingly provided evidence for the need for a safer option for cyclists….
Posted 9 years ago # -
@algo It was through Clarence (via FixMyStreet https://www.fixmystreet.com/report/453231) so probably over-optimistic on my part thinking they would read it. Although, saying that, this method has started correspondence over other issues I have raised with them.
Posted 9 years ago # -
thanks - I might try the website link again with a link to this video and your fixmystreet url...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Now here too -
Posted 9 years ago # -
I've also emailed to transport convenors...
Posted 9 years ago # -
PS to Nelly Make Bristo Place two-way? It's plenty wide enough.
That's what I thought. Of course this would not be so 'nice' for Hotel du Vin!
Then again lots of businesses seem to like having the 'amenity' of car accessible streets.
I see a small amount of slow cyclists riding the pavement on Forrest Rd towards MMW as they don't 'like' the central bike lane on Bristo Place (who does?). A greener Forrest Road would be fantastic but can only happen with less traffic / more public transport priority.
.Posted 9 years ago # -
Of course if we're redesigning the whole area, time to remove the Potterrow motorway.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Nice to see most being perfectly reasonable on the discussion underneath (and that the title of the vid got changed) - all too often these things turn into name calling on YouTube. Added my thruppenny bit's worth (lots of suggestions of a roundabout, which is great for those on the road, but, erm, not so good for pedestrians...)
Posted 9 years ago # -
Oh!!
Ped/cycle triangle in South, Forrest Road in City Centre.
That'll take some co-ordinating!
"
CityCentreLeith Team (@CityCentreLeith)
23/02/2015 15:45
@south_team, please could you advise on this? Thanks ^K
@CyclingEdin @SpokesLothian @Cyclescape"
Posted 9 years ago # -
the spokes proposal on page 3 works for me
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pall-corrected-p8.pdfPosted 9 years ago # -
"
Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
23/02/2015 16:18
Our plan for north of #Meadows is mainly @CityCentreLeith not @south_team. See p3 of http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pall-corrected-p8.pdf@Cyclescape @CyclingEdin @edfoc
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
CityCentreLeith Team (@CityCentreLeith)
23/02/2015 16:20
@SpokesLothian @south_team @Cyclescape @CyclingEdin @edfoc Okay thanks will pass that info on to Roads Team. ^K"
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
SRD (@SRDorman)
23/02/2015 16:22
@SpokesLothian @CityCentreLeith @south_team @Cyclescape @CyclingEdin @edfoc looks v. Good to me. Let's do it!"
Posted 9 years ago # -
Genuine questions.
Is this sort of thing more important than (for instance) extending 'family network' or signing (to) existing paths better?
How much do 'we' care but other (non?) bike users see things differently?
Posted 9 years ago # -
I like the idea of a family network, especially if it is designed city wide.
However, if all that is being done is a few signs without any proper infrastructure, then I would definitely prioritise building something like this.
Perhaps the 'network' should be just a drawing until real infrastructure gets built!
Posted 9 years ago # -
@LB & PS
Yes very sensible re Bristo place, must have been having a bit of a moment!
Posted 9 years ago # -
With regards how important the Bristo Place/ Forrest Road question really is...
If you had a 7 year old son or daughter and wanted to cycle with them from south of Meadows to Chambers St Museum or the Children's Library at the moment you might well tell them to get off and walk their bike at the top of MMW.If they built the Forrest Road two way cycle lane (As Spokes have suggested) then they could enjoy another 100 yards of cycling! Then walk. (Depending on time of day / status of bus lane).
As you head towards the city centre the choices become harder. It all counts though as MMW is a main loading ramp for bikes into town.New PoP leaflets have got another superb Kaputnik illustration with a neat quote about 'great cities' on the back. For most families PoP will be the only time they will head off the top of MMW into town on a bike.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@chdot Is this sort of thing more important than (for instance) extending 'family network' or signing (to) existing paths better?
The problem is that scaring families off their bikes means that the family network isn't used, except perhaps to drive to the nearest offroad track.
Unfortunately a network is required, and subjective safety is required, and at the moment we have neither, although I acknowledge that the family network is being slowly joined up. That (eventually) will make it a network, but it will fail after the final scare.
For some, that scare will come earlier than others - perhaps even as they think about getting on a bike, having observed the road conditions, others will last a while, and still others (us!) persist despite periodic scares.
Robert
Posted 9 years ago # -
"others (us!) persist despite periodic scares"
Sounds like some serious research needed -
Are 'we' better at judging risks than 'the average person', or more foolhardy/foolish?!
Are 'we' a finite fraction of the population unless road conditions improve?
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
