The MMW downslope Give Way signs are being added at the moment at the George Square turning...
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
NMW 'spur'
(69 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
"The MMW downslope Give Way signs are being added at the moment at the George Square turning..."
You mean indicating that pedestrians to/from GSq have priority?
Posted 9 years ago # -
MMW
Posted 9 years ago # -
Maybe they'll come back later to add some "
WAKE UP" and "LOOK" signs to the transverse paths from George Square and Sainsburys, for the benefit of people who bimble out when there are inconsiderate cyclists on their way up, as opposed to the normal considerate kind.Posted 9 years ago # -
Nice view/pic.
Hard to disagree with the 'principle'.
It's a reaction to the reality of the increasing number of people/journeys on/by bikes.
Now I look forward to more CEC action (probably following a select 'working party') at all the places with bike/vehicle 'conflict' - favouring the 'more vulnerable' of course.
Posted 9 years ago # -
there are a tonne of blue signs on the GS side. and we all know how much attention people pay to blue signs way up high on a pole...
Posted 9 years ago # -
The thing is (especially as this thread started with NMW) these markings are probably correct/legal as MMW is (or at least was) a road. Not sure that's the same at the end of NMW.
On the other hand, if MMW is a road, maybe there should have been a TRO...
Posted 9 years ago # -
I've never seen Give Way markings used like that before. They are normally used where a side roads meets a larger road. In this case that would mean the markings would be on the paths from George Square and PY as they enter MMW.
I am concerned that this will lead to more, rather than less conflict - as people argue over who should have stopped when.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"more, rather than less conflict"
like so much of our infra...
Posted 9 years ago # -
"as people argue over who should have stopped when."
Indeed.
There needs to be an initial education period followed by some enforcement...
Posted 9 years ago # -
To what question is this Give Way on MMW the answer?
Is it to allow pedestrians from George Square to get to other side of the path and/or the precinct opposite? Is the Give Way sign applicable to pedestrians? The road signs pdf talks of giving way to 'traffic' on the 'major road'. I would argue pedestrians aren't traffic as defined, and the cross walk is by no commonly understood notion, a major road.
Is it to allow cyclists to get across to the precinct? Same as above for 'major road', but additionally, bikes are not allowed on the pedestrian side so they can't legally cross without dismounting!
Is it to give priority to cyclists from George Square who are joining MMW, up or down? I would suggest this problem is best left to cyclists to sort out between themselves, without the help of Give Way signs.
This will make the situation more dangerous, for all path users, and it is being done at the cost to the cycling budget.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I don't think this is helpful to anyone. The problem at that crossing is mostly caused by that fencing forcing a bottleneck.
When I'm abroad I'm always impressed by places (Denmark etc but also the US) where there's shared right of way on crossings (i.e. left turns on a green man if clear) rather than one or the other. It fosters a much less aggressive attitude where you're always looking out for each other, instead of right or wrong.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"bikes are not allowed on the pedestrian side so they can't legally cross without dismounting!"
Bikes are allowed to be biked across footways to and from cycling facilities.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@wingpig Where is the rule about being allowed to 'bike' across footways between cycle facilities. Highway code 62 says pretty clearly that on a segregated shared use path, cyclists MUST keep to the cycling side.
But my rather larger point was, 'what is this disastrous solution for?"'
Posted 9 years ago # -
"cyclists MUST keep to the cycling side"
Yes but that's for going in the direction of the path - same as 'cars aren't allowed on pavements - except to get to driveways etc.'
Posted 9 years ago # -
@chdot thanks for example. So we would have the situation where bikes could cross from George Square because they have priority (thanks to the Give Way) but when they reach the solid segregation line they have to yield, by default, to pedestrians on the walkway part, possibly stopping in the cycleway for less-than-attentive cyclists to smash into them broadside.
Not convinced about biking across still, because there are no defined cycling facilities on the other side.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"because there are no defined cycling facilities on the other side"
That's a fair point.
I think there can be a 'reasonable' assumption that it is 'shared-use' by design/in practice/legally.
BUT
(I suspect) it's 'private' - QuarterMile, so who knows!
Posted 9 years ago # -
@ih i feel like you're missing the point here. the situation remains exactly the same as it was before if cyclists were turning of MMW to PY or Sainbury's . If you feel they should have stopped/dismounted before, then I guess they still should. But i don't see that as the major issue here.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@srd unusually for you I think you've missed my point. That this 'solution' is wrong and badly thought out on every level. And I'm sure it's very dodgy legally, although others on the forum are much better placed to comment than me.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@ih and @SRD
I suspect there is more agreement than disagreement!
Posted 9 years ago # -
@ih - i don't think it is a good solution at all. but i don't think the problem is with the turning into sainsbury's!
Posted 9 years ago # -
"i don't think it is a good solution at all"
This is the key.
It's easy to say 'there was no problem that needed fixing'.
I.e. 'It's a road - for bikes - pedestrians have to wait/know their place/take their chances'
Once again 'we' don't know the thinking behind this (and the design) or why it was 'necessary' in the first place.
'We' are only too well aware of 'concerns' about 'speed' - golf course path and elsewhere.
As a 'cyclist' I am going to be annoyed by this, but as a person who gets around by bike, likes off-road paths who 'campaigns' for better facilities (not just off-road!) and for more people to cycle it's a bit more complicated.
I'm happy to assume this is a bad idea and/or could be done better and 'would be in most places outside the UK'.
I HATE the possibility that this has been done with any sort of notion that 'we have to control cyclists' behaviour in a pedestrian environment' ESPECIALLY as they is not much being done to deal with bigger problems of motor vehicles - because they are 'normal'/dominant.
Though obviously things like 20mph are being done.
Should 'we' accept paint on MMW as 'a small inconvenience, but part of bigger picture' or complain loudly about this latest example of 'CEC making things worse by overestimating problems and providing unnecessary/poorly produced solutions?
Moving people around via a multitude of modes is complicated - and difficult.
However -
CEC has policies to significantly increase cycling. Sometimes is hard to tell if the 'whole' council understands...
Posted 9 years ago # -
CEC has policies to significantly increase cycling.
Do these policies involve the same magic fairy dust that the Scottish Government seems to think will significantly increase cycling?
You don't make significant changes to anything by tinkering with it.
Posted 9 years ago # -
A better solution would have been a raised speed table across the width of MMW, linking the two pedestrian accesses. There are examples of these on Leamington Walk (Bruntsfield Links). It would clearly deliniate the pedestrian desire line and help slow cyclists. The only problem is the cost - far more expensive than paint and it would have an ongoing maintenance cost.
Personally, I don't think it would be a good use of cash. However, if something has to be done then probably best to do it well.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@AKen,
I'm sure you're being ironic. But no Edinburgh's policies have nothing in common with the SNP's magic fairy dust approach to increase cycling. Although the council may be guilty of wasting a certain proportion of the budget on tinkering they have made a firm and very real commitment to spend a considerable proportion of their transport budget on cycling projects.
Compare this to the SNP's approach of attempting on an annual basis to spend less on cycling while squeezing council budgets and claiming they should be the ones increasing cycling. If only the SNP had some quality cycling infrastructure they could tinker with this would be a better county.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"would have an ongoing maintenance cost"
Not sure if bumps on Leamington Walk ever get maintained!
Once again, highlights the problem when governments (local and national) split Capital and Revenue. Usually enough for building new stuff, but never enough to look after it.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Good points @chdot and @morningsider. I particularly like, 'I suspect there is more agreement than disagreement!' and 'Moving people around via a multitude of modes is complicated - and difficult.'
However, whoever decides these things in Edinburgh does tend to over-complicate and over-engineer. I know MMW has the de jure status of a road, but I'm going to consider its de facto status of shared ped and cycle path.
We still don't know the problem that this is to fix. (Same with silly markings on the NMW spur as well that started this off). Incidentally, I never said anything about it being about cyclists popping into Sainsbury's.
But I believe that a lot of these shared path issues arise because one group thinks the facility is 'theirs' and they're damned if they will let the other group use it freely.
I was walking in a park area in Hackney East London yesterday and noticed some green-background circular signs that had diagrams of pedestrians above and cycle below, with the words, 'Pedestrian Priority. Considerate Cycling Welcome'. I thought this stuck exactly the right tone - welcoming, reasonable, and recognising the reality that on a shared path pedestrians will always have the 'right' to wander anywhere. I saw no conflict anywhere, although admittedly volumes were low.
Given this my preferred solution (probably unwelcome on this forum) is to make all shared paths desegregated with no 'calming' measures, and nice friendly Hackney style signs. I believe peds and people on bikes could cope with this without causing havoc, and the fact that pedestrians could use the whole path would calm down any furious cycling (I offer you the wide Cramond path on a sunny Sunday where you cannot cycle fast). There would probably need to be some initial education about the change. There would also need to be a more robust response to influential groups who have irrational fear of bikes or just don't want them around.
I could cope with this because shared paths (segregated or not) aren't very good infrastructure. They are great for pootling and we are blessed in Edinburgh with some very pleasant ones.
We could then concentrate on working towards a proper infrastructure of segregated cycleways on busy roads and at dangerous junctions.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"I believe that a lot of these shared path issues arise because one group thinks the facility is 'theirs' and they're damned if they will let the other group use it freely."
There's certainly an element of that.
A bigger problem is that even if people (I'm meaning mainly pedestrians here!) notice the signs, they still don't 'register' - or perhaps understand.
Perhaps when CEC does its 20mph promo, it can say 'this is part of a grand scheme to improve Edinburgh and includes better facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. These include segregated and shared-use paths and areas. These signs explain things'...
Posted 9 years ago # -
Apologies if it's been covered, but I didn't see it in a quick skim. The give-way sign offers no protection to pedestrians because it doesn't indicate that you should give way to them:
no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the major road into that road in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident
(from here).
If anyone has any advance on that, I'd be interested?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Exactly @Dave. They've created a major road crossing MMW that allows vehicles to cross as far as the segregation line, but no protection for pedestrians. Will even give them a totally false sense of safety.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
