CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Melville Drive Marchmont Rd Junction

(18 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. tk
    Member

    Has anyone else had bad experiences with the junction here: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.940333,-3.194616,3a,90y,299.78h,77.8t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sb19sFz1OirUBQqejFH17rQ!2e0

    A few weeks ago I was cycling up to it and the pedestrian crossing just changed to green as I got there. I'd carefully checked all the stationary traffic for people indicating left and none were. A lorry was at the front and I was level with his cab as we all started to move off. He accelerated, overtook and indicated only as he started to turn the corner and hit me. No damage done but the police were involved at the time. Unfortunately a pothole had dislodged the SD card in my camera so it wasn't captured and as the vehicle had all the required mirrors and lights there wasn't anything the police could do even though it was clear the driver hadn't checked the mirrors in this case. The police put the incident down to poor junction design and told me they have been campaigning for the council to fix it by moving the pedestrian crossing away from the left turn and putting in an ASL.

    Any other near misses / accidents here? Apparently they are occurring on a fairly regular basis as drivers don't realise that making a left turn is crossing a cycle lane - they think the lights are part of the junction

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. SRD
    Moderator

    just to be clear, you're heading west, and turning left into Marchmont rd?

    " Apparently they are occurring on a fairly regular basis as drivers don't realise that making a left turn is crossing a cycle lane - they think the lights are part of the junction"

    The first part of this sentence goes for any left hand turn, i guess. (had a car nearly squash me into the railings at the King's yesterday, but some sixth sense told me they were turning, so I'd hung back behind them).

    But I don't understand this part : "they think the lights are part of the junction"

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. tk
    Member

    I was heading west and going straight on - the driver was heading west and turning left. The issue is when you stop at the lights they are far enough back that vehicles may not be indicating left while you have no way of getting in front for visibility. It means cyclists move off at the same time as drivers and are easily put at risk as they reach the actual junction

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Is there not an ASL at that one? (not ridden that way for a while, used to do it all the time - I can't remember that one being specifically worse than any others, but clearly there's an issue there if the police want it changed!).

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. tk
    Member

    No ASL - not sure why the streetview didn't embed. Try this https://goo.gl/maps/eLZDj

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. jdanielp
    Member

    I don't rountinely cycle along Melville Drive, but the main issues that I can remember from when I did so for a while related to cars pulling out from the junction or turning in from the other direction without factoring in the bicycle lane. I can certainly understand the concern.

    I did almost get squashed up against the same railings at the King's Theatre junction as SRD mentions though.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. algo
    Member

    @tk - I go that way very often. In the situation you describe with the lorry (one which I see often) I have learned not to trust indication and not to go up the inside of lorries near the front even if they aren't indicating. Obviously if you get there first and a lorry comes then there's not a lot you can do.

    I think the characteristic feature of this junction westbound is the cycle lane, the traffic lights and the immediate left turn - all of which contribute to a potentially dangerous situation as you say and is a pretty good manifestation of why in some situation painted cycle lanes can be more dangerous than none in my opinion.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. fimm
    Member

    Isn't that the junction where someone on here filmed a very nasty near left hook? It was somewhere on Melville Drive, anyway, I think.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I had film of a car door being opened on me in the bike lane, which I guess is the same sort of danger algo was highlighting about lanes....

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. fimm
    Member

    This was a flat bed lorry doing the "turn and signal at the same time" thing and very nearly hitting a cyclist. There was quite a good discussion about who would have gone down the left hand side of a non-indicating vehicle, and who would not...

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    Was it this one?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Quite embarrassing that that's one of my videos and I clearly forgot all about it...

    I was also thinking of the Argyle Place junction when I read the OP.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. mgj
    Member

    That whole junction is much worse for cyclists and drivers since the bottom of the other spur was closed off. Rarely see anyone cut up at the bottom of Argyle Place, so it is a design issue. Personally I'd question the need/value of a piece of paint that encourages undertaking, when there is an adjacent off-road path.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. fimm
    Member

    That's the video I was thinking of, that's the junction tk is talking about, and it sounds like his incident was a carbon copy of the one in the video - except tk was hit and the cyclist in the video was not.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    But mgj, the adjacent off road path branches up towards Whitehouse Loan. If you're going to Tollcross it would involve waiting at the lit crossing for your green light, turning right (paying attention to any pedestrians using the crossing as it's shared), then coming to a stop line to turn left.

    Whereas if you're already on the main road, to get to Tollcross you have to.... Ride straight.

    I'd turn it round and say it would be a retrograde step to remove an established cycle lane and tell cyclists they had to use the adjacent path that involves more wiggling to get to their destination!

    You do, certainly have to be aware when using cycle lanes (hence my holding back in the video), because yes, you may have the moral high ground if someone swings into you, but it ain't gonna do you much good when you're squashed on the road. The real trouble is that lanes are (arguably) of more use for those who are nervous of cycling, and therefore less likely to have tuned spidey senses.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. mgj
    Member

    There is an off road path towards Tollcross; yes it would mean crossing at the pedestrian crossing, but I question why there is a need for useless on road provision next to off road provision. Riding on the road is the same whether there is a strip of paint or not, but without the strip of paint on the road, there is no undertaking, so left hooking is much less likely (not impossible). So, nervous cyclists can use the off road (at least as far as the swingpark), and vehicular cyclists can use the road.

    The road redesign means that instead of turning left before the traffic lights, cars are often starting off at low speed outside of a cycle lane that may contain a faster moving cyclist, who then gets left hooked by traffic turning across the lane. Without a cycle lane, would anyone be undertaking a left indicating car?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Without a cycle lane, would anyone be undertaking a left indicating car?"

    I suspect anyone undertaking a left indicating car would do so whether there was a cycle lane or not (if there was space to filter without a lane). Trying to think of the off-road path to Tollcross, I suspect I was thinking of the wrong side of the park, are we talking about MMW? In which case fair point (though I never used that heading west as it would mean a right turn at the horrible crossroads just before Melville Drive - it tended to be my route home eastbound though).

    I would still argue that the cycle lane is there rather than not as (personal preference) I think it's a quicker, more direct route, and when the traffic is queuing it's safe enough to filter (noting that, yes, you do need to keep your wits about you and ride a little defensively).

    On Radio 4 last night there was a guy arguing that all segregation is terrible and it shouldn't be done. I'd definitely argue against removing all cycle provision!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. algo
    Member

    @mgj - are you talking about the path between the trees that goes to the bowling green from the crossing on Marchmont Road?

    I agree the off-road shared use paths are good, but as they are shared I use them expecting to slow down often for pedestrians. If I want to go quickly (for me) then I use the cycle lane on Melville Drive (exactly as you say).

    I am in two minds about the cycle lane there - on one hand it does provide a fast and marked route when the traffic is flowing, but when the traffic is queued I am constantly looking out for doors, pedestrians between cars, left turns etc… I think WC also has a video of a pedestrian stepping out in front of him on Melville Drive. That may well be irrelevant, but I do think the marked cycle lanes tell us to cycle closer to the gutter when sometimes we would take a more assertive road position, and cars think that is our place and don't think about giving cyclists space, or that cyclist might be in their rights to ride more centrally and eschew the cycle lane. Sometimes I filter on the right in the long queues there as it feels like I'm more in control of what happens.

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin