yes. I use it every single day, left turn so particularity annoying.
and POINTLESS.
did i mention it was pointless ?
exasperated of Stockbridge.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Innocent Path
(109 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Hm. Might be heading that way to B&Q shortly so will need to check which cut through the Pashley Pronto can fit through! Don't usually use that one: hopefully the other one doesn't have all this fencing and chicanes now...
Posted 6 years ago # -
@Iain McR
I do know the name of the person responsible. I'll PM you the person's address.
Remember that MTB write-up, mind. Paragraph per day, minimum. Looking forward to it.
Posted 6 years ago # -
No Cycling signs still there when I went through at the wekend, so I emailed again. Here's the reply:
I actually had a meeting with two of my colleagues yesterday on site to discuss this. One was the chap who installed the parks and the numerous “no cycling” markings, the other was the Councils Access Officer whose specialty is the Land Reform Act.
Essentially we agreed that all “no cycling” markings should be removed forthwith and I understand that the intention is for them to be taken out next week.
I will keep an eye on it and chase next week to ensure that it has been done.
Sounds promising.
(BTW - tech question - what is the point of the [quote] tag? It doesn't distinguish the quoted text in any way.
Posted 6 years ago # -
(BTW - tech question - what is the point of the [quote] tag? It doesn't distinguish the quoted text in any way. )
Good question. I tend to read the forum in a newsreader (via rss) where the text is quoted properly. Suspect the that stylesheet we use don't differentiate between quoted and unquoted text.
Posted 6 years ago # -
went this way on thu 22 june I have not done this path for years - I think a bit heavy on the rumble strips or whatever they are known as- I saw a sustrans blue sign saying RIE is it possible to cycle to the hospital from this marker? Thanks in advance
Posted 6 years ago # -
I've e-mailed my councilor with a precis of this thread to see if he can help resolve this fiasco.
As @Morningsider suggested I took the tack of suggesting that visually handicapped people are particularly ill-served by the new obstacles.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I'm still waiting for a reply to an email I sent in mid-April. Have chased it up several times. Magdalene Glen is now handled by East team rather than South team, which I don't think helped.
Posted 6 years ago # -
. . . is it possible to cycle to the hospital from this marker?
I don't know the marker you mean but if it's near Duddingston Road West then you can take the road up Craigmillar Castle Road. There's a cycle path after the end of the houses.
Or you could use tracks across Craigmillar Castle Park by taking the easily missed King's Haugh route from the Duddingstone Road West light controlled crossing up to Peffermill Road, south pavement east to a right turn onto the path network.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Now had a reply.
Ends with "As this work was done after consultation with local residents and we did put up information within the park to ask for comments from all users we will not be removing them"
I'll bang my head against the wall again later.
Posted 6 years ago # -
As this work was done after consultation with local residents and we did put up information within the park to ask for comments from all users we will not be removing them
Saying something stupid was done as a result of a consultation does not mean it was the right thing to do. I hardly ever go that way myself, but I think local councillors should be leaned on by those whom this is affecting. The "we did a consultation" line was trotted out for a lot of the nonsense they've done around Magdalene to which it seems they didn't really do a proper consultation at all, with the local community or any other users.
A lot of effort and expense has been gone to in this area to put in parks in the wrong places, painting markings that had no meaning and installing silly amounts of rumble strips that nobody wanted. There will be quite a few people I imagine who now have to justify and defend this position as to admit they were wrong on it all and take it out would be rather inconvenient/unfortunate for their reputations.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"The "we did a consultation" line was trotted out for a lot of the nonsense they've done around Magdalene to which it seems they didn't really do a proper consultation at all, with the local community or any other users."
Yes, quite a bit on Twitter from locals complaining about CEC 'listening' selectively.
Might be somewhere on this thread.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Cycled up through Magdalene at the weekend. Head-on confrontation at the top chicane, guy was going fast and nearly fell off.
There was no need for confrontation as there was no one else around, it's just built in there now. Well done to all concerned.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Got hi 5s off about 20 kids going past Magdalene play park on Fri night
Posted 6 years ago # -
"
The consultation identified Brunstane Primary School as an ideal site for the investment. However, as this land is categorised as school property (not public open space),
"
So no chance of being an Open Playground - like the 'adventure playground' at Sciennes??
Posted 6 years ago # -
Conical news paper printed and on line
Good, good. Anything else?
Local councillors and electronically through there wed page their wed page aI can see you are tired. We'll pick this up again tomorrow shall we?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Conical = Council? Has this been run through OCR?
Posted 6 years ago # -
My best guess was that Conical=Chronicle. I'd never heard of the Edinburgh Chronicle, but it does appear to exist.
Conical=Council certainly possible though.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Burnt out Land Cruiser at the back of Magdalene @ 0715 this morning.
Looks like those rumble strips, chicanes and all the paint isnt working.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Finally got a response from Scott Thomson, Community Parks Officer @ CEC who is responsible for overseeing the 'improvements' on the Innocent behind Magdalene.
In summary:
"we are going to do what we want to do, its our path we can do what we want, if you don't like it use the road, we dont need to listen to anyone, in fact we can't because I've got my fingers in my ears and I cant hear you na na na na etc and so on.. also it's our path and we can do what we want - did I mention that?"
although this made me laugh "During an extensive consultation period which lasted over 2 years."
So extensive, that did not extend to the main users of the path.
If anyone else wishes to email him your thoughts, pls do so, although it is marginally less constructive than banging your head against a wall.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Hi @Iain Have you got an email for Scott Thomson please. Also is it possible to post his actual reply (although I'm sure you did an accurate summary!) I'm happy to pm you my email for you to forward the reply. Thanks.
Posted 6 years ago # -
My bike is a folding 20 inch wheeler so not dis-similar to a kid's bike. Those shoogly bricks are deeply uncomfortable on her and I'd be very wary of them in the wet. It's a matter of time before they cause an accident.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Scott @ CEC no longer wishes to discuss the Innocent path works with me and has pointed me towards the Council's complaints procedure 'if I wish to take it further'.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"Council's complaints procedure"
Apart from the merits(?) of what's been done, I think it's worth the complaint about the consultation which forgot about existing (path) users.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Good point about the complaint focusing on consultation. In my experience of bureaucratic complaints procedures (from being a member of such a bureaucracy) they tend to concentrate on whether the procedures were followed, rather than the actual merits of the case.
In this case, I think it's disingenuous of Scott Thomson to argue that it's a park and nothing else. It is clearly an important active travel route as well (NCR 1 no?) So were any active travel groups consulted? Sustrans, Spokes, or any of the active travel people in the Council?
Posted 6 years ago # -
So were any active travel groups consulted? Sustrans, Spokes, or any of the active travel people in the Council?
No. Or at least, they aren't mentioned in the list of consultees the council produced:
Posted 6 years ago # -
While a complaint might seem futile (I doubt anything would directly come of it), kicking up a stink means it is highly unlikely that bricks will ever be put in a path again - more bother than it is worth.
The important bit is to make sure councillors area aware of the complaint and the council's reaction to it. Sweeping it under the carpet is all but impossible if elected members are grilling officers as to why they are having to waste their time dealing with nonsense they could do without.
Posted 6 years ago # -
It's also a Core Path (CEC5) and restricting non-motorised responsible access (i.e. the no-cycling signage on the spur to Asda) will require some defense, otherwise it will be a landowner unduly restricting access.
The Land Reform Act resulted in the removal of this signage from the Meadows and it should be possible to challenge its reintroduction, or at least require an explanation of this retrograde step.
The removal of the vegetation and consequential improved sightlines should make responsible cycling on this spur easier rather than harder!
Robert
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
