This was posted a few days ago on the PoP FB page Craigleith access - 22 Sept. I went past there and saw it myself yesterday - there are very prominent new No Cycling and Cyclists Dismount signs at the path entrance to the shopping centre across the ped crossing from the NEPN.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Craigleith cycle access restrictions
(105 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
I used to cycle through there but always went slow with a bit bell ringing as there is a blind spot. It was always a pain that there was not a dropped kerb for the road.
I can't be bothered dismounting or arguing my case so I just go right and then turn left by the Sainsbury's access road.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Is this a situation like at Dalry Colonies where an "assumed" cycle route actually turns out to count as a footway and therefore cycling is implicitly (and then explicitly) banned?
Worth thinking about anywhere else where the "obvious" cycle path might actually not be (and then campaigning to make it explicitly shared use.)
Posted 7 years ago # -
"I can't be bothered dismounting or arguing my case so I just
go right and then turn left by the Sainsbury's access road.shop elsewhere."FTFY
Posted 7 years ago # -
Dave - the thought did cross my mind that a lot of cyclists would feel that way as it gives a message that cyclists are not welcome.
I personally refuse to shop at Sainsburys due to the total disregard for cyclists safety at the smaller store in Stockbridge. The police were ridiculously bad given parking in the ASL is a police matter.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Interesting update posted on FB
Update on my post of 22 September;
This submitted by email to trafficorders@edinburgh.gov.uk;
"Hi Traffic Orders, just wondering if you can provide background on recently erected signs on the (previously) shared link path between the Roseburn cycle path and Craigleith Retail Park? There are now 2 signs; 1) stating Cyclists Dismount and 2) cycling prohibited (the round, official Highway Code sign). There is no safe alternative cycling route and our (unconfirmed) understanding was that the Retail Park developers had been required to provide safe access for cyclists.
Was a Traffic Order issued allowing these signs to be erected and, if so, what was the reasoning behind this?
The alternative cycling access, by road is at best impractical and potentially dangerous due to volume of traffic and road layout.
I look forward to hearing from you. Thanks and regards."Their response today;
"I have been forwarded this from the Traffic Orders department who have no official record of this path. The reason is that the path is privately owned by the Craigleith Development and has not been adopted by the Council. This means that they do not need to consult the Council with any signage that they erect on this path.
I have spent some time looking into this and can advise that the planning application for this development had conditions for the provision of cycle parking but nothing on routes proposed for cyclists to enter and exit the retail park.
I have left a message with the development and asked for a call back to discuss what alternatives could be considered other than erecting ‘cyclists dismount’ signage."I'll keep you posted.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The point about this one is that it leads directly off a toucan crossing featuring a bike sign. It would therefore make sense for the cycle path to continue along the path. The fact is, it is a rubbish 'cyle path' at the inner end with a narrow bilnd corner. It would take very little to iron out that particular bottleneck & have safe cycle access. I suspect that Craigleith Development simply don't give a toss.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I was wondering about that crossing. Is it definitely a "toucan"? It has low level displays showing both pedestrian and cycle displays on the poles nearest to where you are waiting, but it doesn't have displays at all for peds or cyclists on the opposite side of the road.
If the crappy path is private, what validity do the highway code no cycling signs have?
Posted 7 years ago # -
Anyone got a photo of the signs? (I saw them at the weekend but forgot to get my camera out)
Wondering if tweeting the stores in Craigleith asking them to get involved as it's putting off cyclists
Posted 7 years ago # -
Sainsbury's might have a genuine commercial interest, there's always a steady stream of bikes parked outside. I choose that supermarket even though I have nearer ones, partly because I can almost get to the front door on cycle paths.
Not sure the other shops would care. As far as I recall there's only one other bike park over in the far corner by TK Maxx.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I've attempted it a couple of times with small boy in trailer, and it was miserable, both the "path" and the further infrastructure (or lack thereof) en route to the supermarket. Pity, as it is our closest supermarket and would be nice to be able to get there by bike safely.
Posted 7 years ago # -
There's often bikes by the M&S too.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"...what validity do the highway code no cycling signs have?"
Good question. Unless there is a reason they don't apply here then I assume Land access 2003 rules should apply regardless of signage. If they are having problems with irresponsible users they need a more targeted approach.
Land managers should...
respect access rights in managing land and water - eg by not hindering or deterring people, ...If the law applies surely the signs breach it as they are dettering people.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"The reason is that the path is privately owned by the Craigleith Development and has not been adopted by the Council. This means that they do not need to consult the Council with any signage that they erect on this path."
Multreeism. They need to install some private security power-trippers to shout at cyclists. If they want to copy Multrees further they could ban photography in the area too.
It's a shame it's not illegal to install a sign denoting specific traffic legalities on private land.
Elsewhere in Craigleith, how are people finding the new cramped cycle parking beside the pop-up Timpsons?
Posted 7 years ago # -
@acsimpson
There are no access rights under the 2003 Act to land which;
forms the curtilage of a building which is not a house or of a group of buildings none of which is a house
'Curtilage' seems to cover all of a retail park's surrounding grounds.
Posted 7 years ago # -
So it's all about Customers then. If they have decided that it's OK to annoy their X% of cycle customers, to the benefit of their Y% of pedestrian customers, then that's their prerogative perhaps! (I'm not saying that I agree with it...)
Posted 7 years ago # -
Perhaps more about not upsetting those who drive.
Retailers must have benefitted from improved access to walk/cycle network, so this is disappointing to say the least.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Maybe try the contact page for the retail park?
Posted 7 years ago # -
I sent a message to the retail park administrator who promise to get back in 48 hours. I'll post any reply.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"Elsewhere in Craigleith, how are people finding the new cramped cycle parking beside the pop-up Timpsons?"
I had always taken that to be an unused trolley pen, with the official signposted cycle parking just around the corner of the building.
(unless I'm missing an in-joke about that being a preferred place to leave bikes)
Posted 7 years ago # -
Reply from Craigleith Retail
"Good afternoon , and thanks for your email.
The area you refer to is owned and managed by Sainsbury’s so I would ask that you contact them direct regarding this matter (Craigleith store tel. 0131 332 0704). I know that Sainsbury’s have previously received complaints from pedestrians regarding cyclists on the path, but you would be best seeking clarification from them on your query.
Craigleith Shopping Park welcomes visitors by all means of access and there is certainly no issue with you using your bike within our park.
Regards
Richard Corrigan
Retail Park Manager
Savills"So if we take this at face value, Sainsbury's did it. My 3 times a week custom is rapidly ebbing away from them unless they reverse this.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Hmmm, seems to be a lot of finger pointing going on here. I've just had a chat with Sainsbury's online:
acsimpson: 15:57
Hi, The path between one of Edinburgh's busiest cycling routes and your store at Craigleith has recently had no
cycling signs erected on it. Given that this leads directly from a cycle crossing towards your store and is the safest
route to cycle with children to your store can you please explain why this has been installed?
Sainsburys: 15:59
Hi acsimpson, thanks for contacting Sainsbury’s Webchat today. My name is Sainsburys.
Sainsburys: 16:00
Could you please use this store locator to identify the store https://stores.sainsburys.co.uk/
acsimpson: 16:01
OK, It seems to be called Blackhall. Craigleith is the name of the retail park it is in.
Sainsburys: 16:02
Brilliant. I'll give them a call now.
Sainsburys: 16:02
Are you okay to wait?
acsimpson: 16:02
Yes, that's fine thanks. I'll check back regularly
Sainsburys: 16:03
Cheers.Sainsburys: 16:08
Unfortunately Sainsbury's have no legal right to put signs on the pathway. It's down to the council or the local
authority. I cycle a lot and know how important it is to have safe places to do it. My mountain bike trails are subject
to people booby-trapping them lately which is worrying.
acsimpson: 16:08
Oh dear, I've seen some awful injuries from that sort of behaviour.
acsimpson: 16:10
If that's the stores answer then it seems that no one want to admit to installing the signs.
acsimpson: 16:10
The Council state that the path is not adopted and so nothing to do with them.
acsimpson: 16:11
and the retail park say that that particular part of the site is owned and maintained by Sainsburys.
Sainsburys: 16:13
I'm really sorry but the local authorities will have to be contacted. That is the store position at present. I hope you
can get it resolved as those projects can really add to the community.
acsimpson: 16:14
Ok, Thanks for your help. Did you note who it was you spoke to at the store?
Sainsburys: 16:14
It was the customer services manager.
acsimpson: 16:15
Thanks again.
Sainsburys: 16:15
Cheers acsimpson. Have a good evening.Posted 7 years ago # -
There are a lot of teflon shoulders going round there!
Posted 7 years ago # -
TBH. They look like official (ie Council) signs. If it wasn't the Council, whoever put them up certainly intended them to look like they were placed wth some legal basis.
Posted 7 years ago # -
If nobody is admitting to putting them there, maybe they should be taken into safe keeping until there rightful owner is found ;-)
Posted 7 years ago # -
I had that thought too. Leave a contact number and see who calls. Could drop them into police station as lost property.
Posted 7 years ago # -
So - the Council says the path and signs don't belong to it; the retail park says the path belongs to Sainsbury's; and Sainsbury's says - hey, hang on - Sainsbury's isn't denying its ownership of the path, and AIUI it's not denying having put the signs there either. It's merely saying that it doesn't have a legal right to put the signs there?
Posted 7 years ago # -
IMG_20160928_172939750 by wingpig, on FlickrPosted 7 years ago # -
I had forgotten it was a toucan. I thought they were meant to link two cycle paths together, not terminate them...
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
