CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Queens Drive

(13 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Jester
    Member

    Can anyone explain to me why the shared use path down Queens Drive suddenly becomes cycle only at the bottom of the Radical Road (across from Holyrood car park).
    I've seen some fairly abusive cyclists yelling at tourists that "this is a f@@@ing cyclepath" and to be frank it's embarrassing.

    It's badly signposted and confusing. So why is not a shared path also, and who can't some of the more abusive cyclists cut the tourists some slack?

    https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Queen's+Dr,+Edinburgh+EH8/@55.9510382,-3.1694148,257m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x4887b87b3ee8bbf9:0x532aa31ac6c01d33!8m2!3d55.9514908!4d-3.1666043!6m1!1e1

    Posted 8 years ago #

  2. Frenchy
    Member

    It doesn't become cycle only there - the green path is cycle only all the way from the roundabout near Pollock Halls to St. Margaret's Loch. The red pedestrian path runs beside it from the roundabout to Dumbiedykes.

    This doesn't really answer any of the "why" questions, though.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  3. davidsonsdave
    Member

    Interesting. I regularly run, walk and cycle on that path and have never considered it to be cycle only. I concede that it does have the words cycleway painted on it but there is nothing to suggest that it is cycle only, such as cycle only signs, or signs directing pedestrians to follow the red path.

    Some people live in a cartoon world rather than the real world and get rather upset if the real world doesn't match the imaginary one in their head. It's the same mentality as those people in cars who get all upset because they are being "held up" by a bike.

    Seriously: who thinks that pedestrians should cross over at Dumbiedykes to follow a route which crosses the road five times, without pedestrian crossings, in order to do the same journey to St Margaret's Loch?

    Posted 8 years ago #

  4. SRD
    Moderator

    "Seriously: who thinks that pedestrians should cross over at Dumbiedykes to follow a route which crosses the road five times, without pedestrian crossings, in order to do the same journey to St Margaret's Loch?"

    exactly.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  5. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I've never thought of it as "cycle only" and always treated it as shared use.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  6. Jester
    Member

    Further up the path is clearly split with a pedestrian sign on one half and cycle on the other. At this point it is marked only as a cycleway. It's bonkers and should be marked as a shared path.

    On the other side of the coin, going up Queens Drive from Duke's Walk to Dunsapie Loch, I made the mistake of mistaking the footpath there for a shared use pedestrian/cycle path. An old chap gave me absolute dogs abuse for being on it, even though I was doing walking pace at the time!

    I find cycling up there, breathing out my @rse with a car right on my tail to be rather unnerving...

    Posted 8 years ago #

  7. Roibeard
    Member

    I have assumed it to be cycle only, but just in the sense that the roads are "cars only", i.e. pedestrians are free to wander as they choose, and one should navigate round them gently and without intimidation.

    Of course, there will be a proportion of the population who think otherwise and declare "gerrof my road/cycle track"...

    Robert

    Posted 8 years ago #

  8. kaputnik
    Moderator

    At this point it is marked only as a cycleway.

    Indeed, but I've taken that to be "you may cycle here", not "you may not walk here". Signing something as a cycleway is not a prohibition on walking there.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  9. Rob
    Member

    It's way too narrow to be two-way shared use. It isn't even wide enough for safe two-way cycling.

    The provision for cycling/walking there is embarrassingly lacking*. I can cut people some slack for getting frustrated at having to squabble over the scraps.

    *Just enough to get abuse for being on the road, not enough to actually be useful (see this desire line).

    Posted 8 years ago #

  10. Rob
    Member

    Who's domain is it to improve active travel in Holyrood Park? It has so much potential for both active travel and sport/leisure cycling. Are there legal obstacles when it comes to removing grass to build wider paths or is it more political?


    This     pretty much says it all. Plenty of space to provide for cycling, forced to deal with 4x4s breathing down your neck.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  11. SRD
    Moderator

    https://storify.com/SRDorman/holyrood-park-fit-for-purpose

    http://www.livingstreetsedinburgh.org.uk/2015/11/30/ten-charities-back-20mph-for-safer-holyrood-park/

    Posted 8 years ago #

  12. c30c60
    Member

    In Dec 2015, Historic Scotland (as it was then) said it was developing a new comprehensive management plan for the Park. This was in a response to the letter mentioned in SRD's link above.

    The last I heard (in May 2016), there was a plan for "a Council scheme to design a cycle link and walking improvements between The Parliament, Pollock Halls and King’s Buildings. This route includes a section through Holyrood Park (beside Queen’s Drive).".

    This thread has reminded me to find out what's happening with both these plans. If anybody else is interested in helping me prod the Council and Historic Environment Scotland, please get in touch. I rather ran out of steam towards the end of last year.

    Posted 8 years ago #

  13. Jester
    Member

    I contacted them by putting in a report using the Fix My Street App.

    Got a reply which said that the path signage will be getting improved and it will all be a shared used path as it's not wide enough for designated cycle/pedestrian lanes.

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin