'We' lost this one too.
Issue not so much the chicane 'to slow bikes down', but that fact that peds were forced through too when there is plenty of room for separate path (to pavement!)
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Cramond Brig Chicane
(93 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
My additional issues with SQ chciane are
1. that you have to tackle the kerbs at an angle to approach the chicane. So in the wet you are worrying about your wheel not slipping away from you and not so much traffic or other users or manaouvering through the barriers.
2. As you exit the path so are approaching the road at an angle so it is harder to give a full 180degree look for traffic.
3. Managing children, there is no place to wait on the far side of the chicane without blocking those following you.
So whether you are in front or behind them it is hard to get through themy safely.
If you have to have a chicane make it a good 5m from the road.
Posted 6 years ago # -
The point about the SQ chicane is that they should have put the obstacle in the road for the motorists and prioritised the cycle path! It's only a road going to a bunch of houses, for goodness sake. I think a hefty speed bump either side of a zebra crossing would do the trick.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Exactly, it's high time we got away from the presumption in favour of motor vehicles at crossings.
Though the bit I find most annoying now is the entrance to the path from Dalmeny, where they've replaced the boulder narrowed entrance with a locked gate and sharp old kerb stones to navigate round the side, perfect for pinch flats.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@DrAfternoon
Though the bit I find most annoying now is the entrance to the path from Dalmeny, where they've replaced the boulder narrowed entrance with a locked gate and sharp old kerb stones to navigate round the side, perfect for pinch flats.
This was the bit I was asking Arrellcat about earlier.
I also find the chicane nearest that to be the most inconvenient- especially at the minute as they have barricaded off a lot of the path on the downhill side of it.
Posted 6 years ago # -
As cyclists aren't speed restricted in this location the OLA cyclists are surely just LA cyclists. Perhaps Otherwise Considerate might be a better term.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I don't think I ever copied the response I had from Cala in October onto the forum as it was so hopeless it didn't seem worth it but as the discussion has come up again here it is. Plain text is my email and underlines are the responses:
I have several concerns about this path primarily around the chicanes none of which appear to comply with the current guidance for the installation of chicanes. Andrew mentioned that the path had been designed in accordance with the department of transport's LTN 2/08 although he wasn't sure why this would have been used rather than the Scottish equivalent (Cycling by Design). Can you clarify if there is a reason for this.
Our Consultant engineer confirmed that LTN 2/08 was used in consultation with Chris Brace who was the Council Cycling Officer at the time and who agreed the overall design.
Whichever document is used it seems that there are a number of substantial shortcomings in the design of this path, particularly regarding the three chicanes. Can you please explain your reasoning regarding the following seven points and what, if anything, you can do to remedy them.1) Both of these documents state that access controls should only be used where there is a proven need and that bollards are the preferred method of access control. Why then have chicanes been used in a brand new installation? The two chicanes adjacent to the bus turning area were deemed to be necessary because this was likely to be a busy junction shared by pedestrians/vehicles and cyclists. The junction at the south end of the cycleway was also considered to be a potential danger spot where the two paths meet and where sight lines are restrictive.
2) Where a chicane is used the guidance states that the gap should be at least 3m. The southern chicane appears to be closer to 2m for no good reason. When towing a child trailer or accessible cycles it is necessary to dismount to get through the gap, given the number of parents using this path with small children and it's status as the primary cycling route north from Edinburgh can you please explain why it is so narrow? Our Consultant engineer has confirmed that the spacing’s noted on the design drawing comply or are greater than that specified in LTN 2/08 “Cycle Infrastructure Design”.
3) The southern chicane has recently been changed to a steel barrier from the previous wooden installation. The timber barriers were only ever intended as a temporary arrangement The new barriers have been swapped so that users will meet the barrier on the right first. Again this appears to be against the guidance which states that the left barrier should be met first. Is there a reason for this? I have not been able to establish why this is other than the fact that there is no specific delineation separating cycles /pedestrians so either sides could be used cycles or pedestrians..
4) Currently the barriers have no reflective material on them making them hard to see during the hours of darkness. As the nights are drawing in can you please ensure that this is remedied ASAP. I am sure we can arrange to have reflective tape put on the barriers , however both sets of barriers are located directly beneath lamp posts which should assist
5) The guidance states "Where access controls are next to a carriageway they need to be set back far enough to accommodate likely users. For example, a family group waiting for others to pass through...". Neither the middle nor northern chicanes currently comply with this guidance. This is likely to lead to cyclists waiting on the road if the chicane is not clear when they approach them. Creating an unnecessarily dangerous situation.
Our Consultant engineer has confirmed the guidance notes do suggest bollards and barriers should be 5m from kerb edge but that is only a suggestion and that there is 5m clearance from the back barrier and the kerb edge.
6) The middle of the three chicanes has a substantially greater overlap than the northern chicane, on the other side of the road. This leads cyclists away from the dropped kerb and discourages them from using the northern section of the path. Is this installed this way deliberately or do you have plans to fix this when finalising the road surface? (This wouldn't be an issue if the chicanes had been set back 5m as advised in the guidance. See response to 5 above ) We will review the dropped kerb arrangement in advance of the final surfacing with a view to ensuring it won’t unduly impede or misdirect cyclists, although the point of the barriers is to slow pedestrians and cycles at these junctions.
7) The outcome of having the chicane on the northern section appears to be that no cyclists use this section as they prefer to use the road as it is far more convenient. Noted – we witness cyclists on a regular basis using the road at the northern end rather than the cycleway. Were the cycle path to be given priority rather than the road then along with improvements to the chicanes most cyclists would remain on the path for it's full length. This could possibly be done with the installation of a zebra crossing with parallel provision for cyclists. Has this been considered or does the presence of dropped kerbs mean the plan is to leave this as an uncontrolled junction? The crossing was designed and approved as an uncontrolled junction and there are no plans at present for zebra etc crossing at this location.My other questions are regarding what appears to be another road crossing towards the southern end of the path. What plans if any have been made regarding this? The path doesn't appear to have dropped kerbs, does this mean that the path will retain priority with vehicles on the road required to give way? The path will have priority at this crossing, which will have considerably less vehicular traffic than the crossing at the northern chicane ,
Finally, I assume that the path outside the southern boundary of the site is not controlled by you. Do you know who owns/looks after this path? This path is a public right of way and is owned by Lord Rosebery
Posted 6 years ago # -
< post shifted to better thread >
Posted 6 years ago # -
A footway at the Cramond Brig would ruin the ambience of the place. I've no idea what the formal definition is for a road that used to be a through route but is no longer (if indeed it's anything other than a normal suburban road), but I can't understand why all fellow cyclists can't just accept that to all intents & purposes its full width is shared use between cyclists & pedestrians, and cycle accordingly.
Anyone who wants to belt along as fast as they can on their bike ... just stick to the A90.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I've always found the appalling road surface on the descent to the Brig to be a good disincentive to excessive speed.
Notwithstanding that, I treat the location as I would any other part of a journey, ie ride according to the likely hazard to be encountered; in this case pedestrians/dogs and even, shock horror, oncoming cyclists, who can be all over the place on the bridge.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Coming up the hill from the Brig today there were workmen getting ready to start painting a lane at the side of the road. So I thought I should finally check exactly what has been planned for the chicane. It looks like it's scope is far larger and quite a bit more pointless than imagined.
As well as chicanes there is going to be "1.5m wide buff coloured textureflex footway" between the restaurant car parks and along Braepark Road (both sides for large parts). I'm very surprised as I thought Braepark Rd was not adopted.
I'm also stumped as to why they think drivers will pay any attention to a footpath which is at the same level as the road given how little regard drivers have for kerbs. There are also lots of marking apparently telling cyclists to slow down but none for cars, although perhaps I should be reading them as stating that all vehicles should slow as they are in a cycle lane.
I can't link directly to the the planning documents but the application is here (The interesting ones are the road safety audit and walking and cycling provision): https://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=OM8X5NEWFKU00
It references "Diagram 1049 (TSRGD 2016)" which as far as I can tell is about delineation marking on a cycle/footpath and not relevant on a road like this.
It will be interesting to see how this works in practice, especially the mandatory footpaths.
Posted 6 years ago # -
What's the point of the painted pedestrian space when Braepark Rd often has cars parked on it.
Couldn't see any parking restrictions being put in.
I also find it hard to see the road surface of Braepark Rd due to the covering of trees making it very dark (am I'missing intently trying to see the potholes). I'm not convinced that some markings on the road will be that visible.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Brae Park Road is adopted but Brae Park (the cul-de-sac) isn't.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Something about a 3m gap, and the golf course chicane as an example?
Posted 6 years ago # -
am I'missing intently trying to see the potholes
You can't expect them to fix the potholes on a key street in Edinburgh's cycling network. They're too busy adding chicanes and painting meaningless words on the road.
Posted 6 years ago # -
The only time I've had an incident on Braepark Road was when I hit a dog while descending on the bike. The dog was of course not on a lead, and leapt into my path from behind a parked car.
I can imagine that such occurrences are not unheard of. Hard to see how some paint by the side of the road will improve things. Cars will still be parked, dogs will still leap out from behind them.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I think it will be worth us feeding our comments into the local Councillors, which include Cllr Work...
If they could fix the potholes on both approaches to the bridge that would be a big help.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Holy moly batman! That is a huge amount of paint and stuff. Council having trouble spending the 10% cycle budget on actual investments in cycling?
I guess if it encourages pedestrians and dogs to the sides, it might make it less tedious (many years ago when this was part of my commute, there was always a loose dog that used to run out of one of the properties and try to go under my wheels...)
So long as the chicane is actually navigable I'm pretty meh about it. It focuses conflict since pedestrians now need to directly compete with bikes for passage, but I've never found it to be particularly busy.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Yes, the chicane is not really an issue but the buff
footpathsparking strips are really pretty pointless. and as others have pointed out the road surface is so appalling that most cyclists are dodging about avoiding potholes rather than looking where they are going.I wonder who would be best to ask how much will be coming out of the cycling budget. As the parking strips are clearly not a cycle enhancement presumably they wont be.
Edit: thanks @MurrenB for the clarification.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"I guess if it encourages pedestrians and dogs to the sides.."
No chance of that. Passed by twice this pm. Both times the painted pavement was fully parked up the whole way down to the lower car park.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Hart's Cyclery @harts_cyclery 1m1 minute ago
More
How much precious cycling £ will be wasted on painted walkways that will be parked in @CllrNormanWork @adamrmcvey http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/idoxpa-web/files/6CFBAE66ABCDD20DF314BFC275153744/pdf/17_00970_LBC-02__WALKING_AND_CYCLING_PROVISION-3557381.pdf …Posted 6 years ago # -
Was there not a consultation on this? How come it's seemingly finalised?
Posted 6 years ago # -
All the documents appear to have been taken down. Curious...
Posted 6 years ago # -
They are still there, it's just that direct links to documents don't work on the council's planning system because it's awful.
Here is a direct link to the application, do these stop working after a while too?
Posted 6 years ago # -
you beat me to it, jonty
the planning docs index does remain available
Posted 6 years ago # -
After going this way on Sunday I can hear the conversation that took place in the Cooncil offices.
"There's confrontation between cyclists and pedestrians/dog walkers on a fifteen foot wide bridge at Cramond, what can we do?"
"I know, force them all to go through the same three foot gap, that's bound to prevent confrontation."
Posted 6 years ago # -
Had a proper look at the planning documents. The most interesting one is the Road Safety Audit. All the sensible concerns are in there but met with ridiculously weak and mostly useless responses.
e.g. 'Risk of vehicles colliding with other vehicles or encroaching into the pedestrian walkway'
Recommendation: 'it is recommended that the road width is sufficient to allow a vehicle and a cyclist to pass one another without encroaching into the pedestrian walkway'
Which is clearly nonsense.
Or
'Risk of vehicles encroaching into the pedestrian walkway'
Recommendation: 'recommended that the surface of the pedestrian walkway is a contrasting colour'
Which might work if we subject all drivers to Clockwork Orange style aversion therapy.
Posted 6 years ago # -
When this way on Saturday and took the following photo, looking up the hill from the bridge:
20170603_082840
At least they have painted little people on it, otherwise we'd have someone assuming it was a cycle lane. Not that it matters, because when I can back there was a car parked on it, so no doubt people will carry on walking in the middle of the road as they should.Posted 6 years ago # -
When I last went past, there were so many cars parked on it you couldn't even see that there painted figures on the tarmac let alone walk on it. What a waste of paint. (& presumably also of the cycle budget)
Posted 6 years ago # -
"Hilarious" that even a painted walkway doesn't have visual priority over an side road.
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
