Depressing that it's not even a side road but a delivery point for the pub.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Cramond Brig Chicane
(93 posts)-
Posted 6 years ago #
-
Aye the "pedestrian lanes" were full end to end with parked cars yesterday 1pm.
Also that chicane is ridiculous. This a supposed national cycle route!
Posted 6 years ago # -
I went through last night and they have put lots of paint down on the West (pub) side of the bridge as shown above.
But removed the plastic chicane and not done any painting on the East side.
A change of heart or just piecemeal delivery?
Posted 6 years ago # -
The plastic chicane has been removed, but not by anyone in an official capacity (I hope!)
There are 3 pieces of chicane lodged in the river at various spots between the Brig and the currently closed Salvesen Steps. I assume the 4th piece managed to get a bit further down river. Passing delinquents (likely), drunks from the Brig at closing time (less likely) or irate cyclists (who knows?) to blame, I suppose.
Posted 6 years ago # -
The chicane now has a permanent replacement. Two black painted but with reflectors metal gates, staggered with quite a decent gap between them. I wonder what might happen if the reflectors are ripped off and someone comes down there at night who doesn't know the area. However, could be a lot worse.
Posted 6 years ago # -
" I wonder what might happen if the reflectors are ripped off and someone comes down there at night who doesn't know the area."
Speaking for myself, if I go somewhere I don't know, I tend to be cautious. A steep drop, with signs asking cyclists to slow down, would be enough for me to slow down. The gates are not at the foot of the drop, and allow adequate time for any cyclist travelling at a reasonable speed to take evasive action. Anyone speeding, has themselves to blame, IMHO.
Posted 6 years ago # -
where are the gates? on the bridge itself? what about the bollards?
will anything be done about the car parking and dogs?
Posted 6 years ago # -
The bridge is on the north end of the bridge, next to the Sustrans cycle path post (which most miss as its under a tree and usually covered. Bollards no longer there as I can see as I cycled past this morning. Car parked outside his own house, nothing will be donw, and doesn't really need anything done. Dogs, well slow down and take care.
Posted 6 years ago # -
maybe there's more car parking on the weekends? and more dogs?
am sure you're right, nothing will be done, but it's not fun trying to go through there - even slowly, when cyclists are supposed to watch out for everyone, but no one else watches out for them.
Posted 6 years ago # -
@SRD
To a large extent, you're wrong - it is fun to go through there - that's why a phenomenal number of people cycle through there at a leisurely pace, within everyone's shared use comfort zones.
It may not be fun to cycle through there if a high pace is desired. If that's the case, why do it, why would anyone do so when the A90 is handy?
It may not be fun to cycle on the A90 when there's cars zipping past, but it's not fun for non-cyclists to be on the Brig when there's speeding cyclists zipping past unnecessarily fast.
What is the distance of the contentious stretch - 50 metres? Is the need to be maintain a high pace that desirous for such a short distance?
Posted 6 years ago # -
"What is the distance of the contentious stretch - 50 metres? Is the need to be maintain a high pace that desirous for such a short distance?"
+1
But a lot of this is about the way CEC has (mis?) managed various potential/real/imagined conflicts (accepting that there can be no 'solutions' that could suit everyone).
Posted 6 years ago # -
The chicane doesn't cause any significant delay and the gap is very wide. Must admit I was a little non-plussed when the trial first started in December but I think the end result doesn't seem to cause any inconvenience. I use this most days as my commute and I think there's more than enough room for all users. I've always thought the bigger issue is the blind corner just past the chicane. I always slow right down there but have seen a number of cyclists speeding round with no idea of what awaits them.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I didn't say I wanted to go fast - I don't go fast through any of that stretch, and the last thing I want to do is make pedestrians unhappy. but the utter unpredictability of what people will do makes it less than pleasant - especially when you add in car doors and cars reverseing and parking, and if you're cycling with children. adding in extra things to dodge strikes me as a retrograde move.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I'm perfectly happy with the gates. They have a decent gap and reflective strips, and at least they are unlikely to move on a daily basis. With the temporary barriers, you never knew what you were going to find - an angled gap in the middle, a too-narrow gap at the side - according to the whim/agenda of whoever last moved them.
At least the gates remove the temptation to bomb down there at 25 mph. "We" may have no desire to do so, but some certainly do. I've been that way countless times during the week and at weekends, and the closest I've come to a collision is when a group of roadies racing down the hill almost took me out as I cycled round the bend up to the bridge in the other direction.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I feel a chicane targets the wrong people. If you're willing to go fast through a blind bend you're unlikely to slow for or yield at a chicane unless someone is already in it, at which point the situation is worse than before.
Signs reading "Caution Blind Bend" and/or "Caution Loose Surface" would've at least looked like cyclist safety was important too.
Posted 6 years ago # -
You can't go fast through those gates. Well, maybe somebody exceptionally skilled could, but the point is that they force people to slow down to a speed at which the greatest risk is a disapproving tut rather than an injury. And the point is that emerging from the bridge side, your speed has been scrubbed before you reach the blind bend. Before, people's momentum from the descent would carry them round - even not naturally "fast" riders - posing a risk to oncoming cyclists as well as walkers and dogs. We all know of some pointless or poorly implemented chicanes (new estate at Dalmeny, anyone?) but in the Cramond Brig situation I can't see what the issue is, to be honest.
Posted 6 years ago # -
After years of using A90 both ways on commute i've started detouring northbound at Quality Street / D-Mains and taking the Barnton back roads on the way out of town.
The only real issue for me is the appalling state of repair of the Braepark Road downhill.
There's just no reasonable line to take, and too many potential conflict points as a result, in what is a well shady location.
Given that this road has deteriorated over the past two decades i can only assume the council see this as a plus point that keeps speed down, but I note that drivers are quite happy to roar on up the hill despite the hazards facing cyclists heading downward, and the uncertain lines they must adopt are unrecognised.
Anyway this detour is just a phase i'm going through. I wouldn't dream of taking the Old Cramond Brig route on the way into town - I'm not sacrificing average speed in that direction - and I'll be back using the A90 both ways soon enough when the novelty wears off.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Seeing the thread on Magdelene Glen reminded me to post the response I got to my similar query on the Cramond chicane.
My observation on the consultation was to compare it to the Davidson's Mains park consultation, which was rather public and uncontroversial.
This isn't specifically answered in the response but does highlight the need to read notices and engage in the process
"
I carried out a two month trial during November and December of 2016 that was extended right up until we were able to deliver the chicane. Due to this work being in a conservation area I was required to apply for planning permission at which point the neighbours were notified. Throughout the trial my contact details were available at the location for concerned members of the public to contact me. During this time I received many emails from users of the bridge and local residents praising the effectiveness of the scheme. I received no negative feedback.
My plans were circulated with the Locality who forwarded them to the relevant neighbourhood partnerships. I contacted the Brae Park residents association and issued them with my proposals drawing and a letter explaining the issues of which they were well aware of. I also responded to around 100 emails from members of the public. Finally I submitted a Stage 2 Road User Safety Audit.
Although not a priority scheme, the work at Cramond Toll took up an incredible amount of time as I was determined to deliver a successful solution to the issue of speeding cyclists at this locus. I am satisfied that I achieved this goal.
I agree that the surface on the slope leading to the gates is in need of repair. I have previously contacted the West Locality about this however I was informed that council have not adopted this road and therefore are not responsible for repairing it.
The pedestrian walkway was created to a) give walkers a safe passage from the overspill carpark up to the restaurant entrance and b) discourage parking. I am aware however that parked cars is still a problem however the process to install a traffic restriction order takes 12 months.
"
Posted 6 years ago # -
Mr Prosser: But, Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
Arthur: Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.
Mr Prosser: But the plans were on display…
Arthur: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
Mr Prosser: That’s the display department.
Arthur: With a torch.
Mr Prosser: The lights had probably gone out.
Arthur: So had the stairs.
Mr Prosser: But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?
Arthur: Yes yes I did. It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Posted 6 years ago # -
It's interesting to see two different approaches to two problems in this scheme:
- Problem with bikes - solved by building physical barriers forcing people and cyclists together
- Problem with cars - solved by painting a line to keep people and cars apart
They could've painted a line up the middle of the bridge.
EDIT: not entirely fair as the original problem with cars (presumably too many driving too fast) was solved by blocking them entirely.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Clearly it's a local bridge for local people...
@Frenchy - can you enlighten us as to the job title of the individual whose response you posted? Hardly sounds open-minded or cycle-friendly: "I was determined to deliver a successful solution to the issue of speeding cyclists at this locus". What (fair) steps were taken to determine there actually was an issue, other that listening to Cramond NIMBYs?
Posted 6 years ago # -
"the original problem with cars (presumably too many driving too fast) was solved by blocking them entirely."
Hardly a fair comparison as it was only blocked to cars after a shiny new 4-lane road was built for them
Posted 6 years ago # -
@Rob No, that's entirely fair, and very telling. The line for pedestrians was to give them a segregated walkway from cars driving to the lower carpark.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"Hardly sounds open-minded or cycle-friendly"
Indeed. I also have to wonder about the trial being run in November/December. I bet I'm not the only one who only rides that route during the summer months.
"Hardly a fair comparison as it was only blocked to cars after a shiny new 4-lane road was built for them"
Very good point. I wonder if they considered building a dedicated cycling bridge just north of the existing one. I'm sure the residents wouldn't mind losing the end of their garden to help solve such a serious problem.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I'm going to stand up for the letter writer here.
There is a problem with the speed that *some* people travel on bikes down the hill. I don't think we can deny that.
The people living near the bridge have previously had verbal abuse when they have tried to confront to people travelling at excessive speeds. If it was similar problem with *some* vehicle drivers I'm sure we would have wanted action.
The task set was to reduce the conflict by lowering cycling speeds and they have complied with the applicable standards in coming up with a solution. We may not like it but
I have met & dealt with the letter writer in previous occasions and I would say they are open-minded and cycle-friendly.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I agree that the surface on the slope leading to the gates is in need of repair. I have previously contacted the West Locality about this however I was informed that council have not adopted this road and therefore are not responsible for repairing it.
So who is responsible.
This isn't a private road in the sense that it doesn't serve a broader purpose. It's part of NCR 1 and the main cycling route from places like Queensferry, Kirkliston etc to northern Edinburgh.
So the idea it can simply be left in disrepair because its "owners" don't feel like spending the money to maintain it seems absurd.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"So the idea it can simply be left in disrepair because its "owners" don't feel like spending the money to maintain it seems absurd."
And I think legal.
Are the chicanes on private land?
Posted 6 years ago # -
"
I am aware however that parked cars is still a problem however the process to install a traffic restriction order takes 12 months.
"
"In short - Scottish Ministers could do something about this. The Transport Scotland "Active Travel Taskforce" is meant to be looking at this, details:"
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=18085&replies=12#post-259037
Posted 6 years ago # -
I seem to remember that the trial involved plastic blocks that kept being moved - probably by both locals and 'cyclists'.
Don't know if they were moved officially to try different configurations.
The key purpose (right or wrong) was to slow down bike riders. CEC has a poor record on designing chicanes that don't add in extra problems e.g. Magdalene Glen and (relevant to this location) on the Barnton Park golf route.
Each starts with problems (perceived and, no doubt on occasion, real) of conflict/speed.
'Perfect' design is difficult and each place has its own practical problems. I think bike riders are capable of over-estimating their 'rights to passage', but there ought to be better solutions e.g. pedestrian/cycle only routes through/round chicanes.
I'm sure some people will chooses to ignore these suggestions, but if there is no risk of conflict, no harm.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Are the chicanes on private land?
How can the land be private if it's a major cycle route?
Private in what sense?
And, if the owner is under no obligation to offer access that's fit to use, what compels them to offer access at all?
What would happen, for example, if he/she/they simply decided to put up a fence?
My point is that, if we start from the point that access must be given (for whatever reason), then it's a very short step to say that access must be fit for purpose.
PS These are serious questions.
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
