CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

"cyclists could be forced to dismount and use pedestrian crossings on foot"

(26 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    Starting new thread to take this discussion away from the other one.

    New article from Helen Martin.

    She not (apparently) in favour of actually banning bikes, but the 'something must be done NOW' is perhaps a useful call.

    She has attracted some scorn from cyclists in the past for some of her views, but she has no control over EN commenters!

    My bold

    "

    There must be an emergency -and temporary – solution, pending a dramatic re-think. Create as many city centre cycle lanes as possible to which cyclists are confined. Where there are no cycle lanes in the centre, cyclists could be forced to dismount and use pedestrian crossings on foot, before joining the next dedicated lane. The only obvious and unacceptable, immediate alternative is to ban cyclists.

    "

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/helen-martin-we-can-t-sit-back-and-wait-for-next-fatality-1-4464439

    (She does say forced to dismount - but that's just silly...!)

    Posted 6 years ago #
  2. stiltskin
    Member

    I take it the chipwrapper couldn't afford Katie Hopkins?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  3. PS
    Member

    Well, actually, the only obvious and unacceptable, immediate alternative is to ban the things that import the risk to human life to the city centre, ie motor vehicles.

    All the other solutions for the junctions, eg cyclist-only phases at lights, would require proper, joined-up and continuous, segregated facilities running on key arterial routes all the way through the city centre. How about we go for that?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  4. DrAfternoon
    Member

    There dismounting, and there's dismounting and using the pedestrian crossing. As I understand it there's nothing to stop you dismounting and continuing to use the carriageway, since you're still propelling a vehicle, the caveat of walking the bike through lights on the pedestrian phase not being allowed.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  5. Morningsider
    Member

    Cyclists will have to cross tram lines in Edinburgh. The question is how to make this as safe as possible. The danger comes from two points:

    1. Bike tyres/wheels can slip or become stuck in tram lines.
    2. Cyclists who fall or become stuck are in danger from following motorised traffic.

    There seems to be two clear answers here.

    1. Make sure cyclists have safe routes across the tram lines, crossing as close to 90 degrees as possible.
    2. Cyclists need to be segregated from motorised traffic.

    As suggested in the other thread. I think a cyclist only phase at traffic lights at Lothian Road and the Mound would be a relatively cheap and easy way of segregating cyclists from motorised traffic at these junctions. This would also allow cyclists time to safely follow clearly marked out cycle routes over the tram lines, without worrying about cars and buses.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  6. ih
    Member

    @chdot Maybe our difference is in the interpretation of the word 'ban'. She's calling for cycling to be "confined" to cycle lanes, and where there aren't any, people should have to dismount and walk to the next available cycle lane. That's a 'ban' on cycling in my book. What is dangerous though is that the idea of no cycling at tram line pinch points might gain some purchase. The article needs an article in response pointing out that her claims (can't have cycle lanes everywhere, especially at junctions; the city must be open to all manner of motorised vehicle everywhere otherwise business will collapse) are simply not true.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  7. PS
    Member

    @Morningsider

    I think a cyclist only phase at traffic lights at Lothian Road and the Mound would be a relatively cheap and easy way of segregating cyclists from motorised traffic at these junctions. This would also allow cyclists time to safely follow clearly marked out cycle routes over the tram lines, without worrying about cars and buses.

    Presumably this requires the cyclists being in a segregated lane well before the junction itself, so they are held at the lights, awaiting the relevant phase? Otherwise, they have to either navigate their way out of the traffic stream or, in a lot of cases, will stay in it and cross the lines as they do today, hoping that no motor vehicles are too close behind them.

    And just having a holding pen in the approach to the junction would run the risk of it not providing adequate capacity, especially if cycling numbers continue to grow.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  8. chdot
    Admin

    "That's a 'ban' on cycling in my book."

    I accept your definition!

    (But I'll stick to my narrower interpretation.)

    Posted 6 years ago #
  9. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Presumably this requires the cyclists being in a segregated lane well before the junction itself, so they are held at the lights, awaiting the relevant phase

    This is why it requires guaranteed access, and why Bow roundabout is fed by (partly) segregated cycle tracks.

    Cycle path closed

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17789&page=5#post-251693

    Posted 6 years ago #
  10. Morningsider
    Member

    PS - yes, that would make sense.

    Given we are speculating - I would make Princes Street one-way for buses (eastbound) and convert the inside westbound lane into a two way segregated cycle lane. The tram line pinch point at the RSA could be dealt with by a cycle only phase on the traffic lights, so trams and cyclists never share that section of road. Westbound buses could use George Street.

    I reckon this could be done fairly easily, as it wouldn't really take much in the way of infrastructure. Couple of new sets of traffic lights, some rubber kerbs, road markings and a TRO.

    Given buses (and the city) coped with the full closure of Princes Street for months during tram construction - I don't think this would have an undue impact on traffic.

    Failing that, Lothian Road could easily accommodate segregated cycle lanes. No need to over-engineer these things - if New York City can pedestrianise a huge chunk of Times Square in a few weeks then I don't see why the Council couldn't use an experimental TRO to get something like this rolled out in a couple of months. Work could then immediately start on a permanent fix.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  11. gibbo
    Member

    In such a concentrated city centre, not every route can be lined with safe cycle lanes, especially at major, central junctions such as Princes Street and Lothian Road where the accident took place.

    Wouldn't those major streets/junctions be the easiest place to have segregated cycle lanes?

    Create as many city centre cycle lanes as possible to which cyclists are confined.

    "Confined" is a strange word? Also, would these cycle lanes be the same as existing cycle lanes - i.e. parking spots painted pink?

    Where there are no cycle lanes in the centre, cyclists could be forced to dismount and use pedestrian crossings on foot, before joining the next dedicated lane.

    This presupposes a hell of a lot of cycle lanes - if the only gap between them is a single pedestrian crossing?

    Or is it, cyclists should dismount, than then walk the half mile or so until the next cycle lane?

    All in all, I think she's being well-meaning, but just doesn't understand the subject she's writing about. I'd guess she doesn't do much cycling.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  12. steveo
    Member

    I think she's being well-meaning

    No, she is a nut bag **** stirrer trying to appear rational whilst providing click bait to her rag employer and giving the idiots who read the chip wrapper regularly something to foam over all the while feeling self righteous. Best ignored.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  13. PS
    Member

    Westbound buses could use George Street.

    That number of buses would destroy George Street as an even remotely pleasant street to walk/shop/eat/drink on (it isn't great at the moment, TBH, but stick all westbound buses on it and it would be unbearable). Put them on Queen Street instead and pedestrianise George Street - saves the buses having to turn up into St Andrew Square and bottlenecking that junction too.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  14. Ed1
    Member

    a cycle track above the road like the bridge when travelling from Newbridge to Edinburgh would be nice but guess it would cost too much

    Posted 6 years ago #
  15. Morningsider
    Member

    PS - Queen Street for westbound buses seems reasonable. They would probably have to go that way during our ever increasing number of festivals anyway.

    I should say that this idea was literally a stream of consciousness ramble - I have in no way thought it through.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  16. PS
    Member

    @Morningsider Don't worry, I just have a knee-jerk reaction to any suggestion that George Street should have more buses on it, when the correct answer is no buses at all (and no cars/workies' vans/coaches/etc, for that matter). ;-)

    Posted 6 years ago #
  17. Ed1
    Member

    George street is nice to cycle on but no decent way (that I know) to get there

    Posted 6 years ago #
  18. jonty
    Member

    Sustrans proposed a princes street/queen street bus solution a while back. Still valid, and has room for a bus-free George Street. http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/scotland/policy/Edinburgh-City-Centre-Bus-Tram-integration.pdf

    Posted 6 years ago #
  19. gkgk
    Member

    Wasn't it great when they had just closed P street to build the tram line and the access lane was essentially a pleasant cycle lane? The shoppers enjoyed the quiet too, I'm sure.

    Or at new year, when it's all shut to traffic and they just have the wee funtrain. That's good too.

    My solution for P street would involve those elements.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  20. crowriver
    Member

    Jan Gehl, employed by the council to provide a vision for the city centre, proposed closing Princes Street and George Street to buses some six years ago. Councillors listened in embarrassed silence and then quietly shelved his vision. Seems our city leaders just can't imagine the city centre without cars or buses.

    From four years ago:

    http://www.edinburghgreens.org.uk/site/blog/half-vision/

    Posted 6 years ago #
  21. Blueth
    Member

    Do you think she has done any research in to how dangerous it is to be a pedestrian in Edinburgh before turning cyclists in to such for part of their journey?

    Posted 6 years ago #
  22. twinspark
    Member

    If cyclists have to push their vehicles to get to their special bits of transport infrastructure, shouldn't drivers have to do the same? - Watching cars being pushed up Comiston Road to the bypass would be a great spectator sport.... I'm sorry, but I read the EEN article and honestly thought it was April 1st.

    Posted 6 years ago #
  23. Tulyar
    Member

    What an ignorant and badly researched piece. I think Helen Martin should be made to stand in a tram doing 20mph, when the driver drops the track brakes (a big electro-magnet that sticks to the rails when switched on) then she might want to make comments about emergency braking (if the fall does not take out her teeth)

    Under-run protection is installed at 'open' track tram stops for a minimum of 20 metres after the pedestrian crossings so that a pedestrian knocked down by a tram is protected by the lifeguard functioning as it would on street, and pushed along in front as the tram does an emergency stop. That shows how quickly a tram can be stopped.

    There remains a void and a need for a basic statement of facts about the fatal crash on 31st - too many opportunities to speculate, especially when the conclusion that has been focussed on may well be wrong, as so much about the narrative and detail from the reports does not add up.

    There are some facts to take on board. The cycle crashes AND pedestrian falls (about 20% of claims are for pedestrian injuries) are largely focussed on the very short section of on-street running and even a shorter section of this with perhaps 4-5 'hot spots' and at those locations, even different types of crash.

    CHdot's videos at Haymarket show 2 distinct types of wheel and rail groove crash.

    Hopefully a statement of facts soon? Then a Section 39 report (as mandated) from Edinburgh Council - and its accessible publication, saving an FoI request

    Posted 6 years ago #
  24. chdot
    Admin

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Widget

    Posted 6 years ago #
  25. chdot
    Admin

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Widget

    Posted 6 years ago #
  26. Tulyar
    Member

    From Ed1 comment - the real solution would be to build a collonade with openings out into Princes Street Gardens and a new frontage at basement level for the commercial properties along Princes Street. Providing an all weather facility whilst retaining the street level experience.

    Into this space you run through with the tram, probably bringing it underground from Haymarket and building in junctions for Lothian Road, Leith Street and North Bridge, and possibly Queensferry Street. This would resolve the junction issues by having the trams in the middle of the street wherever they surface and staying there - this is where I seriously disagree with the Spokes report - trams in NL also run down the middle, as do almost all robust and long standing systems.

    Posted 6 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin