CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Traffic flow was considerably enhanced this morning by a group of cyclists assisted by Police Scotland. The cyclists enforced the bike lane at Forest Road thus preventing illegal parking. This allowed the traffic to flow swiftly around this notoriously snarled area.
The same effect can be created permanently by segregated bike lanes. This would permanently enhance traffic flow at Forest Road and other areas such as the Roseburn Corridor by removing illegal parking.
Can confirm this did indeed happen.
Greggs somehow managed to stay in business despite this.
Stands to reason, dunnit? Look at a liquid flowing in a tube. Adding lumps causes turbulence and disturbs the output.
Car drivers complain that they get stuck behind slow cyclists.
If they actually used their eyes they would see that it is that 10 cars parked, legally or illegally, have reduced the street to a single lane, or one and a half lanes. Cycles and cars could co-exist much better if there was no parking on the streets.
Cycles and cars could co-exist much better if there was no parking on the streets.
Something I pointed out on Twitter the other day - it amazes me that it's seemingly perfectly fine to dump a zonking great big transit van on the street, but you need a permit for a skip.
Yes; on the way home from Haymarket at 6pm there's always a complete row of cars by the kerb so I have to cycle in the traffic lane until I get to the top of the hill. If those cars weren't there there would be enough space for moving traffic to pass me. I'm surprised I don't get more hassle there, to be honest.
Yes; on the way home from Haymarket at 6pm there's always a complete row of cars by the kerb so I have to cycle in the traffic lane until I get to the top of the hill. If those cars weren't there there would be enough space for moving traffic to pass me. I'm surprised I don't get more hassle there, to be honest.
Do we really want (motor) traffic flow to be improved though? Surely that will just encourage driving?
I would have thought we want (motor) traffic reduction, not improved flow.
Problem is it's not black and white. Many people argue against physically segregated lanes because they will stop traffic flow. So if you can argue that actually they have the exact opposite effect (easily done if it stops illegal parking) then the chances of having a lane made segregated are arguably better.
Necessary evil. It might make driving seem more attractive; but it definitely will make cycling more attractive.
So I'd rather, on that small bit of road, improve cycling safety and accessibility, with the side effect of driving possibly being easier there; than retain the status quo of people still driving despite it not being as easy, and cycling being dangerous and difficult.
Hopefully the argument of segregation improving traffic flow will make driving seem more attractive up until the point that illegal parking takes place on narrowed roads, rather than the pavements and cycle lanes, at which point drivers will see cyclists whizzing safely past and decide that perhaps it would be worth trying cycling after all.
@crowriver I would rather have no traffic but that is not realistic. I have gone for traffic flow improved by segregated bike lanes as win win. Stops illegal parking.
We got a good toot off the smallest car I have seen, well within the three metre max for Gembo's Central Edinburgh. It was the cartoon car I found whilst googling. But in the real world. Also had two people on it
Again I would rather have no traffic in city centre but cars under three metres cool
@gembo the toot must have been from the electric G-Wiz.
What a powerful observation. Can we test this next time - numerically?
Something which isn't so well understood IMHO - the Dutch system is as much about efficiency as it is about cycling. Most streets are residential - minimal 'flow' - if something's in the way you're going to have to wait for it to move - slow speed - liveable streets - only access traffic (no through routes). But up a level from that a few key roads are through roads - where flow has a much higher priority, but so does protection for cycling - parking loses out if there isn't space for all of the above. Randomly parked cars in the street are going to be much rarer than here - the whole thing is pretty tightly controlled compared to our chaos. Often there's a single lane of moving traffic - and you have to get completely off this or turn onto one of the smaller streets if you want to stop. Turning on and off these roads is limited because you only do so into local streets at the beginning or end of your journey - there's little point in trying to cut through back streets - hence flow is additionally maintained because fewer of these junctions have any effect on the movement of traffic. Then their third category is dedicated to flow - you cant' cycle on these or take a tractor or scooter or other small vehicle on them (but parallel routes are provided) - fewer traffic jams - more steady speeds - often overtaking banned on any single carriageway stuff.
So mechanisms for encouraging flow are at the same time mechanisms for supporting cycling and safety for those on foot (using wheelchairs etc). This system is amazing... and (again) it's not primarily about the support of cycling - that support is almost a side effect - or at least a secondary part of the much bigger system.
Which means it's also a system which is more saleable to the general population...
Just my twopennethworth... (how's twopennethworth spelled?)
So yes - well designed cities which support cycling and walking also make for a better driving environment. Personally I don't care at this stage whether this is what we need in the longer term (perhaps it even solidifies car use??) - but it's a way to step toward an environment where our towns and cities, and their populations, are no longer cowed, and (frankly) killed just in trying to live day to day...
An actual wee tailback on Junction Road in Kirkwall today because of a big transit stopped on double yellows (with "park anywhere" flashers on, naturally).
I have written to the transport people at the council about this. One whom I know and the other is a stranger.
@rbtwtmn, any input from nederlands on what happens to the shop keepers? In exchange with Mrs Garto about this last night I was arguing that if no greasy spoon had illegal parking outside then no white van man would park illegally.
There is a very deep rooted entitlement of white van man and others to just do a wee bit of cheeky illegal parking, c'mon, what harm is that (see the new car club parking spaces on new street not yet double yellowed so free parking or Hampton Hillton Pavement at viewforth).
So this will be an issue. But this needs to be named as the issue. The shopkeepers in Roseburn want to be able to park their own car illegally out front and keep an eye out for the warden. Loading bays across the road or down the street would be risking a ticket. So to help them and their customers park illegally we have to listen to PG Tips nonsense about pollution.
@gembo - I have no facts on this, however my understanding (really just an opinion based on what I've been able to pick up) is as follows:
1) Dutch people are just people, and as likely to object to change just because it's change as anyone else. Therefore there will be some NIMBY stuff even there - I've heard of this happening.
2) I understand that there are also plenty of people who are able to apply logic, and who can see that most of their customers are using bicycles, and therefore they respond sensibly. I hear of people wanting good infra for cycling, because it'll bring customers their way.
The issue for us - as for others working on other kinds of big social change - is getting over the middle ground... If our shop keepers aren't also people who cycle, or who shop in local shops, then it's going to be much more difficult to persuade them...
3) Some of what we're facing isn't anything to do with either point above. We have a system which supports the survival of SOME local shops through passing trade in vehicles. Most will depend on locals, but SOME will depend on illegal parking - just popping in for a sandwich trade. If we don't go far enough - just adding cycle lanes to the main road, not also supporting locals to walk the shops, and not doing much to actually improve the overall area so it's nice to be in, then it's fair enough for those shops to fight the change because it will disadvantage them. But the solution is to do better, to fight for proper improvements to an overall area, not just to fight for infra which supports cycling.
At least that's what's in my head...
@rbtwtmn, agreed.
Walthamstow Village Mini Holland which is somewhat akin to the Roseburn scenario (some vociferous local opposition, tho from car drivers not our resident cyclist PG Tips). Creating an outdoor space to live in.
Must get back down there to see how it is going.
“then it's fair enough for those shops to fight the change because it will disadvantage them”
Yes and no.
If the truth (whole or partial) is that (some) shopkeepers want free/convenient parking for themselves or want their customers to park illegally, then that’s not “fair”.
“But the solution is to do better, to fight for proper improvements to an overall area, not just to fight for infra which supports cycling.”
Which is essentially what the ‘cycle campaigners’ are doing and CEC trying to deliver.
Another truth remains that most small shops are having a hard time for all sorts of reasons - most more significant than whether there is or isn’t a cycle lane outside.
I presume a single Debenhams employs far more people than all the shops in Roseburn.
Nothing is fair, all things are relative.
Don’t suppose PG and his pals care about how much of CEC’s resources they are tying up and wasting.
@chdot I agree I think...
I suppose that what I'm trying to emphasise is that we need to recognise that some people will be benefiting from a horrible and broken system. That doesn't mean that I approve of the broken system. It doesn't mean that I agree with things being as they are. It doesn't mean that any of this is a good thing. But I'm thinking that it is good to recognise that a change to a new system which is unarguably better for most, and unarguably desirable, might also have difficult consequences for a few people.
Something I learned a long time ago is that there is power in honestly acknowledging loss - even in pushing for the recognition of the gain which goes alongside this - even if the gain completely outbalances the loss.
If we have a horrible system which encourages the development of some shops which rely on illegal parking supporting passing trade in vehicles - and perhaps even that these shops become important to a local area - then we at least need to notice that the changes that we know will be of benefit overall (not least to all the other shops), might cause one or two people hardship.
If we recognise that (perhaps even needing to see past stupid or obnoxious behaviours) it makes us better able to push for those changes. We can also recognise that some people won't see past their own situation. When I say it's fair enough for people to fight a change - I don't mean that everything that someone does will be OK - I'm just noticing that most human beings are selfish and that most of us will at times behave badly when our own interests are threatened. It's society's job to push through something that will be better for all - and we can defend an individual's right not to see the bigger picture I think (because unfortunately that seems to be part of being human).
But behaving badly is just that... I'm not defending this at all. Not even slightly. I'm really just saying that we'll be better at pushing for change if we are able to see how things look (briefly) from someone elses point of view, even if we find that point of view (and perhaps even the person holding that point of view) obnoxious.
And I'm genuinely talking in general terms - not thinking of Edinburgh - just thinking that we have in the UK one system, and we're working on creating a different system - and that getting from one to the other will inherently cause some people difficulties (well beyond any discussion of shops) - and that us being clear about that is a good idea.
@rbrtwtmn Two penn'orth, though 'penneth' is just barely acceptable.
“Something I learned a long time ago is that there is power in honestly acknowledging loss - even in pushing for the recognition of the gain which goes alongside this - even if the gain completely outbalances the loss.
..
just thinking that we have in the UK one system, and we're working on creating a different system - and that getting from one to the other will inherently cause some people difficulties“
This has been a long time coming -
Problem now is often “working on creating a different system” involves undoing stuff that should never have happened and/or moving things away from perceived ‘progress’.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts