I just ignored the Coltbridge one last weekend when on a trip down to Crammond. There were no folk working on the bridge about I couldn't understand the need for the sign at all as the width at that point was wider than the towpath and people cope ok there most of the time?
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Cyclists Dismount
(90 posts)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
I ignore them as well, but I don't enjoy the unnecessary aggro from other path users.
the workers don't say anything--suspect they can't be bothered.If someone can give me a proper answer as to why they're needed, i'll dismount.
Posted 4 years ago # -
@Ian McR hope your "friend"'s move goes well.
Posted 4 years ago # -
That one's easily answered Canuck. The contractor is legally obliged to protect from harm both his workers and those affected by his operations, in this case, us.
His risk assessment will, quite correctly, have identified moving cyclists as a hazard for his workers and as potentially liable to be injured by his activities.
How happy would you be if a carelessly swung scaffold pole clobbered your face as you cycled by? Your first move would be to complain you had not been warned and the contractor would be in shtook for not having taken suitable measures.
All part of the joy of living in a society the conduct of which we have allowed to be reduced to rules and regulations instead of common sense and a bit of give and take.
Which reminds me - anyone removing these signs would be committing an offence under Section 8 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974.
Posted 4 years ago # -
i do accept that a worksite may well have more risks.
but none of those risks affect someone on a cycle more than someone walking or in a wheelchair.if those scaffold poles are liable to swinging, for example, there shouldn't be any non-worker access at all.
I've been observing the workers since November, they aren't working in the path, but on either side.Posted 4 years ago # -
I usually pass through before work starts or large numbers of pedestrians arrive, and usually avoid dismounting as there's no-one else there however would do so if it was busier. Guess we're lucky they didn't just blanket close the path there. Not sure whether there's less paperwork involved vs. closing roads..
Posted 4 years ago # -
See, i don't like dismounting when there's a bunch of people--a lot of folks are watching dogs or kids or screens--not me getting off/on the bike and being slightly off balance, vulnerable to someone walking into me. I'd rather stay on and just glide slowly through behind others if there's no overtaking space.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Posted 4 years ago #
-
Yeah seen them this morning. I wonder if its because they've finished building the scaffolding so less risk of interactions.
Posted 4 years ago # -
https://twitter.com/Stewart16772495/status/1285641582528606208
Can't quite place the location - am thinking Craigentinny?
Posted 4 years ago # -
Yes, Craigentinny Road between the hybrid painted cycle/parking lanes.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Can't remember where we have been discussing the closure of NEPN at Coltbridge, but it will open up again tomorrow afternoon.
"We have been advised that #Coltbridge Viaduct along National Cycle Network Route 1 in #Edinburgh will reopen from tomorrow afternoon (29/07/20). Due to continuing works, path width along some sections may be affected until end of w/c 03/08/20.
More info: https://t.co/GBsYQCiet4 https://t.co/0YDtBoPovh
"https://twitter.com/SustransScot/status/1288141376803278855?s=19
Posted 4 years ago # -
I came across this closure yesterday - does anyone know why it was handled completely differently to the closure closer to Craigleith? Clear diversion route with parking restricted at Craigleith. Meanwhile, here it was a pedestrian arrow pointing up a flight of stairs and then you were on your own...
Posted 4 years ago # -
The parking restrictions only happened at Craigleith after Councillor Olster got involved via a twitter conversation with someone on here.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Power of CCEers again!
Posted 4 years ago # -
THere's a new one on Dundee Street outbound, before Fountain Park, where the cycle lane is closed for works of some sort. If the lane really has to be closed, all that's needed is a sign warning motorists of cyclists merging back into the traffic lane. Someone seems to have realised this, as the 'Dismount' has been crossed out with tape (guerrilla action?) - now the sign reads "Cyclists Please
Dismount".Posted 3 years ago # -
The tape has been removed from the Dundee St sign, so it's back to Cyclists Dismount, completely unnecessarily. I've tweeted @Edinhelp about it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks for doing that. It isn't an area I go to, but those signs just reinforce the idea that bikes are there because drivers _let_ them be there.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The ones that do my head in are on the Forth Road Bridge where basically you are expected to dismount at every bit of work regardless of how much space there is.
I think the signage should be changed to something more sensible and I would suggest something like this - cyclists take extra care at work areas and be prepared to slow down and give way to pedestrians.
I have never dismounted although I would if I felt it would be unsafe for other bridge users not to do so.
Posted 3 years ago # -
exactly!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Positive response from @edinhelp:
I have just heard back about this - Traffic Management companies are not to use these. This will be addressed with the Traffic Management company.
IDK if anything has changed on the road yet, not been down that way for a look.Posted 3 years ago # -
There's new one at the roadworks on Potterrow/Chapel St at W Nicholson St. There is no reason for cyclists to dismount here. What's needed is a sign warning drivers to be aware of cyclists merging from the (blocked) cycle lane. Tweeted @edinhelp about it.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@wishicouldgofaster Honestly I still don't understand why they're making cyclists use the footpaths at all, it's a sodding four lane motorway that's no longer used as such and gets only a trickle of cabs, buses, and the occasional farm vehicle - why not use one side of the bridge for motor traffic and give the other side to cycling, and leave the whole footpath space on both sides for pedestrians.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Totally agree, it's typical thinking in Scotland though that bikes are toys and not a mode of transport.
Posted 3 years ago # -
The blue sign is Diagram 966 - an advisory sign, with the preferred wording "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" there are limited and specific conditions where "Cyclists Dismount" can be used (Chapter 3 Traffic Signs Manual page 134 para 11.11.9)
There is also a Chapter 8 (White on Red) version Diagram 7018.1 (Chapter 8 Part 3) but the "Cyclists Rejoin Carriageway" version is not shown or specified. A detail that could be promoted in Scotland if it cannot be formally delivered UK-wide?
A further sign is also relevant Diagram 632 (Chapter 3)- No Overtaking, with a supplementary plate (not actually shown or specifically defined) with the wording "Except Cycles by Cycles" A bilingual version is used on the Menai Bridge, and as a sign giving an order it uses a Traffic Order to define the road where the overtaking ban can be enforced. Cyclists in York are trying to get this for the Lendal and Micklegate Bridges, and there are a few places in Scotland that might benefit.
It can also be used at road works, with a Temporary Traffic Order, and possibly without one as a warning without a formal enforcement order There's been a road signs nerds debate on this on Twitter, with @rantyhighwayman & @showmeasignbryn to bottom this one
Posted 3 years ago # -
Menai bridge signage:
https://goo.gl/maps/zj2YD6MfhECoJ7qa8Posted 3 years ago # -
@Arellcat very sensible
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thanks @arellcat, saved me loading them on my Flickr account- the wording on those needs improvement but the thinking is right!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Yes the word dismount is really there!
FRB yesterday
Posted 3 years ago # -
Whilst the Erskine has had parapet raising and inward curving profile FRB retains the original 1.1m parapet height throughout
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
