A new "Cyclists Dismount" has appeared on George St westbound, just before the Hanover St junction. Fully closed to motor vehicles, no reason to stop cyclists and no diversion indicated.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Cyclists Dismount
(90 posts)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Christmas is coming?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Usual nonsense at Castle St end of George St as well. Started well with 2 unidirectional bike lanes kept open, nonsense started last week with a guy in hi-vis telling westbound cyclists to use the eastbound lane (no signage of this for cyclists in either direction, there still isn't). No safe way to exit to Charlotte St once there. No barriers with the pavement so peds naturally assume it is a SfP-style extended pavement. Remaining lane is blocked by lorries most mornings, when it isn't, it's blocked by barriers lazily discarded by workies (I entered a barrier-chucking frenzy mode the other morning just to clear it). Just ridiculous - every <rule 2>ing year (except last one).
Posted 3 years ago # -
@MB, I guess that's just the price we have to pay for living in one of Europe's top
revenue extraction opportunitiesvisitor destination experiences. No stone left unturned in thepursuit of a quick buckendeavour to provide a world class attraction.It's all very well city residents trying to get to work, study, etc. What about the needs of street food vendors? Will no-one spare a thought for their tireless striving to
rip off peckish touristsprovide a vibrant festive eating atmosphere?How very selfish and myopic to complain about
half the yeara scant few weeks being given over togaudy lowest common denominator tatheartwarming festivities, when residents get to enjoy this sterile Disneyland simulacrumbeautiful scenic urban realm all year round?As for pesky cyclists, what exactly do they contribute to the
bottom line of grasping commercial profiteersWinter Festival celebrations? Precious little, I'll wager.Posted 3 years ago # -
From the design statement in the planning app:
During event opening times the proposal includes maintaining two 1.5m cycle lanes (one westbound and one eastbound). A further 1.5m of space will be available to facilitate emergency access, if necessary. Clear fire appliance set up areas are detailed along the length of the street to allow sufficient access to buildings should it be necessary.
During loading times (7am to 9.30am) a 3m eastbound lane for delivery vehicles and cycles and a 1.5m westbound lane will be maintained.
Delivery vehicles will be walked in and out (eastbound only) with banksmen to ensure cycle safety and delivery vehicles will park in the designated loading / unloading areas, out-with the cycle lanes.
So much for that.The closure/dismount at George St/Hanover St is actually part of the North Bridge work. Closing that arm means they can increase the green time for the other sides. Irritating that there's no cycle provision.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Another two at the SGN works in Stockbridge just outside Hector's. Completely unnecessary, there's plenty of room for cyclists & pedestrians & no danger to workers. Reported to SGN on Twitter.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Passed there today.
I *think* the ‘reasoning’ is that one of the holes is next to the (inadequate) dropped kerb.
Not excusing SGN, but the whole pavement crossing should be redone to indicate that (infrequent) cycle traffic is allowed - perhaps even encouraged…
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes, the painting needs redoing there.
I noticed that sign recently, but didn't see it this morning.
dismounting there is annoying, because it's far more awkward to walk a bike through lots of people than to just go through slowly.Posted 1 year ago # -
Some signs I encountered yesterday that have probably been there for years. All along Easthouses Rd there's a shared path, and several side turnings to housing developments. At every one of them there's a permanent 'cyclists dismount' sign, and a dip to road level that's awkward for anyone, peds or wheelers, to manage.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Those ones have indeed been there since the path was upgraded around 10 years ago.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Haven't cycled across the Forth bridge for a while but was unsurprised to see yesterday that the "Cyclists dismount" signs were still up on the works fences.
So imagine that you are cycling along over the bridge and up ahead you see an obstacle. The obstacle is on the opposite side of the path from you and the obstacle is a fence.
The fencing is actually entirely within the pedestrian side of the path and doesn't encroach on the bike side at all, so why you'd need to dismount from your bike on the unimpeded bike side and then walk along the fence-narrowed pedestrian side I am not sure.
No evidence of a drivists dismount sign on the fences.
Cycling on a bike path? Dismount please. Driving a van or work vehicle along a bike/pedestrian path? Carry on.
Makes the opposite of sense on so many levels.
Posted 3 months ago # -
On Thursday 12.09.24 there was signage added stating Princes Street is closed to cycles and to follow a diversion onto Queen Street.
I've been told the council Roads Department asked for a closure to cycles due to the hazards posed by the tram tracks and potential liability issues.
Hopefully it gets removed on Monday by Scottish Water's contractor, Clancy Group. The legal TTRO does not cover any closure to cycles, and the signage and diversion is completely unsuitable.
It's probably to be replaced with a 'Cyclists Dismount' sign, but there is room to get past.
Posted 2 months ago # -
The coned off area is just like passing a stationary bus! What does the roads department imagine everyone is doing at the moment, if not cycling in the right hand lane?
This is Edinburgh
Posted 2 months ago # -
Unfortunately Clancy have told me that Edinburgh Trams and Roads Department have confirmed the closure is to be to cyclists as it is unsafe to be cycling in the tram lane.
They are updating the TTRO to include a legal closure on Princes Street to cyclists for the duration of the works. I've asked them to communicate the closure on Social Media etc.
I've asked them to consider replacing the full closure signage and diversion with a red "cyclists dismount" sign, as per the legal code of practice.
I understand they are trying to move away from this sign due to negative feedback, but I've argued the current diversion is worse.
I think fundamentally, we shouldn't be having to deal with legal disclaimers on our roads that introduce more hazardous diversions (as the Roadworks & Cycling factsheet in D3.32.17 says).
These signs actually all blew over on Friday morning, so there's no impact currently, but it's surely a bad precedent to set and something worth questioning.
Posted 2 months ago # -
This is a nonsense. I almost never come into town, but I must have overtaken ten thousand stationary buses by riding in the second lane
Posted 2 months ago # -
Second lane yes, but the issue (presumably) is the idea/fact of crossing the actual (almost parallel) tramline.
I was on PSt today heading east - in RL heading for Waverley Bridge.
Was unnerving with buses in left lane heading for next stop - or one after by overtaking stationary buses.
That said, I had several good interactions with bus drivers today - very wide overtakes and acknowledgements for holding back so they could move out etc.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Additionally I was on NBridge northbound (downhill) prefaced by ‘don’t overtake bikes’ signs.
Easy to outpace traffic, less so uphill.
Suspect few drivers try to overtake, but it only takes one…
Posted 2 months ago # -
Posted 2 months ago #
-
It can be unnerving cycling in the 2nd lane on Princes Street, but I find it OK going slowly past the buses and ringing your bell if they are likely soon to leave.
At the current roadworks there is no need to cross the tramline.
I was told by the contractor directly that they don't want a cyclist getting their wheel stuck in the tramlines and holding them liable.Posted 2 months ago # -
It's a slightly perverse application of the health and safety hierarchy:
The hazard to my mind is still the buses (and/or taxis), not the trams nor the rails.
Is there a risk though that this sets a precedent for future roadworks, to the effect that cycles (and riders thereof) would be forbidden, rather than persona non grata??
I mean, there is already plenty of statute for special road status and so on, that prevents access to cycles, but "Cyclists dismount" signs are already used disproportionately by contractors.
There is (or was at the weekend) a "Cyclist [sic] dismount" sign at the roundabout by the Longstone bus garage for some random roadworks. I ignored it.
Posted 2 months ago # -
Iguess from their point of view the risk is a compensation claim. And this is their way of eliminating it.
However what they have actually attempted is an administrative fix, changing the water people cycle.
Posted 2 months ago # -
That's Princes Street eastbound back "open" to cyclists.
They've forgotten to remove the closure/diversion sign at the foot of Lothian road, but I've been assured it will be removed asap today.
I'm truly astounded how this really poor signage/diversion was allowed to stay for a whole week. It fell down Friday morning and was only stood back up the next Thursday. The contractor I spoke to this morning didn't even know where it was...
This was the response from CEC Roads:
The current lane closure on Princes Street means that eastbound traffic is reduced to a single lane. Given the remaining open lane is a tramway, Scottish Water were requested to divert cyclists to minimise safety concerns about the potential conflict between road users. As you may be aware, tram safety advises cyclists should cross tracks at least at 45degrees and to consider getting off your bike if this isn't possible. Cyclists manoeuvring around the works would be parallel to the tram track, so if they were to veer off course the likelihood of getting caught in the track would be greater due to reduced lateral clearance. Further details can be found here: Tram safety – The City of Edinburgh Council.
Regrettably, the original emergency TTRN didn't include this closure to cyclists; this has now been amended and I have attached for your awareness. Following your previous email I also requested that signage be made clearer, and the diversion route be changed to utilise George Street rather than Queen Street.
I have just had word that the manhole has now been repaired, with traffic management due to be removed this evening. We apologise for any inconvenience that the roadworks may have caused but the safety of all road users was our greatest concern.
Posted 2 months ago # -
so if they [cyclists] were to veer off course
Classic victim blaming language - cyclists rarely "veer", especially when there's a kerb or edge to catch nearby. Cyclists do however, often have to swerve due to other inconsiderate (usually motorised) road users encroaching on their space
Posted 2 months ago # -
I cycled along Princes St last night, and it was really nice having the junction at Frederick St closed - you just sail straight through
Posted 2 months ago # -
cyclists rarely "veer", especially when there's a kerb or edge to catch nearby.
Veer isn't strictly the wrong word because that only means to turn or change direction, but I very much take issue with the subtext, as in "veering off course". Given that CEC's note immediately earlier refers to "manoeuvering around", suggesting a degree of control, the inference is that the only reason to veer "off course" is the cyclist's own poor sense of control in the amazing absence of any external factors.
In essence, this was almost certainly written by someone who is blind to their unconscious bias brought about by the benefit of always having at least four wheels underneath them.
Posted 2 months ago # -
The whole thing is just so weird
Posted 2 months ago # -
or indeed: https://youtu.be/VuOaVpMqrwM
Posted 2 months ago # -
I am not a lawyer but I get the feeling CEC and TfE and everyone else has taken the position of "it's just too risky to have cyclists using a route with trams".
I wondered if the Zhi Min Soh incident has so paralysed CEC into inaction because it knows its poor position on road danger reduction is indefensible.
If the true source of the harm is other road vehicles on Princes St then the correct course of action would be to separate them from people cycling on Princes St by removing the vehicles to another route (probably George St or Queen St). If however George St was by now an effective and functioning cycle route east to west then there would be less need to cycle on Princes St at all. As I keep saying, if the road is better than the bike path then people will use the road. The corollary of this is Middle Meadow Walk and North Meadow Walk being busy with pedestrians and cyclists, and people continuing to cycle along Princes St.
Posted 2 months ago # -
To add to Dave's bus examples, there are sections of cycle lane which force you parallel with the tramlines and also have reduced lateral clearance. https://imgur.com/a/Xd4bOST
A good first step could be taking a tape measure to the widths. If the position is that all cycling in lanes containing tramlines is unsafe, temporary measures during roadworks are not the way to mitigate this.
Posted 2 months ago # -
The strange thing about this is they are making it clear they know there are risks involved with overtaking buses or riding close to tracks in similar situations. Yet they are doing nothing to remove vehicles from such danger points. At Haymarket they have even removed the advanced start for riders.
Posted 2 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
