Completed.
They are suggesting removing the lanes or the parking at the Nursery at Gillespies X road and down at the park with the bus stop.
I have argued that we should hold our nerve.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Lanark road cycle lane removal - (was “today” - now long term thread!)
(98 posts)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
'We are aware of concerns regarding conflict between parents accessing Cranley Nursery and passing cyclists at this location.
Due to it’s location this section of cycleway is also likely to be less heavily used, and less beneficial to users than the remainder of the corridor.' (my emphasis, their grocer's apostrophe)
Er, what?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Must think ‘most’ cyclists are going to the nursery??
Posted 3 years ago # -
Before lockdown the stretch from the lights beyond the nursery had become untenable with parked cars. You used to be able to take primary then tuck in to the inside lane when the car parking stopped but gradually over the year before lockdown this had turned into a long thin car park and it became slightly hairy to take primary. Wish I had mentioned this in my response now I come to mention it.
There was an option to remove the parking which was going to be a campaign of mine when Covid lockdown distracted me.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Excellent letter to council from health professionals:
https://edinburghactivetravelforhealth.wordpress.com/
One of the duties of a doctor as stated by the General Medical Council is “to protect and promote the health of patients and the public”1. As health professionals we have been reminded by our professional bodies of our responsibilities to raise the profile of the climate emergency, which is a public health emergency likely to have a much greater impact than COVID-192,3. We have a responsibility to speak up for disadvantaged groups who are disproportionately vulnerable to the health and economic impacts of the climate crisis.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@SRD - that letter is v. good. I wonder if the EEN will cover - Edinburgh Live and Reporter have done.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think It is a great letter.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@gembo It was very nice to see a couple of CCE-ers amongst the signatures.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@srd yes I thought it nice that the doctors widened this to non-health professionals or if you like folk that consider wellbieing, fitness, etc types of health of the community.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Also very pleased to see one of my cousins in the list.
Posted 3 years ago # -
@frenchy, it is a very good list
Posted 3 years ago # -
Presumably, although that letter is sent, the organisers would welcome more/wider range of ‘supporters’?
Posted 3 years ago # -
“
It was agreed that communities would be consulted about the future of the most contested schemes, but it appears that residents affected by the most controversial of all, Lanark Road, have been given a multiple choice selection which does not include an option to remove.
As far as the stretch opposite Dovecote Park is concerned, they are being given options, but one of them isn’t putting things back the way they were.
“
Whatever the (continuing) merits of all this, it’s nice to see McLellan continuing to stand up for the rights of the inconvenienced, privileged, minority.
Posted 3 years ago # -
McLellan calling anyone else self-righteous is just *chef kiss* top shelf projection.
Posted 3 years ago # -
He is a zealot but doesn’t have the necessary energy to take over the world. Irritant.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Meanwhile, elsewhere:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19572656.glasgow-spaces-people-measures-win-public-approval/
Posted 3 years ago # -
I wonder if there's some correlation between the ease of approval for making SfP measures permanent and the level of support locally for the Conservatives and Lib Dems? I'm sure the data is available somewhere...
Posted 3 years ago # -
Posted 3 years ago #
-
Dave McCr amazing there
Posted 3 years ago # -
“
2. Safety for women cyclists scared of WoL path? SWEM: onroad seg lanes unsuitable as they 'trap' cyclists behind defenders
“
https://mobile.twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448597857540485122
Posted 3 years ago # -
How mad is SWEM?
Posted 3 years ago # -
“
Conservative amendment to remove most schemes including #LanarkRoad ... amendment defeated by 7 votes to 3(?)
“
https://mobile.twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448614622127398912
Posted 3 years ago # -
“
Cllr @lmacinnessnp says Conservatives on #TransportCommittee creating cyclist v. pedestrian division in their motions, speeches & press articles
There is existing pedestrian network (needing improvement) but no full safe cycle network yet, and both are covered in the plan
“
Click for more info
https://twitter.com/spokeslothian/status/1448660757147648001
Posted 3 years ago # -
“
Earlier, Professor Derryck Reid of campaign group South West Edinburgh in Motion told the committee it had received legal advice that a decision based on a flawed or misleading consultation would be challengeable.
He said the Lanark Road scheme had cost of up to £200,000 but had not increased cycling by a statistically significant amount, had had a negative impact on people with disabilities, had seen speeds increase, prioritised pedestrians below cyclists and did not have majority support from the community.
A representative from another campaign group SW20 backed the scheme and argued the council should be bolder.
“
Posted 3 years ago # -
So Prof Deek says costs £200k but has he included the legal costs of the council defending itself against his spurious legal challenges in the £200k?
Posted 3 years ago # -
@chdot: ...a decision based on a flawed or misleading consultation would be challengeable.
So they complain about not being consulted and then, when a consultation does take place, complain that it was "flawed or misleading" - because it didn't deliver the answer they wanted?
Does Professor Reid have any actual data to support his assertions? (This is a bit of a theme in these discussions). He's a physicist: if anyone should know about drawing conclusions from data rather than just deciding that the world is how you would like it to be, he should.
I'd love to know how reducing the speed limit from 40mph to 30mph has "seen speeds increase". Unless, of course, he means cycling speeds, in which case of course how very dare those two-wheeled proles enjoy improved journey times... And it must be down to their inherent tendency to hooligan behaviour, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with cyclists having a protected space to ride in where they don't have to dodge in and out of the motor vehicle traffic because of all the parked cars.
How he works out that cyclists are being "prioritised over pedestrians" will probably forever remain one of the world's insoluble mysteries. The answer, if one exists, will likely be secreted in that same magical box of joylessness where the fact that motor vehicles are systematically prioritised over both seems to be hidden.
Posted 3 years ago # -
“How he works out that cyclists are being "prioritised over pedestrians" will probably forever remain one of the world's insoluble mysteries.“
Not as such.
It is (apparently) about how all (most of) the S4P money went on cycling infrastructure.
Whether this is true and/or whether pedestrians have been disadvantaged/unadvantaged is, of course, debatable…
HOWEVER
The idea that this awful situation will be improved/remedied by removing any/all infrastructure to the advantage of cars/owners is BIZARRE.
Posted 3 years ago # -
They and the Tories have now pivoted to wanting all the non-cycling improvements without the cycle lanes, e.g. for the active travel budget to pay for better wider pavements, crossings, junction buildouts, and removal of cycle lanes.
Posted 3 years ago # -
What I don't understand about the legal challenge based on consultation is that they've decided to keep the cycle lanes despite the consultation showing majority support for removing them. So it's not like something dubious was done to fake support for cycle lanes in the consultation, they are clearly choosing to proceed taking the consultation results into account. Unless someone is going to set a precedent that consultations are legally binding, it's hard to understand where the legal basis for a challenge would come from.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Nasty, trying to pit pedestrians against cyclists etcetera to benefit motorists being able to park where the6 like.
How sad if this wins them any votes apart from the guy from the Bondi Beach Cafe.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
