@chdot: 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…
OK, here's my contribution to the debate:
As @gembo says, it's a despicably scuzzy attempt to pit pedestrians against cyclists (and possibly tries to play to the fact that most drivists become pedestrians when they step out of their cars - assuming that they haven't managed to assert their unwritten right to park directly outside their destination address, of course). Surely the point is that there is already generally adequate pedestrian infrastructre along the sides of just about every road in Edinburgh (which is not to say that it couldn't be improved in some locations, as SfP tried to do), whereas until before SfP there was pretty much zero worthwhile cycling infrastructure on any Edinburgh roads*. Even the pre-SfP mandatory cycle lanes on Chesser Avenue (a first for Edinburgh AFAIK) were and are rubbish because (a) they are not protected in any way and (b) the parking spaces were put next to the kerb, forcing cyclists out towards the path of drivers most of whom who couldn't be bothered/were too lazy/thought it was taking a stand against woke-lefty-liberal-vegan-long-haired-weirdos-on-bicycles to encroach on the cycle lane (but who would no doubt barely have hesitated to shout at a someone on a bike to "use the <rule 2> cycle lane" if they felt that their journey was being delayed by a few precious seconds).
In summary: the nasty party manages to live up to its soubriquet once again.
* Obviously non-mandatory cycle lanes dont count as "worthwhile", being a complete waste of paint, but even advanced stop lines are of questionable value when they seem to be so regularly encroached upon by drivists with apparent impunity.
posts
