CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

"Wheels in motion to allow cyclists to ride on pavement"

(28 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

    Here we go again, just wait for (or don't read) the 'readers' comments'!!!

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Wheels-in-motion-to-allow.6765669.jp

    Article illustrated by a cyclist on a pavement in Tollcross (probably not 'posed by model').

    BUT story is about a few pavements -

    "
    part of its campaign to increase cycling across the Capital, the council hopes to begin statutory procedures to permit bikes on sections of the pavement on the A8 Glasgow Road and at Granton.

    The initiative is part of a project to create a continuous off-road cycle route from South Gyle to Newbridge, which will form part of the city's "family network" of bike routes.

    In Granton, officials hope to create an off-road route linking the existing cycle path with Silverknowes esplanade.

    Cycling will be allowed on extra sections of the footway to improve cycle access to Telford College and to link up with new cycle routes expected with development at Granton.

    "
    ....

    "
    The sections of footway where cycling is to be allowed are mostly wide enough to accommodate both cyclists and pedestrians, the council said. However, in some areas the pavements will be widened.

    Hugh Bladon, a spokesman for the Association of British Drivers, said cyclists already used pavements, regardless of the law. He said: "They already do it, so this isn't going to make a big difference.

    "They all do it, so why not just make it legal?
    "
    Curious logic.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. DaveC
    Member

    The readers comments don't appear to bad, looking at page one.

    I don't cycle on the pavement unless sanctioned to do so like from Cramond Brig up to Craigiehall Camp.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. Min
    Member

    Well that's the thing. There are already plenty of pavements that you are allowed to ride on anyway and they are only suggesting wide (or about to be widened) pavements that are lightly used by peds.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Hugh Bladon, a spokesman for the Association of British Drivers, said cyclists already used pavements, regardless of the law. He said: "They already do it, so this isn't going to make a big difference.

    Jerry McSherry, self appointed-spokesman for the Brother and Sisterhood of Pavement Cyclists, said motorists already broke speed limits and used bus lanes regardless of the law. He said: "They already do it, so this isn't going to make a big difference"

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. wingpig
    Member

    "Just because we have idot [sic] motorists doesn't excuse having to endure idiot cyclists into the bargain."

    ...?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. mgj
    Member

    This is nothing about letting cyclists ride on the pavement, it is about converting some wide pavements to dual use or divided paths.

    Once again, my 8 y.o daughter was nearly knocked over yesterday while stepping out of our front gate. Student on a BSO said that he couldnt use the road, 'because there are cobbles' - he was on a full suspension rig. He'd had to do a skidding stop so he was going at some pace.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. kaputnik
    Moderator

    @Mgj - need to convert your gate to open outwards. Fully suspended BSO type will soon learn.

    A good response is "aww, doesn't your mummy let you ride on the road with the big boys?"

    If he can't face the road - he can get off and push.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Dave
    Member

    This is nothing about letting cyclists ride on the pavement, it is about converting some wide pavements to dual use or divided paths.

    The problem with this idea of distinguishing "pavements" from "shared use paths" is that they are physically the same thing, with or without signs (that last for a varying number of months/years before becoming worn out/broken/stolen).

    Let's be honest - when people are riding along on a "shared use Path" and are then told to get on the road despite the path (lower case) continuing identically but as "Pavement", there's a reasonable chance they won't do so.

    When they're out next time in a completely different part of town, they may decide to ride on a path which is notionally Pavement but physically identical to the Path that they rode on previously - the cat is very much out of the bag.

    I suspect if you could cross-reference provision of "official" shared use Paths with the proportion of cyclists who ride on paths that are Pavements, we'd find they are strongly correlated.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. Dave
    Member

    The sensible thing to do would be to legalise cycling on all pavements but introduce a new offence of 'hitting a pedestrian while cycling on the pavement' (yes, I'm aware a new law isn't needed, but it's branding, you see).

    As it stands, 'bad' cyclists don't care about the legal niceties of an identical pavement with or without a blue sign anyway, so such a law would have little effect on them. Fast cyclists are never going to bother with the pavement because it's so slow... see (hopefully this works, as I can't see it from work):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DN4P3LgHoRMk&rct=j&sa=X&tbs=vid%3A1&ei=OzfJTfnGKM3z-gbrsOTABg&ved=0CGEQuAIwBQ&q=edinburghfixed+cycle+path&usg=AFQjCNF0NQwfo-pA8Fgn9RYvjM-7c3HGcg&cad=rja

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. DaveC
    Member

    Most shared use pavements I have seen have clear blue signage showing a cycle and an adult holding a small childs hand. A clear white Solid (do not cross) line with painted signs on the tarmac are pretty clear for segregation.

    I'm all for widening pavements where its easy to do so to provide vehical free cycle routes (excluding the usual Edin City Council Van reversing up the route). Most existing paths running along dualed roads have a grass segregator, which can easily be converted to cycle/pedestrian routes.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. DaveC
    Member

    I think Dave's second post shows quite clearly that cycle route provision is not always aimed at commuters.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. miggy_magic
    Member

    I bet the journalist and his editor were sniggering as that article was constructed. "Tee-hee! We'll get loads of folk riled with this one!!".

    Then they'll wait a month and write something with a tenuous connection to cyclists jumping red lights or without lights, [continue ad infinitum].

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. mgj
    Member

    @Dave, sorry but that is just nonsense. On the same basis we should legalise car driving on pavements, as it is only a problem if a car hits someone, at which point a fine or imprisonment will magically restore the status quo ante. If 'we are the traffic' we need to use the roads, and argue that they are suitable for all to use (free of potholes, obstructions, dangerous folk etc).

    I see no cycling on the pavement around either end of MMW; the path is well designed to give you easy access back on to onroad cyclelanes.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. Dave
    Member

    Take a careful look at the video above and you'll see there are no 'shared use' signs, no paint on the pavement anywhere, nothing. The only indication that it's an cycle route is the presence of green bikes on the pedestrian crossing. Once upon a time people would no doubt say "let people cycle on that pavement, as well let motorists drive on them!"...

    Clearly the problem with the thrust of your post is that we are not "the traffic". For around 99% of all current and potential cyclists, I suspect it's more accurate to say they see themselves as "fast pedestrians", i.e. that they use the roads because it's a better option rather than from some moral perspective.

    Your point about MMW illustrates this very nicely, in fact. The overwhelming majority of cyclists use the legal side of MMW, just like good citizens. But a significant proportion going to Potterrow etc. just turn right and ride along the pavement at the top of the hill, however (where the legal route is of course to go around the triangle, through the traffic lights and down to the Informatics building where you can legally turn right).

    Now, if we were to put some obstacles on the legal side of MMW, I think we'd suddenly find all our 'model citizen cyclists' would simply ride on the pedestrian side illegally, or on the grass (legally, strangely, but a crime against FotM). I'd be amazed if *any* dismounted when they found the segregated section was blocked - they only ride there because it's faster and more convenient than riding through the pedestros.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. LaidBack
    Member

    Lots of good points on this debate.

    Just musing on this while watching how another part of 'illegal' has been made 'safer/normal'.

    Check out many junctions in town and you'll notice that road users can safely run a red with a good minute before a green person comes on.

    We all know that we shouldn't run lights, just as we shouldn't cycle (or drive) on the pavement but in a way it has been accepted due to common use. People now fume at the increased time spent at lights caused by the need to protect drivers and pedestrians from themselves.

    Of course some of these lights do have cameras to catch non-compliance. I wonder how many seconds after red they are adjusted for?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. Nelly
    Member

    @chDot "Pavement on the A8 Glasgow Road."

    Not sure if its the same section, but...

    We came back that way this morning after a windy ride out to Lithgae / home via bathgate etc.

    They will have to go some to persuade me back on that - ever. The section from Broxburn(ish) to airport is great - including a newish bridge and mucho proper bike / ped crossings - all good so far.

    Then the stretch airport/rbs/newbridge is either right on peoples gates, very narrow, or horrendous surface - we did a couple of hundred yards then got back on the road again - wish I had neve left it.....

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. Min
    Member

    A display of embarrassing ignorance, bad even for the EEN today from Helen Martin, the News answer to Melanie Phillips.

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opinion/Helen-Martin-The-Lycra-lobby.6769065.jp

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. wingpig
    Member

    Oh dear.
    I note the cunning use of the "I'm not racist, but..." defence at the beginning in the form of the "hats off" stuff before it goes all universally hatey. Most dichotomous.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. recombodna
    Member

    Which city does this excuse for a journalist live in?? I've never had any problem with pavement cyclists in Edinburgh. I've had plenty of pedestrians walk out into the road without looking though but that's beside the point. She obviously can't even read and understand an article in the paper she works for!!

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. cb
    Member

    Jings, Helen Martin comes across as a bit thick.

    Another pavement cycling article:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/15/cyclists-pavement-fine

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. crowriver
    Member

    @wingpig I note the cunning use of the "I'm not racist, but..." defence at the beginning in the form of the "hats off" stuff before it goes all universally hatey.

    My thoughts exactly! She makes Jeremy Clarkson seem like a wet liberal in comparison.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. Morningsider
    Member

    I shouldn't rise to it but...there is no Highways Act that applies to Scotland, or indeed any highways - they are all legally known as "roads" under the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984. It isn't illegal to cycle on "the pavement" - it is an offence to cycle on a foot-way or footpath. A pavement can of course be designated as a cycle track by a roads authority (i.e. local authority), meaning cycling is perfectly legal.

    Many cyclists may be uninsured (along with 1.4m UK drivers who are estimated to be responsible for 160 UK road collision deaths a year - stats from Department for Transport and the Motor Insurance Bureau), but that doesn't mean they can't be pursued for damages if they do cause damage or injury.

    Also, bikes don't damage roads - they just don't exert enough force to damage a road surface, even cars only have a fairly minor impact and most damage is due to HGV's (up to 50,000 times more damaging to a road surface than a car), buses, poor road works and the weather.

    Cyclist testing is clearly a non-starter. My young nephew cycles under supervision on very quiet residential streets, should he have to pass a test? What is the cost/benefit of introducing a testing regime?

    Perhaps Helen needs to de-stress a bit, see a bit of our glorious city, meet some interesting people...any ideas of an activity that would cover this?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. mgj
    Member

    Helen Martin cant even see that she had a third option, legal and that would have lost her no time at all since she was cycling at walking pace; get off and walk. Breaks no laws, generates no hostility, gets no fines. (and incidentally, fines are not profitable for law enforcement, they are just cheaper punishments that the alternatives).

    @recombodna; maybe she lives in Marchmont. On my walk home from the girls school today we met two of them. about average for a ten minute walk on our street, which admittedly is the worst I've ever known (high volume of students, badly laid setts, unenforced 20 mph zone).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. PS
    Member

    Without wanting to sound too cynical ;-), Helen Martin's piece just reads like a cut and paste from any of the other "lyrca lout" articles that every paper has got its "outspoken columnist" to write, topped and tailed with a bit of council and tram chat to make it "relevant" to Edinburgh...

    I presume the Council's proposals are simply to put in place the painted on-pavement cyclepaths that most European cities have, rather than saying it's okay to cycle on the pavement? No big deal, given the width of some pavements out there - as Helen Martin seems to acknowledge: "pavements which appear to have been foolishly and pointlessly widened" - now there's a point to it, Helen :D

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. mgj
    Member

    ah, now I see it, the pavements are widened to get the bikes out of the real traffics way.

    We should be careful what we wish for.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. Min
    Member

    "presume the Council's proposals are simply to put in place the painted on-pavement cyclepaths that most European cities have, rather than saying it's okay to cycle on the pavement? "

    Yes it is. And which we already have also. This is even mentioned (grudgingly) in the original article which Helen Martin apparently hasn't even read. Cringe.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. recombodna
    Member

    @mgj I think she lives in Bruntsfield as her column is called "Bitching from Bruntsfield" maybe she should loose the "ing"

    now you mention it marchmont is pretty bad for pavement BSO's.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. Min
    Member

    I used to live in Brunstfield. I feel dirty..

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin