CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Cycling the Jawbone Walk

(68 posts)

123

  1. Dave
    Member

    In my opinion unless the paths are monstrously wide (like Middle Meadow Walk, which is actually a full size road), segregation is a big loser. The problem is that pedestrians don't treat it as they would walking beside car traffic, yet cyclists do take the opportunity of their "own" space to ride at greater speed. It also has the unfortunate effect that if people are walking on the cycle side, it's an offence to go around them (so potentially if there is an accident in such a situation, instead of everyone having a responsibility to exercise due care, the cyclist starts off legally in the wrong).

    I suppose the argument is that while it may be less safe, it makes pedestrians feel more safe, which is the important thing.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    New thread

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=532

    Posted 14 years ago #

  3. Sarah
    Member

    Hi all,

    This morning I was angrily shouted at by a man for cycling down jawbone walk on my way to work. He said I wasn't allowed and I replied I was.... so I took to the forum to try and confirm I'm correct. Now I'm confused! I have never seen signs or pavement markings that say no cyclists and plenty of other people cycle down it, but there is conflicting information on the web. Am I allowed to cycle down Jawbone Walk? Is anyone able to clear this up for me, please?

    Thanks

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    "Am I allowed to cycle down Jawbone Walk?"

    YES

    There may still be a "no cycling" sign high on a pole at the MMW end.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. kaputnik
    Moderator

    They took the signs down and chipped up the "no cycling" paint a year or so back when they realised that you could cycle down jawbone walk.

    Some people have longer memories and think that the fact there used to be a (wrong) sign there gives them the right to abuse those going about their lawful cycling business.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    There is still a painted "no cycling" sign at the bottom of path off Leven Terrace.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. kaputnik
    Moderator

    someone should take some paint out and modify the N to a Y.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. Snowy
    Member

    Sarah,
    There are one or two very 'vocal' characters who are often on Jawbone walk in the morning. My other half has noted one male in particular who likes to jump towards cyclists and shout 'boo' very closely, and follow it up with 'you arent allowed to cycle here!'. Notably this guy only seems to do this to female cyclists, and usually only when he has his mate with him. Wonder why.
    Not only is he just plain wrong, it's certainly intimidation, and it's verging on assault.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. Sarah
    Member

    Brilliant, thank you. My peace with the meadows is restored :)
    Now all we have to do is re-educate angry people to correct and less angry....

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Not only is he just plain wrong, it's certainly intimidation, and it's verging on assault."

    If people are genuinely intimidated by the action then it is assault (or at least can be - would be up to a court to determine, you don't need to cause actual physical harm, not actually intend to cause physical harm, but merely put someone in fear that they may be subject to physical harm).

    As others have said, the 'no cycling' stuff should have all come down by now (was it because those paths weren't, for some reason, designated 'footpaths'? They sit outside the Land Access legislation which is why you're still not allowed to ride on the pavement).

    Though personally I think it's a little narrow for sharing with peds (countered by the fact that it's a very very useful angle of a route).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. Bruce
    Member

    As far as I can see, there is no marked area that says cycling is allowed unlike the rest of the meadows which has clearly marked paths.

    It is pretty fair to assume that the general public would rightly think cycling is not allowed here.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. kaputnik
    Moderator

    It is pretty fair to assume that the general public would rightly think cycling is not allowed here

    As far as I'm aware, unless it is the footway alongside a carriageway (what most would call a "pavement", but not Scots Law) then cycling works on a by-exception policy and by default is permissible. So it's perfectly legal to cycle on the paths in the Meadows and would a bye-law to prohibit it (such as the ones in place for Princes Street Gardens).

    It's the other way around for "pavements", where you can only ride on them where it is permitted as part of a shared or segregated path.

    If it is designated a segregated path (as in Middlew Meadow, North Meadow and South Meadow Walks and Leamington Path) then you have to ride on the designated side.

    So for the undesignated paths in the Meadows, which aren't "pavements", you are legally allowed to cycle them. The previous signs that were up banning it (I think) had no basis in law after the outdoor access legislation came into force (right of non-motorised access), much like the Porty Prom, which took 8 or 9 years to come into line with the legislation and lose its signs.

    Morningsider will be along shortly to correct / clarify this.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Kappers, he's corrected me on that before I think (in that I thought the same thing, that to count as a footpath it had to be alongside a road - turns out that assumption was wrong).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Roads (Scotland) Act 1984

    s.129(5)
    Subject to section 64 of this Act, a person who, in a footway, footpath or cycle track, as the case may be drives, rides, leads or propels a vehicle or horse, or any swine or cattle, commits an offence:
    Provided that the foregoing provisions of this subsection do not apply—
    ...
    (b)in relation to a pedal cycle which is either not being ridden or is being ridden on a cycle track;

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. LaidBack
    Member

    Here's a park sign I spied in East Princes Street Gardens. Seems that cycling is allowed. Instruction is to keep to firm hard surfaces and give way to walkers and horse riders. ....so keep to paths.

    Council has boards on MMW telling people to cycle alternative routes at moment too - due to path closures.

    Council should have these in Meadows and then you could refer the complainers to it, Sarah.


    New city park signs by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Right, got there.

    s.151 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 has the interpretation provisions and a 'footway' is a 'road' for use on foot only beside a carriageway; a 'footpath' is a 'road' for use on foot only not beside a carriageway. A 'cycle track' is any 'road' which is for the use of cycles only, or cycles and by foot only.

    So s.129 above prohibits you cycling on either a 'footpath' or 'footway', so doesn't matter if it's beside a road or not. So the question is, which has probably been answered here before, why is cycling allowed on Jawbone Walk? Why was the prohibition on cycling deemed unlawful? (and it's not the Land Access changes because cycling on the footpaths and footways is specifically excluded from that).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. Morningsider
    Member

    WC - Jawbone Walk is a core path. Section 7(1) of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 specifically exempts core paths from any statutory or other restriction on their use by pedestrians and cyclists.

    I still wouldn't cycle it myself - I always use MMW.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Knew there had to be a reason - ta Morningsider.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I still wouldn't cycle it myself - I always use MMW

    Except the council's own signs on MMW tell cyclists the path is closed and to "use an alternative"...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. Dave
    Member

    Is there something about the definition of a 'footway' that means not everything people walk on (that isn't parallel to a road) is legally a footway?

    The 1984 act, going by the post above, would seem to divide 'routes' of any type into roads, cycle tracks, or footways/footpaths (the distinction merely being colocation with a motoring 'road').

    However, that would imply that the Land Reform Act actually doesn't allow non-motorised access to many places at all. I doubt the 7stanes routes, for instance, have been legally classified as "cycle tracks" given that they are just muddy ruts in a hillside that the Forestry Commission now maintains carparks and a cafe beside.

    As they aren't roads either, they would seem to be "footpaths" according to the 1984 act?

    Implies, for instance, that it would be OK to ride on the grass (or hillside) under the LRA but only until the point that the desire line started to look a bit like a path, at which point it would be illegal to cycle on it? (Not a "cycle track", not beside a road = "footpath")

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Long reply deleted.

    In short - no.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. Morningsider
    Member

    Dave - the Land Reform Act gives cyclists and pedestrians the right to be on and to cross land, with certain exceptions. One of these exceptions is where access to the land is regulated by another statute, e.g. the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.

    Most footpaths, tracks etc. have no formal legal status and are simply "land", over which you can exercise access. As a general rule, if a path, track etc. isn't included in the relevant list of public roads held by each local authority then you are free to cycle or walk along it, unless prevented by other legislation or regulation (obviously, you can cycle along public roads, but the list also includes those paths, tracks etc. where access may be limited to pedestrians).

    I think the slight loss in legal clarity is worth the benefit in that we can now legally cycle along pretty much every path in Scotland.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. kaputnik
    Moderator

    This thread is a marvellous demonstration on how clear the law on this really is (it's not!) Unless one is as schooled in matters as Morningsider, you can be convinced you are right / the other is wrong, but it turns out you're probably both wrong, or right for the wrong reasons!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. Dave
    Member

    Yes, that last is the impression I was under.

    If you consult the Outdoor Access Code, for instance, it doesn't mention anywhere the possibility that (unless not adopted for maintenance by the local authority), you would perhaps be guilty of an offence for cycling on a path in a park - notwithstanding that the Jawbone is specifically a core path.

    For instance, you are explicitly allowed to ride on the grass. It would be very odd for wardens to tell cyclists not to ride on the path but muddy up the grass instead. That got me wondering whether these parts of the 1984 act were effectively overridden by the 2003 act.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. Morningsider
    Member

    To be fair to SNH - the Outdoor Access Code does cover most situations, and it is pretty long already. The paths in the Meadows are very unusual in that they are techniclly roads - almost all paths within parks fall into the "no legal status" category.

    The Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 is still very much in force, with some minor amendments. I think it helps to think of legislation as very large game of Jenga - a huge pile of impenitrable bricks, the shape of which is changed over time by people who have no idea what the eventual consequence will be with the very real likelihood that it will all eventually come crashing down.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  26. neddie
    Member

    It seems there is talk of installing chicane barriers at the Melville Dr end of Jawbone Walk.

    Apparently there have been complaints to councillors about cycling on Jawbone.

    This is one of the actions of the "Meadows Cycling/Pedestrian Improvement* Group" of 16th June 2014:

    Action 3 Jawbone Walk, part (2): Install barrier chicane arrangement at the Melville Drive end of Jawbone Walk to discourage cycle use

    Will attach a copy of the report once I get back to my Dropbox account.

    *Improvements for whom exactly?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  27. fimm
    Member

    And who are the "Meadows Cycling/Pedestrian Improvement Group" anyway? Some subset of FOMBL?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  28. Dave
    Member

    Sad really - there have been numerous opportunities to sort this out by opening up the Jawbone end and properly aligning with the ped crossing. More than ten years since legislation was passed to allow people to cycle along here - making it even more of a crush to make this less pleasant for everyone is a retrograde step.

    That said, I can't imagine anyone who is currently willing to put up with the crush and railings that are in place is going to be put off by a further chicane. Smart money is on what I do, use the car access opposite Marchmont Rd to cross the front of the pavilion thing then cut onto the path.

    This is Edinburgh, where anybody can set up an anonymous "Friends of X" group and apparently circumvent due process...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    "who are the "Meadows Cycling/Pedestrian Improvement Group" anyway?"

    A mix of 'interested people' chaired by Cllr. Rose.

    He cycles and wasn't the only one.

    They have been trying to deal with 'problems' (perceived and real) of peds and cycles.

    Various threads on here have demonstrated that there is no absolute consensus amongst 'us' (the 'responsible' cyclers).

    Jawbone has always been 'contentious'.

    There will be people on here approving of these chicanes (if they happen) and others with different views.

    Cyclists are allowed to cycle on most Meadows paths (there are short sections where, anomalously, it's not legal to cycle - but no No Cycling signs) the rest are subject to the 'normal' "responsible use".

    Posted 10 years ago #

  30. Snowy
    Member

    Riding, I personally prefer to avoid it and go along to the MMW lights, which although it's a daft junction design, at least has a fairly short light sequence.

    A chicane isn't in anyone's interests. The dogleg from the crossing is already a pedestrian crush at peak times. Add in the usual prams and kids bikes, and a chicane is going to royally piss everyone off.

    It as though there are three completely separate groups of people in the council who are not talking to each other at all

    One lot are tasked with south of Melville Drive and keeping Meadow Place blocked off and doing odd things to the line of the cycle path and bollards

    Another lot are tasked with north of Melville Drive, dissuading cyclists from using Jawbone Walk and coming up with stupid ideas like a chicane to annoy the maximum number of people possible

    And the last lot look after the pedestrian crossing between the first two, and are steadfastly ignoring any suggestion that it could be made a lot better by realigning it, or widening it, or even that there's an issue

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin