CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Cycling the Jawbone Walk

(68 posts)

123

  1. Dave
    Member

    The other day I had cause to go from George IV Bridge to Edinburgh Bike Co-op, so naturally I rode around the one-way triangle, onto Middle Meadow Walk, and through the park.

    It seems that seven years on from the Land Reform Act, they still haven't managed to remove the 'no cycling' signs from Jawbone Walk (and it looks like fresh signs have actually been painted on the tarmac). Does anyone know if they've passed some kind of supplementary legislation for the Meadows, or whether the signs are illegal as I suppose?

    The Melville Drive end of the walk is also very dubious - it's perfectly legal to ride from the park onto the road at any point *apart* from the end of the path, as the crossing is technically not useable by bikes (despite connecting two off-road paths).

    Naturally I ignored the crossing, but it is a bit annoying that nobody has got around to bolting on an extra lamp on that crossing, and normalising the entrance to the park.

    How many decades will it take?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    The Council's view is that it is still illegal to cycle on Jawbone Walk, Coronation Walk and Boys Brigade Walk. This is because these paths have been "adopted for maintenance" - i.e. they count as roads in one sense but have not been "redetermined for cycle use".

    They therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the Roads Scotland Act which "trumps the Land Reform Act in most cases".

    Er, so completely clear and open to misunderstanding, confusion - and probably legal challenge if anyone has lots of money.

    So assuming it IS illegal, should it be?

    At present with No Cycling signs in place, pedestrians can (reasonably) assume that cyclists are in the wrong. Though (allegedly) there are places with No Cycling signs/marking which ought to have been removed.

    Such conflicts are undesirable. So it should be clear that any cycle prohibitions are legal and the Council ought to be confident that they are and publicise the fact.

    THEN if there is any feeling that one or more restrictions should be lifted, there needs to be a campaign/debate etc.

    As you will be aware there are l/vocal people keen to preserve some form of 'status quo' which includes objecting to things like large tents and the skatepark.

    The Council is fairly keen on commercial/cultural activities and says it gets paid enough to restore the grass. The skatepark was stopped because of legal restrictions on the use of The Meadows (think it was to do with 'permanent structures').

    As someone who rides a bike, I (usually) like riding the shortest routes and (occasionally) have ridden on some of the minor paths in The Meadows. This is not a good idea if there are lots of pedestrians. IF it was clearly legal to ride on Jawbone Walk (etc.) people would - some without out enough consideration as it was their 'right' to be there.

    Realistically the paths are not wide enough for heavy pedestrian and cycle use.

    Given that JW is the direct route between MMW and Leamington Walk (and that the 'official' alternative is less than satisfactory due to the Council's failure to close Meadow Place) this probably needs to be looked at fairly urgently.

    There have been proposals discussed over many years about an extra (cycle) path outside the line of cherry trees and also removing the trees (some people have said they are coming to end of their life), widening the path and planting new ones.

    There are a variety of entrenched views....

    UPDATE

    GOOD NEWS!!!

    Apparently the closure of Meadow Place is due "in the next 2 months" AND there are due to be more cycle lanes on Melville Drive.

    That's taken about 10 years. Which first/next - Jawbone Walk or the cycle unfriendly (and very pedestrian unfriendly) 'facility' at the bottom of Argyle Place?

    This image from Google StreetView demonstrates perfectly how cyclists use/ignore the facility.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  3. Dave
    Member

    "The Council's view is that it is still illegal to cycle on Jawbone Walk, Coronation Walk and Boys Brigade Walk. This is because these paths have been "adopted for maintenance" - i.e. they count as roads in one sense but have not been "redetermined for cycle use".

    They therefore fall under the jurisdiction of the Roads Scotland Act which "trumps the Land Reform Act in most cases".

    That doesn't make much sense, really - if the paths are in fact roads, cycling could only be banned through a Traffic Regulation Order. Without one the signs are meaningless.

    And if they're not roads, but footways, then the Road Traffic Act only makes it an offence to "ride upon any footpath or causeway by the side of any road made or set apart for the use or accommodation of foot-passengers" so as with all paths which aren't pavements, this doesn't apply.

    However I guess it gives them enough wiggle room to fob everyone off instead of creating a solution. The stupid thing is that everybody cycles on Jawbone Walk anyway - I can't honestly say I've ever gone the long way around that terrible maze at Argyle Place (which, incidentally, I negotiate exactly the way the rightmost cyclist is doing in your streetview shot).

    I have been known to cycle across the grass when it's busy, but that's not really a solution!

    Posted 14 years ago #

  4. SRD
    Moderator

    Walked that this morning after dropping off bike (still couldn't explain what was wrong to mechanic btw...) and was baffled as to what pedestrians are supposed to do.

    But must admit, I feel no great urge to demand further cycling on Meadows. It works very nicely, and I have no problem with some paths being just for pedestrians.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  5. Cameron
    Member

    I've just checked my correspondence with the parks manager towards the end of last year. I'm looking for clarity for both pedestrians and cyclists as to what is and what isn't allowed - because a significant part of the conflict is that lack of clarity.

    As to the Argyle Place google view, that looks like me wandering from the red cycle surfaced route. But that island sensibly allows cyclists to go either side of it and if it is safe to do so it is legal. Most direct route can often be the best.

    Cameron Rose

    Posted 14 years ago #

  6. Dave
    Member

    I feel no great urge to demand further cycling on Meadows. It works very nicely, and I have no problem with some paths being just for pedestrians.

    It depends, imagine a student who rides from Marchmont to George Sq before and after lunch. That's four sets of negotiating three crossings (Meadow Place, Argyle Place into the maze, from maze into the park) instead of just cycling along jawbone walk.

    Therefore pragmatically, a great many (most?) cyclists will use it if that's the way they want to go. Trying to oppose this just creates tension and conflict.

    This is a prime example of an unnecessary barrier to cycling which could easily be rectified (just take the signs away and replace them with "thankyou for cycling carefully" or something).

    To me, arguing that it is busy with other users so not appropriate to cycle, is an argument that car drivers could use equally well against cyclists on Lothian Road or the Bridges. We have a statutory right of access to land in Scotland, just as we have the right to ride on the roads. Neither should be lightly given up.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    "arguing that it is busy with other users so not appropriate to cycle, is an argument that car drivers could use equally well against cyclists on Lothian Road or the Bridges."

    Yes and no. Pedestrians have the right to be there too - at the moment ([perhaps) they are the only ones with that right.

    It is a sad fact that not all cyclists cycle "carefully". (There are probably more 'issues' on the canal than Meadows paths.) It's my opinion that Jawbone Walk is not suitable (i.e. wide enough) for current pedestrian use PLUS the number of cyclists if it was legal. I know plenty already do, but I'm sure many more would if the inhibition of the "No Cycling" was removed.

    A decision should be taken about the trees and/or new/wider path. BUT it will not be a simple process with the 'right' decision being instantly accepted by everyone...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  8. Dave
    Member

    I doubt it will never be possible to overcome the "Marchmont against change" lobby to re-engineer the meadows for cycling that much (although I'm aware as I write that this must have been what happened with MMW and the Bruntsfield paths).

    One might have thought, that out of the subset of 'cyclists who don't care about pedestrians', many would not be deterred by the existing signs of dubious legality - so the effect of officially blessing the path might actually be to dilute their impact?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    " so the effect of officially blessing the path might actually be to dilute their impact?"

    That'll be the statistical argument....

    Posted 14 years ago #

  10. Dave
    Member

    Well, it's one possibility. I suppose the problem is that, it's a bit like suggesting that the way to tackle a dangerous speeding rat run is just to direct all traffic through it. While it would certainly have an effect on the speeding, it might not be what the residents wanted.

    Still, I would find it hard to support cycling along the canal, and oppose cycling across the meadows. The towpath really is difficult to use.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  11. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    I think the solution would be to widen the paths and allow cycling on them all.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  12. nearefare
    Member

    can't widen the canal, only solution there is to bring it back to it's mucky chaos of 10 years ago so it's dedicated cylist and dog walkers ;-) tongue in cheek lol

    Posted 14 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    "I think the solution would be to widen the paths and allow cycling on them all."

    Yes, but.

    Key path is Jawbone Walk which has trees on both sides. Optimum is probably 2M path (cycle only) on east side from MMW to Melville Drive opposite where Meadow Place will be closed.

    Traffic lights for west bound traffic could be moved back creating a wide crossing and lots of scope for doing something interesting with the space created by the road closure.

    Google map.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    "bring it back to it's mucky chaos of 10 years ago so it's dedicated cylist and dog walkers"

    Which brings me to a shameful admission.

    One reason I (sometimes) get annoyed with pedestrians on the canal and parts of the NEPN, Innocent etc. is the realisation that without the pressure/initiatives of cycle groups - Sustrans, Spokes etc. a lot of these paths wouldn't exist in a state that would attract 'normal' people.

    Clearly this doesn't apply to paths through The Meadows so cyclists should be more cautious/conciliatory/creative when it comes to improving facilities. It's important to demonstrate that conditions for pedestrians will improve - this would not be the case by just legalising Jawbone Walk for cyclists.

    It's important to remember that 'the argument' (in general) is about getting more road space from vehicles not path space from pedestrians (unless it's particularly wide like MMW).

    My flying mammal suggestion would be to shut Melville Drive between Marchmont Road and Argyle Place.

    "Oh but you can't do that it's a main through/commuter route." Well so are Broughton Street and Newbattle Terrace. BOTH shut at the moment. Not noticed any total gridlock nearby...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  15. Dave
    Member

    Yep, I agree. Limited permeability is the way forwards, solves all problems at a stroke.

    Closing roads doesn't lead to gridlock in the long term, anyway, because traffic levels are self-stabilising. People will only put up with a certain level of congestion before they stop driving in (which is why London has so much more bike & public transport use).

    Build more roads = more people drive. So why everyone thinks that reducing road capacity = congestion instead of less people driving, is a mystery to me.

    Myself I wasn't so much thinking of closing Melville drive, as Argyle Place. If there was just a pedestrian crossing at the bottom of MMW and it responded quickly, with an easy turn for bikes onto Melville Drive, that would be a big step forward. They should also definitely keep Holyrood Park closed at rush hour. It's bizarre that Edinburgh's open spaces are also our commuter expressways.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    "Myself I wasn't so much thinking of closing Melville drive, as Argyle Place."

    Harder to do that as AP is a bus route.

    There hasn't been a bus route all the way along MD for years.

    So maybe it's not really a main traffic route - more like rat run...

    Posted 14 years ago #

  17. gembo
    Member

    quite sad this string. I am usually wrong but as I understand dual use path like the one up middle meadow walk - pedestrians can walk on their bit and on the cycle path as they get precedence. We are supposed to stick to our bit.

    I know we are supposed to get precedence over cars [in general] and are therefore stuck in the middle but we do not need to claim all territory for ourselves in a driver sort of manner, we can live and let live with the pedestrians, even on the canal towpath, even if cyclists brought the path back into use (well still same old path beyond w.hailes but much nicer than when I cycled at the other end through Possil and out to Kirkintilloch brambles and neds everywhere).

    We should model considerate behaviour and doff our caps to the pedestrians as we ease by at a non-frightening speed.

    I am afraid this string and indeed the whole forum occasionally verges into a 'we should have it our own way' whinge. Of course that is only occasionally and I doff my cap to all campaigners introducing better cycling paths and routes in Edinburgh.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    "I am usually wrong"

    Bet you're not.

    "I understand dual use path like the one up middle meadow walk - pedestrians can walk on their bit and on the cycle path as they get precedence. We are supposed to stick to our bit."

    In that context pedestrians are supposed to stick to their bit too.

    However MMW is a segregated path - it's wide enough to be.

    Most paths in Edinburgh are shared use. Therefore cyclists need to take more care and walkers (and dogs...) need to be aware that they too are sharing.

    Jawbone Walk isn't suitable to be a segregated path, and not really suitable to be a shared use path (though clearly it already is to some extent.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  19. gembo
    Member

    You lost your bet by correcting me but on MMW if the police arrived and a cyclist had thumped into a pedestrian on the cycle side am I wrong to think that the police would take the side of the pedestrian?

    The peds should stick to their side but don't get penalised if they stray - we must stick to our bit? Hopefully, this is all hypothetical.

    I liked your earlier point which I interpreted as - if Jawbone walk was redesignated as a cycle and walking path then the council would have to chop down all the trees and even the most diehard psychopath cyclepath adherent wouldn't want the trees killed

    Posted 14 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    "I liked your earlier point which I interpreted as - if Jawbone walk was redesignated as a cycle and walking path then the council would have to chop down all the trees and even the most diehard psychopath cyclepath adherent wouldn't want the trees killed."

    Not exactly. I'm was reporting that that was always an option (and still is). It was 'suggested' some years ago that the trees were reaching their 'use by date'. Perhaps there is someone on here who knows something about trees...

    MY solution/suggestion is to keep the trees as long as they are safe and replace as required PLUS have a new cycle-only path on the east side.

    This idea has foundered because there are elements (with some justification) who are 'against any more tarmac in The Meadows'. There is that curious extra 'jogging path' parallel to Melville Drive that was added relatively recently.

    I think now is the time to positively deal with this by making it very clear that the present Jawbone Walk would become absolutely 'pedestrian only' and the pesky cyclists would have their own path which would neatly connect with Leamington Walk via the newly closed Meadow Place. Sadly this can't happen at the same time due to process/budgets etc.

    But now is the time to get some backing for the idea (or a better one).

    Posted 14 years ago #

  21. Dave
    Member

    You lost your bet by correcting me but on MMW if the police arrived and a cyclist had thumped into a pedestrian on the cycle side am I wrong to think that the police would take the side of the pedestrian?

    No more than they would if you hit a pedestrian who had stepped onto the road. In either case you're not "allowed" to hit people just because they are in "your" designated zone (this applies too for cars, if you're crossing the street someone can't just run you down because you're in the way).

    I'm not a fan of segregated paths, for the precise reason that if pedestrians are all over the bike side, you can't really go around them (or at least, you're breaking the law to go around) and also it encourages higher speeds by putting cyclists on a dedicated clearway. Even on the flat part of MMW cyclists are doing over 20mph, on the Jawbone more like jogging speed. It's like the 'shared space' street concept, take away the "right" to progress at speed and people don't go as fast.

    The worst thing is those tramline slabs that they sometimes put in to encourage cyclists to use the right side, and you see many riders going on the pedestrian side deliberately because it's better to have some perpendicular bumps than lose your front wheel on parallel ones. Don't know who imagined they were a smart idea!

    Posted 14 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    I walked the Walk today and found that some of the trees didn't look too great and some had already been removed - leaving gaps.

    I'm sure people on this forum could put together a few pennies to buy one or two (they seem to be about £30) to coincide with the creation of a cycle path!

    I must admit Jawbone Walk is wider than I remembered, so it could be used as a shared path - but a parallel one would be better.

    Either way, the final section at the Jawbones would have to be bypassed - there's hardly enough room for the pedestrians.

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Plugins

    Posted 14 years ago #

  23. chdot
    Admin

    "How long will a cherry tree live?"

    "Anywhere from 30-250 years as long as it is taken care of!!"

    "the average cherry tree life expectancy is around 20 years."

    Posted 14 years ago #

  24. Kim
    Member

    If you want to know how long those trees live, why not count the rings on one of the stumps along Jawbone Walk. If I remember rightly there has been an out break of a disease in the cherries in the Meadows, and they are not expected to last much longer any way.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  25. cb
    Member

    I noticed on my OS Explorer map of Edinburgh that Jawbone Walk was marked with the "Other cycle route" symbol (orange dots). But this has been removed on the latest mapping.
    Wonder where the OS got their data from?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  26. chdot
    Admin

    The official line from the Council is "There are only 3 paths that cycling is not legal on in the Meadows/Bruntsfield Links - Jawbone Walk, Boys Brigade Walk and Coronation Walk."

    This includes paths on Bruntsfield Links that are current marked No Cycling.

    I've suggested that CEC makes sure that sign/marking removal is done in time for finishing of closure of Meadow Place to allow a PR push on 'Cycling around the Meadows - the legalities clarified' and promote a 'good behaviour code' - perhaps in conjunction with the Spokes one - http://www.politecycling.info/code.html

    Posted 14 years ago #

  27. SRD
    Moderator

    Ooops. See my post of two minutes ago. If cycling is to be permitted, then I think it should be divided pavements. Honestly, otherwise it is really scary to unstable pedestrians of all ages and shapes.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  28. chdot
    Admin

    No "ooops" - I'm cross posting.

    Divided/shared is worth discussing - key thing is 'legal clarity' and making sure all users are aware.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  29. Kim
    Member

    Maybe we should put more effort into promoting "Citizen Cyclists" and more civilised behaviour.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  30. chdot
    Admin

    "Maybe we should put more effort into promoting "Citizen Cyclists" and more civilised behaviour."

    Indeed.

    Which "we"?

    I'm waiting to see how CEC, Spokes respond to the 'promoting considerate cycling around The Meadows PR opportunity' idea.

    Posted 14 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin