CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

"Fears over pavement cyclists"

(36 posts)

No tags yet.


12

  1. PS
    Member

    Scary cyclists on pavements

    "
    COUNCILLORS say they have "grave concerns" about plans to allow cyclists to ride on the pavement in some areas of the city.

    The council wants those on two wheels to be given access to specially widened pavements to help create an off-road cycle route between Leith and Portobello.

    There are plans to create cycle lanes on pavements at the junction of Carrington Road and East Fettes Avenue, and at Arboretum Place outside the Botanics.

    But at yesterday's transport committee, councillors said they had reservations about the plans.

    City centre councillor Joanna Mowat said: "There's too many cyclists on pavements at the moment. Only yesterday I had to pull my child out of the way of a cyclist who came gaily up on the pavement."

    Cllr Stuart McIvor added: "I have grave concerns on the legal side, with collisions etc."

    The committee agreed to delay the measures until further studies could be carried out.
    "

    I wonder what studies will be carried out? Perhaps a trip to any number of European cities where this works absolutely fine?

    I presume there was a slightly more thorough discussion of the issue than the report suggests...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    I really did suggest that 20mph zones might get more people cycling on the road...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  3. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Daft isn't it - the complaint about making certain areas shared use is that cyclists use other areas illegally...

    It's a circular argument that's been around for years, not wanted on the roads where we cause slow-moving obstructions, nor on the pavements where we're a danger and a menace.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  4. chdot
    Admin

    Toss coin -

    Give up

    'Campaign' more

    It's 50/50!...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  5. crowriver
    Member

    Methinks a sustained period of 're-education' of both the councillors from concerned residents and cyclists would do a power of good. E-mail, letters, heckiling in the street... May not change their minds, but it would make 'us' feel better.

    If you see either of these characters around town (assuming they are not safely ensconced in their steel and glass motorised bubbles), give them a good talking to, would you?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  6. amir
    Member

    How do councillors get on to committees?

    On the basis of their knowledge and judgement? On the basis of their prejudices? Voluntarily or pushed by their party?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    "How do councillors get on to committees?"

    All of your suggestions probably.

    Some councillors have genuine areas of interest and expertise.

    But there is bound to be an element of 'making up the numbers' - voting balance has to reflect overall council balance.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  8. crowriver
    Member

    If, like me, you were wondering "where on Earth do they find these awful Councillors?", well a quick Gugol reveals:

    "Cllr Stuart McIvor returned to his native Edinburgh to work as a tour guide after a career in the Metropolitan Police lasting 31 years. He is a strong advocate of lifelong learning."

    He should be ripe for some pro-cycling 're-education' then!

    Can't find much on Cllr Mowat, except she justified voting for the closure of nurseries in the city by saying "We don't administer the city on fairy dust. We have finite resources. To help the whole, I'm afraid we have to disadvantage the few." Very compassionate, I'm sure, Councillor.

    Also she was (surprise surprise) against emissions based parking charges, and tried to claim the consultation was a sham.

    So, a right wing, 'no nonsense' car driver, then? We already know she has a personal grudge against cyclists who apparently are continually threatening her daughter's life. Could be a tough nut to crack.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    Might have some relevance here -

    "
    People power seemingly works in this digital age where Government’s can be toppled and footballers exposed over the internet. So what good can online services do for cycling and business? Social media leads the way for London’s new breed of cycle advocates, argues Mark Ames of popular blog ibikelondon.blogspot.com.

    .......

    Street Talks, a monthly London ‘drinktank’ on sustainable transport and a more liveable capital, bridges the gap between online and off.  Organised and publicised entirely via the internet by a loose entity of like-minded campaigners, the talks take place ‘in the flesh’ once a month in a Clerkenwell pub.

    "

    http://www.bikebiz.com//news/read/social-networking-sells-says-i-bike-london-blogger

    Posted 13 years ago #

  10. crowriver
    Member

    So, citycling on Facebook/Twitter? Or does this forum count as 'social media'?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  11. Instography
    Member

    So does this mean it's OK for me to ride on the pavement? I'd got the impression it was considered bad form.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    "does this forum count as 'social media'?"

    ABSOLUTELY

    It has even spawned 'coffee mornings' and the odd pub evening.

    It is sharing info and experiences and encouragements.

    One interesting thing is that it is inhabited by normal people (more or less!). Many have cars - and use them.

    Quite a few have children who are, or will, be at school.

    Most live in or around Edinburgh and (mostly) like it a great deal - but wish it was a bit/lot better.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    "So does this mean it's OK for me to ride on the pavement? I'd got the impression it was considered bad form."

    Well...

    Some places it's illegal.

    Some places it's illegal but no-one would be inconvenienced/discomforted.

    Some places it's legal but the council hasn't removed the 'no cycling' signs.

    Some places it's legal - and there are signs to say so.

    Some places where expected to be legal fairly soon - once the pavements were widened. But some councillors suddenly found an unexpected fondness for pedestrians and called for delaying tactics (I mean a report).

    Hope that helps.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  14. Morningsider
    Member

    Instography - in Scottish roads law there is no such thing as "a pavement". There are footways (which run alongside a carriageway - which most people call "a road")and footpaths, which do not run alongside a carriageway. It is an offence to cycle on either of these. However, a roads authority can designate any footpath or footway as a cycle track - meaning people can both walk and cycle along the same surface. These are usually referred to as "shared use" paths.

    I could go into more detail, but it is very boring - so I won't.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  15. Dave
    Member

    I won't offer a suggestion to avoid giving offence, but for my own entertainment I like to re-read such news reports and press releases but replace terms relating to "cyclist/cycling" with a religious or ethnic group (religious works better because, like cycling, you can choose to practice or give up a religion).

    It really makes for eye-opening reading.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  16. Dave
    Member

    "footpaths, which do not run alongside a carriageway. It is an offence to cycle on either of these. "

    Hmm. I'm 99.99% sure that the offence is cycling on a footway, being defined specifically as a section parallel to a highway laid out for pedestrian use. Ne c'est pas?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  17. PS
    Member

    Mmmm... "drinktank" :)

    I'd say cycling on the pavement is generally bad form except where it is specifically permitted. I'm not clear from the proposals whether these "shared use" pavements will feature a defined cyclepath area or not.
    It's item 20 here

    Posted 13 years ago #

  18. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    "Hmm. I'm 99.99% sure that the offence is cycling on a footway, being defined specifically as a section parallel to a highway laid out for pedestrian use. Ne c'est pas?"

    That was my understanding as well...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  19. Morningsider
    Member

    It's amazing what you can squeeze into that 0.01% e.g. Section 129, Roads (Scotland) Act 1984

    (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—

    (a)where and in so far as the vehicle or animal is being taken across the footway, footpath or cycle track;.
    (b)in relation to a pedal cycle which is either not being ridden or is being ridden on a cycle track;.

    By my reading that makes it an offence to cycle on both a footway and footpath. Obviously, land reform access rights mean that you can cycle legally on many paths. It's all very complicated.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  20. chdot
    Admin

    "Obviously, land reform access rights mean that you can cycle legally on many paths."

    That's why CEC's latest legal advice is that because of access legislation they 'can't stop' people cycling on Porty Prom - but I suppose now they'll try again...

    "It's all very complicated."

    Quite!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  21. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Ah, there's my misunderstanding - I don't remember seeing 'footpath and cycle track' in there before!

    I guess that techniquely means the big council vans they drive down the Innocent to clear the foliage shouldn't be there? Almost got squashed last time. Went to pass on one side (he was stationary) and just at the required moment he started off and moved right because a cyclist had appeared in the opposite direction - so good in that he was moving out of the way of that cyclist, bad in that he almost squashed another!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  22. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    Dave:"I like to re-read such news reports and press releases but replace terms relating to "cyclist/cycling" with a religious or ethnic group"

    Good trick. But I wish I knew why cyclists are seen as a self-selecting minority and exempt from hate crime law while religious groups are not.

    Maybe we should form a cycling church.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  23. Morningsider
    Member

    Anth - Section 64(1)(a) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 allows appliances and vehicles "for the construction, maintenance, improvement or cleansing of a road" to use footways, footpaths and cycle tracks. Council in the clear I suspect.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  24. DaveC
    Member

    Great I'm about to fit a brush to the front of my cycle and become exempt from the laws... digs out old pic from I'nnocent glassware thread'...

    http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p86/Dave_Crampton/cycle_brush.jpg

    Posted 13 years ago #

  25. amir
    Member

    "Maybe we should form a cycling church. "
    I just have this image of a church on top of a bicycle

    Posted 13 years ago #

  26. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Personally I don't think anyone should (or needs to) cycle on the pavement and I'm sure some people with children or the elderly etc. can find it intimidating / scary / potentially injurious. If a piece of road is just beyond your desire to cycle on and the pavement alongside is not designated for shared use, then get off and push. It's not really much slower than the sort of speeds most pavements cyclists can achieve anyway.

    However it's just ridiculous to use it as some sort of argument against provision of on-pavement (footway / footpath, whatever) cycling. If the piece of not-carriageway tarmac in question is signed and painted as a shared-use path there should be no problems at all.

    And in the grand scheme of things, the apparent cyclist/pedestrian war (that so many car-driving evening chipwrapper online commenters seem to think exists - personally, I don't think it does) is not really one of the pressing problems for Edinburgh is it. Kinda shows where the priorities of these 2 councillors lie (i.e. grabbing a couple of column inches in that appaling daily collection of pages of newsprint)

    Cyclists using shared paths, at the masters of faster and heavier vehicles, need to be mindful of the needs of pedestrians and should command their steeds accordingly with respect and with deference to other shared path users. Just like we would expect car drivers to for us (even whenthey don't!). Pavement cyclists should be mocked for their mothers not letting them play on the road with the big boys and girls.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  27. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    ""Maybe we should form a cycling church. "
    I just have this image of a church on top of a bicycle    "

    There would be schisms every day. Campag v. Shimano v. Sram v. Singlespeed v. racer v. mountainbike v. folder v. etc etc etc etc!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  28. Dave
    Member

    Hmm, interesting. That means that contrary to common belief (including mine) we actually had a more restrictive set of cycling laws than the English, prior to the LRA. In England the law really does apply only to pavements that run beside roads.

    How strange. Double huzzah for the LRA then - it includes all paths (you can check the list of exclusions at http://www.outdooraccess-scotland.com/outdoors-responsibly/your-access-rights/ , but we've had this discussion before...)

    Posted 13 years ago #

  29. Dave
    Member

    "Personally I don't think anyone should (or needs to) cycle on the pavement ... get off and push... Pavement cyclists should be mocked for their mothers not letting them play on the road with the big boys and girls.

    However it's just ridiculous to use it as some sort of argument against provision of on-pavement ... cycling. If the piece of not-carriageway tarmac in question is signed and painted as a shared-use path there should be no problems at all."

    Out of interest, how do you reconcile the two paragraphs above (I admit to chopping your post up for dramatic effect), when the difference between a pavement and a shared use path is often as little as the council erecting one sign at one end, and a mile later, another coming the other way?

    They are the same thing in every meaningful way (that is, to a pedestrian or a cyclist using them, not in terms of papers lodged at the council roads dept).

    Posted 13 years ago #

  30. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I'll have a stab at that...

    On the marked as shared use path it IS marked and therefore all users should/will be aware that the other may be there.

    Also, you would assume, a review will have been undertaken to see if a particular path is suitable for sharing and may have had amendments made to it (such as the widening planned at Seafield).

    So the shared use path is not, strictly speaking, physically or psychologically the same piece of tarmac as a non-signed pavement.

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin