Council presentation regarding cycling on Portobello prom.

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Council presentation regarding cycling on Portobello prom.

(63 posts)

Started 12 years ago by Colin
Latest reply from crowriver

Tags:

cargo

12 3 Next »

Colin
Member

If anyone who cycles along the promenade would like hear what appears to be quite a hot topic, then this presentation may appeal:-

Portobello Community Council (PCC) is having a presentation from Council officers about the vexed question of Cycling on the Promenade at its next meeting Monday 26 September at 7.30pm in Portobello Baptist Church Hall (entrance to the west of the Portobello Bar). This is a public meeting and all those interested are welcome. If you can't come, you can still make your views known to PCC through the web-link above. Ultimately, it is a City of Edinburgh Council decision about how to manage the Promenade, as part of the Core Path Network, but this PCC presentation and Q&A is part of their consultation process with people who use the Promenade and live in Portobello.

(This is from a circular from Maureen Child).

Cheers
Colin

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

Should be a fun meeting...

"Ultimately, it is a City of Edinburgh Council decision about how to manage the Promenade"

Which presumably is a veiled way of saying there will be an admission that it IS legal to cycle on the Prom - so it's a question of where to put white lines (or not) and what sort of notices (or not).

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

TODAY

"
talkporty:

Tonight's meeting of @portycc to discuss (now legal) cycling on Portobello Prom; BaptistC hall from 7:30pm http://t.co/ewtYMdE8 @CyclingEdin

Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/talkporty/status/118274128154333184

"

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

Interesting snippet from that forum:

"It should be noted however that under section 7.1 of the Land Reform Act, once a route is identified in an adopted Core Path Plan as a “Core Path”, all exemptions set out in Section 6 of the Land Reform Act (see A.1.4 above) do not apply to that route. This means that on “Core Path” routes, all non-motorised users would have the right to use the route and a redetermination order would not be required to permit use by cyclists. For example, if a “Core Path” route is along a footway contiguous with a road, the Core Path legislation supersedes the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 restrictions, and permits the responsible use of that footway by all non-motorised users (including cyclists)."

So all Core Paths are officially shared use!

Now then, CCE massive, Spokes members, Cyclestreets afficionados: here's a project for you: map out all the Core Paths in Edinburgh & Lothians so cyclists know exactly where they have a legal right to cycle off-road.

Next step, map all Core Paths in all local authority areas across Scotland. Could be a great network!

See http://www.cyclingscotland.org/news/roads-legislation-and-core-paths/

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

Oh, here is the map of Edinburgh's Core Paths:

http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/3007/core_path_plan_map

Posted 12 years ago #
Dave
Member

I can't imagine the Council really mean that, as it would be legal to ride on the pavement along Princes St, George St, Queen St and the Royal Mile, just to get started..?

Posted 12 years ago #
wangi
Member

Crowriver... I started a while back adding relations for the Core Paths in Edinburgh to OpenStreetMap (->OpenCycleMap) but it got tedious working off the low res PDF so put in a FOI - see http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/edinburgh_core_paths_gis_data - to get the shapefiles to aid this work. That was refused and is currently going through appeal with the Scottish Information Commissioner.

L/

Posted 12 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

I wouldn't rely on a route being part of the core path network as a guarantee you can legally cycle on the pavement. Access rights granted under the Land Reform Act have to be excercised responibly. It is certainly arguable whether cycling on a footway is a responsible action (especially in Princes St and the like). One for the courts I suspect.

Posted 12 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

wangi - any reason given for why the FOI was refused?

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"Core Path legislation supersedes the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 restrictions"

It is of course Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 which mentions Core Paths (this and other sections).

So, as I said above, I think that the LRA made cycling on the Prom legal not the actual designation as a CP. (But I might be misinterpreting the legislation - but then I believe that a lot of well paid lawyers have been arguing about it for the last 7 years...)

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

@Morningsider

"I wouldn't rely on a route being part of the core path network as a guarantee you can legally cycle on the pavement."

I suppose it depends whether pavements are dealt with in "Roads (Scotland) Act 1984" and that section has been superseded by the LRA.

Though as you say it's subject to "have to be excercised responsibly".

I suspect it's not legal, but...

@SRD

"wangi - any reason given for why the FOI was refused?"

Yes, I think we should be told!

Posted 12 years ago #
wangi
Member

As to why my FOI request was refused, you can see all the correspondence at

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/edinburgh_core_paths_gis_data

And my appeal (which has been validated and is in progress) at

http://leekindness.com/edinburgh_core_paths_gis_data-appeal.txt

Posted 12 years ago #
riffian
Member

I went along to the well attended Portobello community council meeting and heard the council plans for signage and possible minor alterations to improve safety for cyclists and peds.

Two council bods gave a presentation on removing the no cycling signs and replacing with shared use signs. The usual blue ones with images of a bike and peds you see on shared use paths. They plan to make a subtle change so the ped is above the cycle. They also plan to put larger 'Promenade conduct' type signs telling cyclists to use their bell, slow down around peds that kind of thing. Also request peds to behave responsibly. They are also looking at making possible alterations to entrances to the prom particularly in spots with blind corners. Eg dropping kerbs in the centre to encourage cyclists to enter from the middle of the road rather than close to wall. Also possibly barriers to force the same.Overall it seemed measured and reasonable.

The debate was interesting with a significant minority being clearly very anti-cycliing - believing cylcing on the prom should be prohibited. Thats a dead duck so they focused on the alleged problem of 'high speed cyclists' and the clearly bonkers suggestion of speed limits for cyclists or speed bumps, cyclists dismount signs at certain points and such like. Another contributor wanted inappropriate cycling labelled anti-social behaviour - although where that leads...ASBO anyone?

Good points were made that speed on the prom is all dependent on circumstances and it is up to individual cyclists to cycle considerately.
Ian Maxwell's contribution was measured about promoting responsible behaviour among cyclists.

Overall I was a bit disappointed that the debate focus was on cyclist=problem or danger rather than a potential solution to the motorised gridlock we see on the High Street and the rest of Edinburgh on a daily basis.

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

They are also looking at making possible alterations to entrances to the prom particularly in spots with blind corners. Eg dropping kerbs in the centre to encourage cyclists to enter from the middle of the road rather than close to wall.

This would be very welcome. I'm on the Prom just about every week, and easier access from side roads would reduce the likelihood of (low speed) collisions at corners.

Overall I was a bit disappointed that the debate focus was on cyclist=problem or danger rather than a potential solution to the motorised gridlock we see on the High Street and the rest of Edinburgh on a daily basis.

One wonders if the 'significant minority' of anti-cycling folk are responsible for some of that gridlock? There is a certain type of driver with a hatred of cyclists, as we all know...

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

"“Core paths” can be rights of way, signposted paths, cycle-ways, pavements on roads or any other routes that provide the public with access to places you want to go."

http://www.edinburghoutlook.co.uk/2007-03/environment/1369.aspx

(2007)

Posted 12 years ago #
wingpig
Member

Presumably coincidentally, there appears to have been a large amount of high-quality resurfacing work on the ruttier bits of Portobello High Street in the past couple of weeks. It looks like it'll all be finished by the time they get round to adjusting the prom-signage at the start of next year.

Posted 12 years ago #
chdot
Admin

Latest -

"
Finalised versions of the replacement signs are due to be presented to the Community Council at the end of this month. The signs should then beput up within 1-2 months and the old ones taken down at the same time.

So hopefully by April/May time.

"

Posted 12 years ago #
kaputnik
Moderator

I think council commitees should be the SI calibration point for absolute zero of speed for decision making.

Posted 12 years ago #
Dave
Member

They haven't done too badly, it's only nine years since cycling on the prom was legalised by the LRA... and there are several signs to change!

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"The legal position is that careful cycling is allowed on Portobello Promenade (as part of the Core Path Network) and the signage should reflect that. The current ‘no cycling’ signs will come down and will be replaced by new signs, which give the clear message that pedestrians are more important than cyclists in this space and have the right-of-way at all times. This is to be discussed at Portobello Community Council and the intention is to have these new signs up during March. We will need an ongoing awareness-raising campaign, because signage alone is unlikely to be the final solution to prevent some conflict and unease on our local Promenade"

(latest update from Maureen Child)

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

I wish it said 'have priority' or 'are more vulnerable' rather than pedestrians being 'more important' than cyclists.

Posted 12 years ago #
Dave
Member

Yes, it seems custom made to create strife for those so inclined who want a handy bludgeon (for instance, can someone walking their dog now let the extending lead out for 30 feet on a dark winter's morning because they are 'more important'?)

Of course, short of a bylaw signs saying peds and dismounted cyclists are 'more important' than mounted ones won't have any bearing on the legal situation, but as that hasn't bothered anyone for the last nine years, I guess we should wait until the 20's before bringing it up again ;-)

Posted 12 years ago #
Morningsider
Member

This is just silly - I imagine the signs will be standard shared use, i.e. blue circles showing white pedestrian and bike.

I do quite like the notion of becoming more important simply by getting off my bike. Do you become even more important when you sit down? Could I become a member of the House of Lords simply by lying down?

Posted 12 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

"On second thoughts, let's not go to ~~Camelot~~ Portobello, it is a very silly place"

Posted 12 years ago #
Dave
Member

I almost needed a new keyboard after that... do not drink coffee and read CCE lightly :D

Posted 12 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

tooo funny even for chocolate biscuits. thanks guys.

Posted 12 years ago #
LaidBack
Member

which give the clear message that pedestrians are more important than cyclists in this space and have the right-of-way at all times.

Even in an emergency?

Good ; - ).... this is very much in keeping with people exercising their dogs who are upset by people exercising their bikes and not staying in a single file.

As I use an invisible bike I feel that none of this will be relevant. I expect full support from the Beach House in recognition of LB's latte buying power.

Posted 12 years ago #
gembo
Member

If the two signs end up being the shared usage blue ones then that will give the message that people on foot(and their dogs, if they have any) should get along equally with people on bicycles and vice versa ...in this space.

They will need to get different signs of their own if they want to give the impression that people on foot are more important than cyclists ...in this space.

none of this features in the Matt McGinn song about Porty but it is so old it has a verse about the pier. Will seek link

Posted 12 years ago #
wingpig
Member

It's probably just carefully-selected wording to keep people like that pretend-QC-bloke who accosted RTC happy, unless they really mean in which in case perhaps pedestrians wishing to use the prom will be issued with badges resembling the BMW logo to make it clear to cyclists that they should stay well away.

Posted 12 years ago #
crowriver
Member

The pedestrians become even more important when they get into cars and drive...

Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 3 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Council presentation regarding cycling on Portobello prom.

Reply »

RSS Feeds

Links