CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Aqueduct etiquette

(253 posts)

No tags yet.


12…9

  1. gembo
    Member

    Last night and the night before I was pushing my 3 speed over the Longstone Aqueduct heading west. I let two bikes come past with the wind behind them. I operate on a principal that if the oncoming bike is over half way it has right of way and I let it pass. I push bike against railing and stand on the wall. If I am over half way and a bike comes on going in the other direction I feel I therefore have right of way.

    Sometimes there is a 50/50 too close to call e.g. if you both come on at the same time. Then it is usually who cracks first or indeed both parties stopping.

    I always give way to people on foot.

    Other etiquettes are available. E..g if on railing side (ie heading east) yu should always give way. Mixed etiquettes can lead to some minor unpleasantness.

    The sign says dismount, this is largely ignored.

    Does anyone else have a view [admittedly I have bored myself by this point in the post but in the spirit of our little community, go on, let me know]

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "Does anyone else have a view"

    I like the one down onto the WoL.

    I agree with your main etiquette (hard not to - unless you're the 'I'm more important than you" sort of person (with or without a bike).

    "if on railing side (ie heading east) yu should always give way."

    No sense in that as 'everyone' would have to know/agree. Whoever is there first having RoW makes more sense.

    HOWEVER, in practice , I tend to always stop and (staying on bike) lean against railings. Some people don't seem to like this as it means they have to be on the water side, but they could have stopped first.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. crowriver
    Member

    Only one etiquette required: get off and push!

    It's not a race, and going slow is better than going in the water.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. alibali
    Member

    "Only one etiquette required: get off and push!"

    Yup. That's the one.

    The aquaduct has steep sides and nowhere to climb out so falling in can be a bit more hazardous than elewhere on the canal.

    Fell in (L'gow Loch, not the canal) on my way to work last year on a narrow bit of path and it fair spoils your day (and laptop, mobile etc.). It's not worth the hassle.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. wingpig
    Member

    As I always dismount, thus widening myself, I always stand right up against the railing and pull my bike right in to let people past, unless someone rides up behind me without dinging or saying 'excuse me'.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. gembo
    Member

    I was pushing but the others were on bikes, tho I did cause one of them to get off and push. I have also done CHdots stay on bike and lean into railings and indeed a curious routine where I am on the bike but propelling myself along by using my foot on the wall, hard to describe but you would get it if you saw me.

    If two people are pushing one still has to get out of the way - I have seen some people hold there bike over the water to kindly let me through, I wouldn't do that myslef.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. Greenroofer
    Member

    I do the aqueduct twice a day. I do tend to ride across it during the morning/evening rush hour. At weekends I tend not to. I've always taken the view that people heading east should give way, because then you can pass on the same side as you would if it were a normal path. This seems to work most of the time. If everyone did it, it would avoid the 'after you', 'no, after you' problem that can sometimes happen.

    However:

    • I always give way if in doubt
    • I use the good sight line you get when heading west (where you can see the whole length of the aqueduct as you come round the corner) so that I can stop at the top of the steps to the WoL and let east-bound traffic through rather than pass it on the bridge
    • I always indicate that I'm going to give way to pedestrians. If they decide to give way to me, that's fine, but I don't try to pressure them out of the way.

    Every now and again someone will grumble about 'no cycling'. I think the important thing is that we all get along, that pedestrians aren't pressurised, and that nobody ends up in the canal.

    I often pass a of an evening chap riding across with a tagalong and small coxswean in tow. That seems quite courageous to me.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. Greenroofer
    Member

    ...and an additional thought. It's easy for those of us who aren't bothered by the considerable drop through rather shaky-looking railings, or the lesser (but still considerable) drop to the water to suggest these various ways of doing it. However I do regularly pass one person who is clearly not enjoying the crossing and insists on passing to a particular side to avoid the perceived hazard on the other. I can't remember if it's the water or the big drop they are worried about.

    It's something to bear in mind when negotiating with oncoming traffic on the aqueduct: they might actually be quite scared...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  9. ruggtomcat
    Member

    I always get off. I always give way unless beaten too it. I have yet to try it on the 'bent.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    "It's something to bear in mind when negotiating with oncoming traffic on the aqueduct: they might actually be quite scared..."

    Yes, It's one reason I stop and keep still, and stay as out of the way as possible.

    I'm not that great with heights, but the railings are high enough and (seem) secure enough for me not to worry about leaning in them and looking down.

    I did once take a group of children across and one of the adult helpers told me (afterwards) that he had vertigo. Would have chosen another route if I'd known. He got across OK though (stare straight ahead don't look down).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  11. Greenroofer
    Member

    ...and another thing. The signs at both ends are singularly useless. What does 'Please dismount' mean? Is it mandatory or optional?

    All it leads to is grumbling, where both parties have a valid case to say that the other party is in the wrong.

    If cycling isn't allowed, there should be a British Standard 'No Cycling' sign.

    While I'm at it, a colleague at work reckons there should be a liftable pontoon the length of the aqueduct to make it two-way. When a boat comes through they would crank a handle and fold it up out of the way.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  12. alibali
    Member

    a tagalong and small coxswean in tow. That seems quite courageous to me.

    And me. Unless the wean is a swimmer, the tangle of bike/tagalong/limbs/weeds could be tricky for someone out of their standing depth.

    I'm not happy with heights but console myself on the various canal aquaducts that the railing was designed to hold a Clydesdale and even now should be OK with me. Of course, I could be wrong but it works anyway.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  13. cb
    Member

    Went across on foot on Saturday with two fairly young kids in tow so there was a lot of hanging about, looking a the view etc. Quite a lot of cyclists passed whilst we were there, probably 15 - 20. i reckon about 80% pushed across.

    Higher percentage at the weekend? Leisure vs commuter traffic.

    I usually cycle across, although don't often go that way very often. Last time on the bike I was with my other half, and we walked - her preference.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  14. crowriver
    Member

    a tagalong and small coxswean in tow. That seems quite courageous to me.

    I've been across several times with tagalong and 6 year old. On foot, pushing, naturally. Giving way to pedestrians, who were almost universally civil.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    Posted 12 years ago #

  16. DaveC
    Member

    I always get off and push no matter which direction I'm going. wow Lionel Blair...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  17. Bhachgen
    Member

    I almost always stay on the bike, unless it's wet and windy, and as I'm usually eastbound, I stop and lean into the railings to let westbound traffic, peds included, pass me.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  18. Uberuce
    Member

    I lower my lance, bellow "God, and King Richard!" and charge as unto righteous thunder till the chill greased hand of cowardice grips their hearts and casts their shaméd coils from the path of my furious will.

    Well, when I'm on the destrier, that is. On my bike I hug the railings.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  19. Dave
    Member

    I always ride across and always lean on the railing to let people pass me (saves on any risk of falling in).

    It's quite tricky on a recumbent because of the stupidly bad cobbles, but I'm not sure walking over in slippery cleats would be much of an improvement.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  20. JAYT
    Member

    An aggressive cyclist came up behind me and demanded to pass last week. I asked him why I should delay to his benefit? If three or four people like him pass me, it will substantially delay my crossing.

    If they're cycling towards you, I risk injury if they get it wrong and catch part of my body with their bike.

    The signs are quite clear if you stop to read them, and are there for good reasons. A 1m cobbled towpath next to a sheer drop into 6ft of murky water with no easy exit is not a suitable place to cycle. Walking across delays your journey by about a minute.

    Get off and walk!

    The waterways people could help by putting up clear explicit signs. The police could help by having a word with idiots like the fella that ranted at me. Bike rage...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  21. Dave
    Member

    Yes, the world would be a more polite place if we could get the police to hunt down everyone who's rude.

    I'm guessing that compared with riding in 0.5m wide (or less!) cycle lanes next to 40mph+ streams of dozy motorists and left-turning HGV drivers.... is anyone really going to consider a 1m towpath above non-moving water "not a suitable place to cycle"?

    It might be an annoying or inconvenient place to cycle and that would still be good enough reason to avoid it.

    Just to play devil's advocate, naturally.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  22. SRD
    Moderator

    It is sad and frustrating some that people feel they have a RIGHT to get through anywhere and everywhere, and concomitantly, the right to be rude and/or aggressive if you somehow appear to block this 'right' (privilege).

    Posted 12 years ago #

  23. cb
    Member

    What we need is a towpath width lifting bridge at either end giving access to the opposite towpath forming a nice one way system.

    Maybe there are some projected shipping traffic figures somewhere that would make this impractal in the long term, but as it stands there isn't that much water based traffic down there, is there?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  24. DaveC
    Member

    A floating pontoon would be fine, which can be disconnected at one side and open for canal boat traffic as a bridge.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  25. cb
    Member

    Boats need the full width I think.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  26. druidh
    Member

    The signs ask for no cycling and I'm happy to oblige. I can't recall going over it in such a hurry that it would materially affect my arrival time.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  27. gembo
    Member

    @ JAYT An aggressive cyclist came up behind me and demanded to pass last week.

    that is plain daft. The signs are clear that cyclists should dismount. The route is shared by pedestrians. The negotiation is between people going in opposite directions. If all going the same way then go at the speed of the slowest person crossing. THe other aqueducts on the canal all have cobbles further apart and which stand proud making dismounting more likely as falling in if you keep cycling more likely.

    Maybe they should put some speed bumps on it.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  28. Dave
    Member

    Of course, even if they dismounted they might well ask to pass, and that could be just as annoying / rude / dangerous / [other choices of feeling are available].

    As usual, it comes down to the person and not the mode of transport. Is someone who speeds, uses their mobile and chances lights in their car likely to get on their bike and be a paragon of virtue? Obviously not.

    In just the same way, I suspect that many people (present company excepted) get their knickers in a twist over cyclists' technical violation - "he should have dismounted" when what they really ought to be complaining about is something like "he was impatient", or rude.

    Now that they're removing the erroneous "no cycling" signs from the Jawbone walk, it will be interesting to see whether percieved conflict decreases, simply because it removes the automatic objection (they were a cyclist) and forces a complaint based on some actual fact (they were rude) which we can then see is not in any way unique to cyclists. Loads of people are rude.

    etc.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  29. gembo
    Member

    I was once accosted by a gentleman naked from the waist up carrying a bottle of buckfast [wrapped in brown paper] who asked me why I had ignored the sign/ British Waterways "law'. I replied - "because it is unenforceable" - he seemed to find that an acceptable reply, well he did not chuck the bottle at me.

    I suppose if you go too fast you fall in?

    We discussed a while back that using different bikes from our collections led to different cycling styles?

    One person's rude is another person "just in a hurry". BUt there is surely consensus that the guy behind JAYT who wanted JAYT to pull over to let him past was freebasing cocaine. no?

    Posted 12 years ago #

  30. mgj
    Member

    When Clarkson wants to go fast, cyclists ask why he cannot wait a few seconds to safely overtake; I see some double standards being applied in this thread

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12…9

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin