@Dave, someone whizzing up behind you when you dont expect it is not rude. Making cyclists the pedestrians problem is exactly what we complain about when it comes to cars overtaking cyclists
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Aqueduct etiquette
(253 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
"@Dave, someone whizzing up behind you when you dont expect it is not rude. Making cyclists the pedestrians problem is exactly what we complain about when it comes to cars overtaking cyclists"
You're attacking a position I'm not taking.
The point I was making was that the riding of the bike, versus dismounting, is not really relevant as it's quite possible for someone to dismount and be rude or in a hurry, or even to be rude or in a hurry without a bike at all.
The car example is erroneous because in that case, drivers actually do overtake dangerously. If they merely drove up behind you and asked if you would move out of the way for them, I think we'd have a lot more cyclists on the road! (but still complaining about the rudeness of car drivers who want to get past, of course...)
Posted 12 years ago # -
Just reflecting on the conflict zones twixt people on bikes and those on foot.
If we have this level of problem now, what's it going to be like when 15% of all journeys are by bike? ;-)
I found another good conflict zone today. Doesn't have a water feature but forces cyclists against each other and pedestrians at several 180 degree corners. I refer to the newish 'zig-zag' ramps and steps across Approach Road near Grove St.
Designed with the expectation that no-one would use it I think? The problem is that with Haymarket works people are and it's not up to the job.Posted 12 years ago # -
Surely the zig-zag ramps are only for cyclists going "uphill" :-)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I refer to the newish 'zig-zag' ramps and steps across Approach Road near Grove St."
Makes the Telfer tunnel route look good, and that's saying something.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I tried to get up these one day last winter on foot - had been out to register baby's birth and the 22 that I was on declared there were no more stops from there until Murrayfield because of ice. So tried to walk up to Slateford carrying week old baby. Nearly impossible as covered in ice. and the pavements on slateford side were near impassible under about a foot of water and slush - but just had to walk through it nonetheless. Scary and traumatic - the most annoying thing being that it could have been avoided if I'd just taken a different bus / if driver of 22 had announced the lack of stops!
Sorry. nothing to do with cycling. Just a rant.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I've used the Marble Zigzag a few times in recent weeks, not because it's any good, but just because it makes a change from the Telfer Subway. It's tough enough on a small-wheeled bike and practically impossible on even the shortest of recumbents. I might take the monstrousbike there, just to photograph the ridiculosity of the infrastructure. Suppose I was a foreign tourist laden down with panniers and dutifully following a map? I'd probably carry my bike up the steps instead.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"Marble Zigzag"
New thread please.
Posted 12 years ago # -
The signs on the aqueduct have changed. They've been simplified, they are bright blue rather than black and now say something like 'CYCLISTS dismount and walk across the aqueduct'. They are less of a request and more of an order than they used to be. They still aren't standard 'No Cycling' signs though.
Do they have any legal force, I wonder? Under the Outdoor Access legislation I can cycle responsibly on towpaths. The Scottish Canals website has some frankly unreasonable statements about dismounting at all bridges, but their towpaths leaflet is more sensible and doesn't require it. I can't find the official bye-laws online.
I ask because I'm considering my response the next time I've stopped to give way to an oncoming pedestrian and they say 'you should dismount' (particularly if that pedestrian is a Police officer, as they sometimes are). I'm trying to frame a polite way of saying "There is no reason in law why I shouldn't cycle here. I've stopped for you. The only reason I've held you up is because you've stopped to tell me how I shouldn't be sitting on my bike. Oh yes, and there'd be less room for you if I was standing beside it rather than sitting on it."
Oh yes, and while I'm on the subject of the aqueduct, I heard this week that the person responsible for this incident has been identified and charged with assault. A report has been sent to the Procurator Fiscal.
Posted 10 years ago # -
That's good news!
Posted 10 years ago # -
Isn't the aqueduct private property that the owners have allowed access to, rather than public highway?
In which case I believe they can make any rules that they see fit
Posted 10 years ago # -
@EddieD. Yes, that's exactly my point, and I don't know the answer. Some people can make rules that I can ignore For example, if you owned a large tract of Sutherland and put up a 'Cyclists Dismount' sign on one of your forest tracks, I'd ignore it because the Land Reform legislation lets me exercise my right of responsible access to your estate on a bicycle and you have no specific right to overrule it. I can't, however, insist on access to railway or MOD land, where trespassers really can be prosecuted.
So the question is, do the canal bye-laws (if they indeed exist) mean that it is actually illegal to cycle across the aqueduct? Can I be prosecuted for it?
There's no doubt in my mind that if there was an incident where I was cycling across, it's pretty clear that everything says I shouldn't so if I hurt myself or someone else while doing it, that would be taken into account in any subsequent attribution of blame. However I think that's like the Highway Code saying I "shouldn't" cycle across, rather than I "mustn't"
Posted 10 years ago # -
My reading of the aqueduct dismount signs, in old or new font is that if you fall in we told you so.
Pushing of course can be problematic in Mexican stand off scenarios
Only once have I felt someone was going too fast and sadly that chap fell in
Some people more scared than others as they cross
When windy often best to obey the signage
None of this helps I am afraid if you want to know if you are breaking the law or not.
I have been pulled up by bare torso'd buckfast drinker who pointed out the signage but I had a jolly chat with him whilst securing my sight lines for exit
Intersetingly, well, I say Intersetingly but you know what I mean, on the by pass Scott Russell aqueduct that is designed for cycling across without dismount signs I saw someone on the other side. Chap I know actually, he had somehow got down from the farm track and indeed there is a path across I had never noticed before, his exit looked like was going to be through a set of offices. Still no kingfishers.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I got off and pushed over the aqueduct today, which seemed the right thing to do even had the signs not been there (several peds crossing, a couple of joggers, lightly moistened cobbles looking a wee bit greasy).
My belief in karma was therefore dealt a cruel blow when, within 25 yards of remounting, I rode over a deceptively blunt piece of plastic which speared my rear tyre and inner tube, prompting me to spend 10 minutes fixing said inconvenience.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@PS Was it perchance about 3cm long, orangey/red bit of plastic?
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Snowy No, 3cm and black. Rectangular, but with one end snapped which gave it a slightly sharper end.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Greenroofer - of course you can't. But cycling across when we've been politely requested to dismount and push, which is not really much of an inconvenience, does tend to prove the assertions of the commentards on the EEN that cyclists are pushy arrogant and consider that they have the right to do as they see fit, doesn't it?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Possibly, but some of the same group see speed limits as something they shouldn't be bothered with, so it probably evens out in the end.
For the record, I cycle across if the aqueduct is quiet, a course of action I almost came to regret very much when caught by a very strong gust of a northerly gale.
Posted 10 years ago # -
The aqueduct crossing always puts me in mind of one of my favourite images - Paul Klee's “Two Men Meet Each Believing the Other to Be of Higher Rank”;
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Begruessung.jpg
You could re-imagine it as 'Two Bicyclists Meet, Each Believing The Other To Have A Less Expensive Front Light".
Posted 10 years ago # -
Greenroofer - I can't find anything definitive on this as the law relating to canals is pretty convoluted, some of it is wonderfully archaic and other parts impossible to track down. However, here is my own (possibly unreliable) interpretation:
British Waterways (Scottish Canals - "SC") own the tow paths.
SC can make bye laws regulating access to the canals and tow paths.
Section 30 of the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 requires all access related bye laws to be consistent with the access rights it grants - the canal bye laws are therefore irrellevant here.
Land reform access rights only exist where they are exercised responsibly.
SC has taken a judgement call that cycling over the aqueduct does not constitute responsible use of access rights and put up signs accordingly (along with trying to ensure they aren't sued for not warning people of a possible danger). Ultimately, this decision could be challenged in the courts. Doubtful it would be successful myself - SC haven't prevented access as you can push across and many "reasonable people" would consider cycling across to be irresponsible.I can't ever imagine anyone being prosecuted for simply cycling over the aqueduct, it just wouldn't be in the public interest to do so - there would have to be some other factor involved.
Happy to be corrected if anyone thinks I'm wrong.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@ M
"Happy to be corrected if anyone thinks I'm wrong."
Looks like a balanced assessment.
Though -
"and many "reasonable people" would consider cycling across to be irresponsible."
Could also be ""and many "reasonable people" would consider cycling across to be responsible - if done with the care required by access legislation"
The notices just reinforce the former view. Wording is crucial.
That is currently on the Powderhall bridge which is being resurface and might be slippy.
Posted 10 years ago # -
chdot - agree that it could go either way. My gut feeling (based on nothing other than a personal view of anti-cyclist feeling among sections of the judiciary) would be for no-cycling.
I should have said above that, if cycling across the aqueduct does not constitute responsible access (meaning that the land reform access rights do not apply) then any penalties in the canal bye laws for unauthorised access could apply. I just can't ever see them being enforced.
Posted 10 years ago # -
A high percentage of the people I pass on the aqueduct are riding across. I'm not sure that this would really help either case.
On the one hand you've got the "it's no defence for speeding that the average speed on the M74 is over 70mph" argument.
On the other you've got the endless acquittals of drivers who take lives because a jury considers that notwithstanding the accepted facts include running someone over, that doesn't fall below the standard expected of a driver in today's society.
In practice since it would surely only involve the judiciary, I think things would look pretty black for someone who argues that it's responsible to cycle over, just because 80% (or whatever) of other cyclists do it.
Posted 10 years ago # -
By enjoyable coincidence, someone went for a swim today in the aqueduct (I actually clicked on this topic to see if it contained an eyewitness account).
A huge number of people cycling over in both directions quickly built up, and it took some time for them to ride past each other after the excitement was over. I have to admit, it's a little disappointing that it didn't make Forth One travel.
Posted 10 years ago # -
"A huge number of people cycling over in both directions"
How did the etiquette work?
We're there many pedestrians too?
Posted 10 years ago # -
Last summer I did think that there was a directional etiquette developing (westbound priority, so they don't have to pass an obstacle on their offside) but winter seems to have knocked that back.
Generally it seems to be that the less confident person grabs the railing and the more confident rides past (it's not exactly Glentress).
Swimmer etiquette was encouraging, a few people pitched in to fish said chap out and get him back on the bike, with universal, if appropriately restrained, merriment.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Went in by canal towpath and back by canal towpath today (I am poorly still). All civil at all times, save a couple of ding ding singers out of my way I am coming through this goddam bridge. But those cats could not dampen the lovely sunshine.
I always cede heading east as can lean on the railing and pull bike in. Heading west I will also cede if I am not over half way and the person coming east is over half way.
Any word on what caused the dip in the non-briny.?? Keep your head up above the surface if possible if this happens due to the rats' piss risk of weill's disease
Posted 10 years ago # -
Well, as if to underline and illustrate all of the above, on the way home tonight I had the pleasure of witnessing an aqueduct etiquette malfunction.
I was going west, and as I went onto the aqueduct came up behind a chap walking his wolf hound. No problem, I just slow to his pace. Coming the other way is a bicyclist in a charcoal grey tweed suit and a red striped tie. There is a stand-off. Both pedestrian and bicyclist wish to hug the railings.
What happens next? Of course! The bicyclist tries to force his way between the pedestrian and the railings. And how can the pedestrian respond other than by taking the bicyclist in a headlock and trying to throw him in the canal?
Oh yes, two men in their fifties having a sweaty grapple on a city byway. The air turns blue. Onlookers are dismayed and intrigued, as it's obvious that if one goes in both go in. Should we fish them out? Leave them to drown? The wolf hound - just as well - is oddly indifferent to the developing stramash.
I indicate to both men as best I can that they are clowns, and should either stop fighting or get in the water to let us past. They grapple some more and exchange pleasantries and the pedestrian, clearly more at home with fisticuffs then the bicyclist, eventually realises that there are too many witnesses for him to do what he clearly wants and is able to do. He releases the headlock and ambles off to find his dog. The bicyclist, polystyrene hat askew and suitably chastised, heads west. Slowly.
We cyclists roll our eyes and go our ways. "Tsk, kids these days..." Take heed people. Be nice out there.
Posted 10 years ago # -
So what should we search for on YouTube??
Posted 10 years ago # -
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
