CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
"
east_team:
The Council's approach to the management of public parks will change in 2013. Have your say here: http://t.co/JzmXx0ya
Original Tweet: http://twitter.com/east_team/status/126319537774792704
"
"The City of Edinburgh Council is revising its Parks Management Rules to take account of new legislation, in line with the Scottish Outdoor Access Code."
And they're planning to privatise Environmental Services.
From the new rules:
"The following acts are prohibited
7.1 Cycling at speeds or in a manner likely to endanger other park users.
7.2 Cycling off the paths in woodland and other areas sensitive to environmental damage."
Fair enough. Responsible cycling now officially allowed in all parks!
"The following acts are prohibited unless the Council’s permission has been obtained first
8.1 Driving or using or leaving any car, motorbike, quad bike, mini moto, or other vehicle, or parking a caravan, except on roads and in car parks provided by the Council for cars and vehicles, unless the council’s permission has been obtained first. This rule does not apply to prams and wheelchairs used for carrying children or people with a disability."
No driving without written permission. Also fair enough.
7.2 would need to be tested in court.
I would be all in favour of banning cars from public parks altogether except for parkies. Inch park is now truly a nightmare on Saturdays for all the cars parked outside the new (but as yet unopened) rugby pavillion, and they are not only parking in the parking bays (which when I realised what they were was genuinely disappointed), but on the grass, the verges, and when next to the football pitch actually almost on the touchlines. There is perfectly adequate provision albeit in Sainsbury's car park over the wall, but that would entail a walk and actually getting out of the car, not having the engine running to keep the heater on!! Poor loves.
@Liz: I agree. Still time to put your views across in the consultation: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/WC52TVF
@crowriver - thanks for the link. Submitted my tuppence ha'penny worth.
Interesting. There's quite a lot of dodgy stuff in there. Setting aside the cycling, which is comparatively quite reasonable, you have:
- It is an offence to "annoy" a council official. This is a weasel word - lots of things annoy me (dog walkers and children) without it being sensible to criminalise them.
- Behaviour which causes (or in someone's opinion *might* cause) annoyance to anyone. Again, fining dog walkers and children, as they annoy me?
- "any commercial activity whatsoever (including,
without limitation, dog walking services, photography, filming and fitness training".
WTF? I thought I paid my council tax to maintain parks so that people could enjoy them, and being able to have someone walk your dog (or shout at you to make you run faster) is surely that, although I have no intention to do either. Is the council so hard-pressed that it's going to start offering dog walking or exercise services and doesn't want any competition?
- "Operating any motorised or mechanically propelled toy or model vehicle... so as to ... give annoyance". Again, anyone can be annoyed by anything. What a useless definition!
- "Cycling at speeds or in a manner likely to endanger other park users."
This is sloppy again. What's the definition of "likely to endanger"? The presence of any bike regardless of speed causes a danger to others that wasn't there before.
- "Cycling off the paths in woodland and other areas sensitive to environmental damage."
Cunning wording. Rather than "causing environmental damage" it's all woodland and anywhere else "sensitive" to damage. Is that everything but tarmac then?
I'm not sure how this works out WRT the Land Reform Act. Can the council ban activities that were made legal under the Act just by passing some local rules?
I thought I paid my council tax to maintain parks so that people could enjoy them
They are not the public's parks. They are the cooncil's parks.
Or so it would seem.
Cooncil seem to have lost the plot a bit with who they actually are meant to maintain the parks for. (And correct me if I'm wrong, but in a number of cases the cooncil don't even "own" the parks, as they are gifted to the citizens of Edinburgh themselves)
Yes, the 'annoy' a council official is slightly odd.
My particular favourite line is early on however - my emphasis.
"Any person who appears to be breaking, has broken or is about to break any of the following rules may be asked by a Council Official to leave the Park."
The Council finally rolls out its precog department! Minority Report is upon us!
"...about to break..."
Write "British Military Fitness" on a spare T-shirt then go and stand under a tree next to a pile of water bottles to see if it triggers their incipient-commercial-activity warning systems.
Ooh, annoying remote control toys are banned! I'll be heading to Inverleith Park where people regular annoy the wildlife on the pond there with their whiney-engined contraptions.
The British Military Fitness thing is a good idea...
Before you all get carried away with the apparent pettiness of these rules, I seem to recall the Council's strategy is not to enforce the rules unless there are clear and persistent breaches... They are relying on signage otherwise.
Which in practice I suspect means that if a parky catches you breaking the rules, or a member of the public reports you, then the rules will be enforced.
I get the impression that if you're in the park and there's nobody around to be annoyed, the wardens won't do anything, but if 53 people complain your kite has landed on their heads, you'll be in trouble. I use that example as my kite did once actually clonk someone on the head on the Crags.
And bear in mind that if the management of parks and gardens is privatised, you'll probably be dealing with parkies employed by Crapita or Barclays or McDonalds or somewhere. What price democratic accountability?
I'll be heading to Inverleith Park where people regular annoy the wildlife on the pond there with their whiney-engined contraptions
Inverleith Park pond is an interesting case, as I think the pond was originally built as and is designated for primary use as a boating pond. Of course I think the Victorians had things powered by wind or pulled along on bits of string in mind over the Li-on powered high speed whining speed boats of the modern day "enthusiast" in mind.
There was a bit of a ruckus in the Chipwrapper a few years back when the rights of the model boaters clashed with those of the swan fanciers when the population of the latter began to increase quite dramatically and the water quality became critical.
"- "any commercial activity whatsoever (including,
without limitation, dog walking services, photography, filming and fitness training".
WTF? I thought I paid my council tax to maintain parks so that people could enjoy them, and being able to have someone walk your dog (or shout at you to make you run faster) is surely that, although I have no intention to do either. Is the council so hard-pressed that it's going to start offering dog walking or exercise services and doesn't want any competition?"
I know one council down south introduced licensing for commercial use of parks.
CEC is probably looking to do the same
The Land Reform Act has a similar clause regarding undertaking paid work on"open access" land.
Enjoying them isn't the same as making a business out of them. But I think those types of activities are given as exemplars so that any type of commercial activity that could be carried out, that no one's thought of yet, can be considered within the scope of the current regulations. It doesn't mean anyone is going to do anything if, say, a dog walker walks their clients' dog. It just means they could. Imagine the dog walker with, I don't know, 20 dobermans, walking them through Inverleith Park. You want to be able to stop them but you only can easily do that if you can also stop the walker with 2 dogs.
Let's imagine it the other way and nothing is forbidden. I could just drive up with truck containing 18 horses and exercise them in a public park. And who is going to stop me? I pay Council Tax too.
I do like to see the outdoor yoga classes [that was in Bedford Park in Bedford right enough]
what happened to those photographers with the monkey - you don't see them anymore
Saughton Park next to skatepark has all been dug up, all swings etc gone. They have kept the Helter Skelter and it looks like landscaping underway
"Let's imagine it the other way and nothing is forbidden. I could just drive up with truck containing 18 horses and exercise them in a public park. And who is going to stop me? I pay Council Tax too."
Assuming there's a right of access on horseback, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Common land is just that - for everyone.
What I suspect is that certain people in power (or with Influence) would rather that the Land Reform Act never happened, and things like this are cunning ways of chipping around and undermining it.
I complained formally in the consultation that the rules went beyond "people should follow the outdoor access code", i.e. that primary legislation is being eroded by nimbyism.
It won't make any difference though.
"It won't make any difference though."
The changes or the complaining!?
I presume those behind it see it as 'tidying up'/clarification.
In the days of Edinburgh Corporation all such things were dealt with by Byelaws, which (I think) were all(?) removed by the reorganisation of local government in 1975.
These included things like it being 'unlawful to expose wounds' - as in war wounded beggars (might have been post Crimea).
Also parks used to have nice painted signs saying something like - "No Cycling except under 12 years old".
Whether Park Keepers (if they still existed) will be asking joggers if they are involved in commercial activity remains to be seen.
If it actually stops people with unmanageable numbers of dogs I won't be complaining!
As we have seen with things like Porty Prom, there are always difficulties with laws that appear to conflict.
Whether all this will make any difference to un/reasonable mountain bike use (for instance) on Corstorphine Hill or around The Hermitage (for instance) remains to be seen.
In terms of Access Legislation it all comes down to interpretation (and enforcement) of "reasonable".
In terms of Access Legislation it all comes down to interpretation (and enforcement) of "reasonable".
No different from other legislative branches then! What is "reasonable" use of force? "Reasonable" speeding? "Reasonable" behaviour by an employer? Etc. ad infinitum.
Other laws are available -
"
PLANS to erect a statue in Leith Links to honour one of the architects of modern golf may have hit the rough – because it would breach an act of Parliament.
"
"I'll be heading to Inverleith Park where people regular annoy the wildlife on the pond there with their whiney-engined contraptions"
"
@north_team North Team
Please keep dogs away from drained pond in Inverleith Park whilst work being carried out, to protect the wildlife!
https://twitter.com/north_team/status/129514827612827648
"
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts