So it doesn't mention turning right from, Frederic, Hannover, etc....
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Princes Street "Cyclist Dismount"
(154 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Sorry Chdot,
The posted text on page one is the whole document. It does seem a little sparse.
No need to email now.
Dave C
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm assuming the good Councillor has been given the wrong order by his officials, as I can't see how this would allow for the restrictions currently in place.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Perhaps so. In answer to my suggestion that this route be used as a safe super highway across town - avoiding George St, etc... his response was
"..... the safe working area required around this rail on the eastbound carriageway does not leave enough space which would allow two-way cycle flow and still provide an emergency/loading lane....."
Posted 13 years ago # -
Which completely ignores the fact that if there was an emergency vehicle a cyclist can dismount and quickly hop onto the pavement, which a loading/unloading wagon cannot do.
There seems an odd lack of joined up thinking here - cyclists going two way provide an obstruction to emergency vehicles; stationary trucks with hydraulic tailgate down and the driver inside a shop getting good signed for and helping unload boxes is not an obstruction to emergency vehicles.
Posted 13 years ago # -
From the photos it seems very hard to tell that there is a crossing point, and difficult/impossible for anyone (especially children/short people/wheelchair users) about to cross as a pedestrian to see or be seen through the barrier. Visirail or similar and/or a visibility splay would be better.
The sign "CYCLISTS DISMOUNT" in the photos seems wrong too. This sign to advise of the end or a break in a cycle lane/track or route should normally be white text on a blue background. So not only is it not compulsory, it might even be illegal?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Just being a pedant of a lawyer for a moment...
There's a difference between 'not legal' and 'illegal'. If the sign was 'illegal' it means the person who put it up could be prosecuted; if it's 'not legal' it simply means it has no legal force.
As it happens even when white writing on a blue background the signs are advisory. For crossing a junction while using a shared use path, for example, it's perfectly legal to cycle on the junction unless there's a traffic order, and I'd be stunned if every cyclepath had a TRO commanding cyclists to dismount at every junction, dropped kerb, crossing etc.
Posted 13 years ago # -
The people most responsible for such tram related things and city centre roads generally are -
City Centre and Leith Roads Manager - citycentreteam@edinburgh.gov.uk and
Tram traffic management - trams@edinburgh.gov.uk
I hope they learn from the shortcomings of the current set up.
DON'T FORGET this is all go to disappear soon and reappear after Hogmanay.
I wonder if there will be a better way for peds and cyclists to get from The Mound to Hanover Street.
I am still not clear if cycling is 'properly' legally banned from Princes Street and whether signage is legal/adequate.
But I do believe that places like Copenhagen - which probably is a World Class Cycling City - wouldn't consider shutting somewhere like P. St. without thinking 'what can we do to inconvenience peds/cyclists the least?' And THEN actually implementing some sensible measures...
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm also being a bit pedantic. There are regulations for which signs are allowed. A sign that doesn't comply with regulations could be both not legal (ie not enforceable) and illegal (eg an obstruction or hazard) and those responsible for putting it there could be breaking the law?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"could be both not legal (ie not enforceable) and illegal (eg an obstruction or hazard)"
That seems possible.
The questions remain -
Is there a TRO 'in force' which actually bans cycling 24 hours a day on road that allows delivery vehicles at certain times.
Is this enforceable without adequate signage?
Are the signs adequate - in various sense?
And above all -
WHY after years of questionable management (of the team project) and disastrous PR, does CEC consider that it's perfectly acceptable to inconvenience (and endanger) peds and cyclists??
Posted 13 years ago # -
The cyclists dismount sign is "legal" - in that it meets the requirements for temporary signs related to road works as set out in Regulation 53 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, as amended. This requires such signs to have white writing on a red background. Whether there is a TRO in force making it an offence to cycle along Princes St. still isn't clear (to me anyway - I'm fairly sure someone at the Council must know).
Posted 13 years ago # -
Does the sign and/or TRO require cyclists to leave the carriageway, or just dismount? Because if the latter, the obvious protest is to obey the sign and get off your bike (most effective if done around a council policymaker's visit, rather than poor bystanders).
Would the EEN be interested in covering a protest walk?
Posted 13 years ago # -
more pedantry - what about TSRGD 53(2)? "A temporary sign—
(a)which conveys to traffic any information, warning, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a description which can be conveyed by a sign shown in a diagram in Schedules 1 to 12 (whether on its own or in conjunction or in combination with another such sign) shall be of the size, colour and type shown in that diagram;"what is the offence that you would actually be charged with?
If there is an Order then maybe section 5 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984? "A person who contravenes a traffic regulation order, or who uses a vehicle, or causes or permits a vehicle to be used in contravention of a traffic regulation order, shall be guilty of an offence."For the Order to be valid "The authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the instument comes into force, the placing on or near each road to which the instrument relates of such traffic signs in such positions as the authority may consider requisite for the purposes of securing that adequate information as to the effect of the instrument is made available to persons using the road;"I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that this "ban" probably isn't legal.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Well the emergency services argument has been shown to be a nonsense. We now have cones connected with blue string all over Princes St.
These block all wheeled vehicles but beautifully guide the pedestrians through the gaps.Just beware if you do go down in the morning for the string just above wheel height.
Posted 13 years ago # -
hi there harareboy - my favourite city to cycle in is harare Further discussion here in a thread just on cycling in zim.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Now!
Free at last by chdot, on FlickrPosted 13 years ago # -
I assume those poles are for the christmas lights. Every piece of tramway related artists impressioneering I recall seeing portrays them as being wireless
Posted 13 years ago # -
Person on bike (middle) started cycling on road from Lothian Road end, then realised it was one way (for buses) against him so he hopped on the busy pavement.
This guy scooted.
I actually walked! (Well I was just going to meet someone on the corner.)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Frantically tried to decide how to get to waverley this morning. Debated whether to chance princes street, at last minute ended up going up johnston terrace.
Bike parking okay, but could use some signposting. first time I've left a bike...
Posted 13 years ago # -
Just received from CEC -
"
The police were asked about the status of the "cyclists dismount" sign
and they were of the opinion that it was advisory.However, it should be noted that unless otherwise signed, it is illegal
to cycle on the footway and that the attached TTRO prohibits all
vehicles (including cycles) accessing Princes Street from South
Charlotte Street. There are exemptions, which are noted in the attached
order.CEC have discussed the current status of Princes Street with Spokes and
it was agreed to monitor the current situation.Vehicles are allowed to access Princes Street to service the shops and
businesses, between the hours of 20:00 and 06:00 daily (this is covered
by the attached order).There are signs at the pedestrian crossings, telling them to look out
for vehicles. The crossings points are temporary, as they will be moved
to suit the site requirements.The current site on Princes Street will be removed by 24 November 2011
until early January 2012. During this time, the west bound lanes
(gardens side) will be used as a venue for the Christmas and New Year
activities. Access to Princes Street will still be restricted, so buses
and taxis will continue to be diverted via George Street."
TRO
"
THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL (EDINBURGH TRAM NETWORK) (TEMPORARY ROAD RESTRICTION AND TRAFFIC REGULATION) No. 2 ORDER 2008 - TEMP/08/86
THE CITY OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL HAVE MADE AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (A) OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984, AS AMENDED, THE EFFECT OF WHICH WILL BE THAT FOR A TEMPORARY PERIOD TO FACILITATE THE UTILITIES DIVERSIONS AND OTHER RELATED WORK REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE EDINBURGH TRAM NETWORK, THE USE OF THE ROADS SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE 1 ATTACHED SHALL BE PROHIBITED, RESTRICTED OR REGULATED FROM TIME TO TIME BY ONE OR MORE OF THE MEASURES SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE 2 ATTACHED, ALL AS SIGNED ON STREET AS AFFECTED BY THE WORKS . THE ORDER SHALL HAVE EFFECT FROM 7 APRIL 2008 AND SHALL BE REVOKED AFTER THE WORKS ARE COMPLETE. IT IS EXPECTED THAT THE WORKS WILL TAKE IN EXCESS OF 18 MONTHS TO COMPLETE.
DETAILS OF THE ALTERNATIVE ROUTES FROM TIME TO TIME AVAILABLE FOR THROUGH VEHICULAR TRAFFIC CAN BE VIEWED AT http://WWW.EDINBURGHTRAMS.COM ACCESS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES WILL BE MAINTAINED. PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND ACCESS WILL BE MAINTAINED.
ALASTAIR MACLEAN COUNCIL SOLICITOR, HIGH STREET EDINBURGH
SCHEDULE 1
LIST OF ROADS TO BE AFFECTED BY THE EDINBURGH TRAM NETWORK
PRINCES STREET EASTBOUND AT ITS JUNCTION WITH SOUTH CHARLOTTE STREET
SCHEDULE 2
MEASURES TO APPLY TO THE ROADS SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULE 1
1. INTRODUCTION OF PROHIBITION OF VEHICLES EXCEPT LOADING 20:00HRS TO 06:00HRS
SCHEDULE 3
EXCLUDED VEHICLES
1. VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ESSENTIAL ROAD MAINTENANCE WORKS
2. VEHICLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUSE COLLECTIONS
3. VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ESSENTIAL MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT VEHICLES AND INFRASTRUCTURE
NOTE
THE ROADS LISTED ABOVE WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE NECESSARY WORKS ON
SATURDAY 3 SEPTEMBER 2011 05:00 HRS TO TUESDAY 31 JULY 2012 23:59HRS
PLEASE CONTACT THE TRAMS FOR EDINBURGH HELPLINE FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON 0800 3283934
REF: PRINCES STREET EASTBOUND AT ITS JUNCTION WITH SOUTH CHARLOTTE STREET 030911 TO 310712"
Posted 13 years ago # -
Bike parking okay, but could use some signposting
Yep. Last time I was at Waverley I missed my train because the signage still pointed to the old location, not the location 350m away on the other side of the site.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Interesting. So it seems the TRO is specifically for turning left into Princes Street from Charlotte Square. Given a cyclist can get off, walk round the corner, and then remount, riding along Princes Street itself would actually be okay. It's that turn into Princes Street that is not allowed.
Could be that, for once, the council not thinking about bikes helps us here. All other vehicles will be effectively stopped by that order but bikes, because the rider can become a pedestrian, have a loophole...
Posted 13 years ago # -
I went down the main road into the station, following a taxi, turned left at the roundabout, but in front it is all partitions. Saw an official looking bloke and asked way to bike parking, and when he told me, added 'would be good if there were some signs'! he said there had been some, but it was now 6 months on....
Will see if there is somewhere to send feedback.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Also chimes with the usual use of "cyclists dismount" - i.e. get off for this obstruction, then remount.
Always a bit of a grey area as to where one should remount - they never remember to sign that...
Glad that we've got the definitive answer now!
Robert
Posted 13 years ago # -
Or to put it another way - it seems that cycling on Princes Street (when tram related disruption is in place) is completely legal!
I wonder if the recently added 'strings' to discourage pedestrians are 'bike related' or just to remind that there are still occasional vehicles?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Horse-and-carriage rides along Princes Street have been unveiled as part of a programme of events to draw crowds back to the city centre once tram works are removed from the street."
Posted 13 years ago # -
Beware horse pats
Posted 13 years ago # -
I think the poles are for cables for the trams and not merely for Christmas lights. As I understood it that it was not going to be feasible to have the cables on the gardens side going across the whole street. I might be wrong...and I am sure that someone who knows will let us know!!
Posted 13 years ago # -
Tram stop setts removed.
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
