http://edinburgheye.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/cyclists-get-killed/
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
"Why I don’t cycle in Edinburgh"
(45 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Think the whole of the UK has something to learn about bikes.
cambridge local ragPosted 13 years ago # -
Well I cycled in Edinburgh today and the only problem was the blinkin' flip runners in Holyrood Park.
I suspect I could have done a right turn from north bound Southbridge St into east bound Cowgate but I was past the no right turn sign before I noticed the "Except…" under it. I'll check that next time.
Dropped brother inlaw, wife and weans off in Chambers St, parked car near Willowbrae. Brompton went to the left luggage in the NMS
Saw a Carryfreedom with some joinery on it near Meadowbank. I was on a black, beatup M type Brompton with a Carryfreedom tow bar and Schmidt Edelux or a bronze Volvo 940 waggon.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Was on Leith Walk on the single speed today, found it a bit hairy: heavy traffic and white vans overtaking aggressively. That and huge, crater like potholes in the bus lanes, not nice for skinny tyres.
I think I'm more nervous in traffic on drop handlebar bikes, I've got used to a nice upright posture where I can see everything and look over my shoulder more easily. Maybe I need a shorter stem for the single speed...
Posted 13 years ago # -
Interesting that two deaths in two (calendar) years can pt someone off cycling. A quick Google showed 4 pedestrian deaths in 2011 - I'm sure there were more, but I presume he hasn't locked himself away from walking places? It's down to this 'perception' thing again, which I guess comes from us 'sharing' the roads with cars and buses and lorries (and his own direct experience with a bus); whereas people only think of pedestrians on the pavement and cars never come on the pavement to run them down.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Interesting that two deaths in two (calendar) years can pt someone off cycling. "
It didn't and it is a she. And there were two deaths last year alone. What put her off was being nearly killed by a bus. I have had almost exactly the same thing happen to me at a junction and it was very frightening. Most people probably don't need too many near death experiences to put them off cycling for life.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Bizarre. Typo on the 'he' then made me write 'himself' instead. On the bus experience being what made her give up...
"I didn’t quit bicycling immediately. But that moment has never gone away from me. That bus driver would have killed me, and no doubt felt very sorry afterwards. But I’d still be dead"
Contributing factor perhaps.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Sorry if I am coming across grumpy but if you read the whole thing it was definately that which stopped her.
"There was something else that stopped me.
I was cycling down Gilmore Place, towards the traffic lights where Home Street and Leven Street meet. "
Bus experience described etc.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Grumpy? You? Never!
I still think there's a perception issue - though that issue is magnified if your personal experiences back it up. I'm not saying I don't understand it; nor that I know how to tackle it. But in 'cold logic' (Jim) while it seems dangerous through reports of deaths or personal driver-was-a-nonce experience, it's not really.
Though there are days I doubt that myself.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"I still think there's a perception issue - though that issue is magnified if your personal experiences back it up. I'm not saying I don't understand it; nor that I know how to tackle it. But in 'cold logic' (Jim) while it seems dangerous through reports of deaths or personal driver-was-a-nonce experience, it's not really.
Though there are days I doubt that myself. "
Well you are answering your own point. It doesn't matter that she wasn't killed by the bus. It matters that she had a narrow escape.
While I don't like crossing certain roads because of the aggressiveness (and non-indicator usage) of some drivers I have never (or very rarely) felt scared and intimidated in the way I often do whilst cycling. I have never had to have days or weeks off walking because I have been scared by a walking experience. It doesn't matter that I haven't been killed yet it is still frightening. Most people prefer the sort of scares they can get in the cinema or the amusement park, you know ,the ones that can't actually kill you (or are extremely unlikely to).
It is no good telling them to just man up as it is only their perception. Nobody wants to feel their actual life is at risk. It is not the way to get people on bikes, it just isn't going to happen. You already understand this which is what I dont understand!
Posted 13 years ago # -
You'd think no one got hurt in Cambridge but a quick Google puts that right.
I can't imagine that Edinburgh is any worse that anywhere else so I can't see that there's much to be taken from someone's reaction to a bad experience. I'm sure it was scary. I've been spooked off my bike by near misses. But, err, so what?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Err, that is why there are so many people who do not cycle?
Posted 13 years ago # -
Most people don't cycle but not because they have actually had a scare. Most people don't cycle because they are afraid of ghosts. They are afraid of the idea of cycling.
I don't blame her but I think it's the wrong reaction to let something be taken from you.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"They are afraid of the idea of cycling."
And they have good reason to be. It can be very scary. Pretending it isn't will not help them get on their bikes and, crucially, stay on as they would pretty soon find out.
"I don't blame her but I think it's the wrong reaction to let something be taken from you. "
Well I won't be bullied off my bike but it is not always easy to keep going and I am mad keen on bikes and cycling. I can imagine that plenty of other people would simply stop cycling.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I don't pretend it's not. In fact I was arguing just the other day that it would be wrong to pretend that cycling is easy and safe. It's not, it's difficult and potentially dangerous.
She's entitled to stop but writing it up and putting on the internet takes it another step. Although she titles it "Why I don't cycle in Edinburgh" what she says is "why it's madness to cycle in Edinburgh (unlike Cambridge, which is ever so safe)". If she'd written a blog that described how she'd got scared but got back on her horse, I'd have congratulated her. If she wrote one that outlined how Edinburgh needs to change to make cycling safe, I'd be supporting her. But I can't support something that says "I got off my bike and so should you".
Posted 13 years ago # -
"If she wrote one that outlined how Edinburgh needs to change to make cycling safe, I'd be supporting her. But I can't support something that says "I got off my bike and so should you"."
It doesn't say that. The upcoming demo about funding for active transport is mentioned and also how a local councillor will be looking at possible road safety measures on Lanark Road. She clearly supports changes to make cycling safer in Edinburgh.
I have never cycled in Cambridge so if she feels safe cycling there then who am I to contradict her? People are killed in the Netherlands also but it is supposedly the safest place in the world to cycle and people feel safe there.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I read the piece It is quite long and I skimmed a little. It is totally a personal account. From the narrative the writer learned to cycle in Cambridge as a girl. She then went to Gillespies School and from her perspective boys bullied her by breaking her bike because she was a girl but her mum had a word with the school and she was allowed to lock her bike up inside. She continued cycling and felt she would certainly have been killed by a bus if she hadn't dismounted and jumped clear onto the pavement.
From memory of the piece she also didn't give up straight away just after a while.
It is her explanation of why she gave up cycling in Edinburgh - I confess I don't know if she goes on to say she cycles elsewhere? Or that she is trying to persuade others to stop [I maybe filtered that out]
Anyway, it is a free country and opinions can be expressed.
I am saddened by the death of the man from Balerno where i also stay [i didn't know him] but I will continue to cycle because I love it. Clearly, it is not without risk but I am willing to take the risk and the family of the man who died are now campaigning to make cycling in Edinburgh safer.
Posted 13 years ago # -
If it doesn't say "why it's a sensible decision not to cycle in Edinburgh" and by implication, suggest that it would be a sensible decision for everyone, then I don't know what the point of it is beyond a bit of self-indulgent putting it out there. I mean, she's not suggesting that people should cycle in Edinburgh until they've had a near death experience. She's not saying, "cycle Edinburgh until the Big Bad Bus comes for you". She's saying that Edinburgh's too dangerous to cycle (unlike Cambridge).
OK, so she supports improvements and maybe in some future life when Edinburgh is more like Cambridge it'll be OK to cycle but that only makes the message to get off your bike until it's been fixed.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"While I don't like crossing certain roads because of the aggressiveness (and non-indicator usage) of some drivers I have never (or very rarely) felt scared and intimidated in the way I often do whilst cycling."
I get scared while cycling a few times a year, and unnerved more often.
I still prefer cycling to walking. Without intending to sound flippant, I am more experienced as a bike rider on the roads than a walker across them.
I doubt if too many pedestrians feel confident - certainly on the busier and faster roads. It's not really surprising that more people don't try to cycle.
The UK is a long way from a more equitable balance between road users. In Edinburgh and Scotland many arguments appear(ed) to have been won with targets for cycle use, but the sad reality is that there isn't really the political will to change things.
Governments are prepared to take on vested interests such as tobacco manufacturers and the drinks industry - though it would help if political parties didnt engage in petty point scoring.
All parties want 'road safety', they sort of want more people to walk and cycle,
BUT...
Posted 13 years ago # -
Governments are prepared to take on vested interests such as tobacco manufacturers and the drinks industry -
By the time the smoking ban was instituted smokers were a minority and minimum pricing for alcohol (now supported by the Tories in Westminster apparently) would only have affected a small number of drinkers many of whom might be infrequent voters.
Car drivers are a bigger target altogether.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Car drivers are a bigger target altogether"
I agree with that, but one part of the problem is politicians buying the 'war on motorists' rhetoric.
This leads them to imagine that all drivers want higher speed limits, no speed cameras and other 'restrictions on liberty'.
The posters on here are hardly 'representative' but demonstrate that it's possible to take more rational view on car use, road space, 'safety' etc.
This should be encouraged not further marginalised.
This is why it's so disappointing that the current SNP Government is planning to reduce the relatively tiny amount on 'active travel'.
Posted 13 years ago # -
She's saying that Edinburgh's too dangerous to cycle (unlike Cambridge).
So far the Scottish Government's "policy" for increasing active travel is to tell people that they should be cycling more and driving less whilst slashing the budget for active travel and spending billions on more and bigger roads.
Perhaps what it therefore needs is for more people to stand up and say that no, they bloody well will not cycle more until they start properly investing in making it safer.
"OK, so she supports improvements and maybe in some future life when Edinburgh is more like Cambridge it'll be OK to cycle but that only makes the message to get off your bike until it's been fixed. "
I'm not getting that message at all.
Posted 13 years ago # -
This is why it's so disappointing that the current SNP Government is planning to reduce the relatively tiny amount on 'active travel'.
And I'm not convinced it makes a great difference.
Perhaps it's different in the mysterious east but in the west spending on cycling usually means paint on the pavement. I don't have data for it but I'm not aware of any great increase in the number of people cycling here over the last 20-30 years. Although I went to school in Ayr I've been cycling round Glasgow since the early '80s. They only thing I can think of which makes a wee difference is the ASLs and even they merely formalise what I would have done anyway.
Glasgow are spending cash on "Copenhagen" style paths in the east of the city where the bulk of the Commonwealth Games building will be. A cynic might suggest this is because it was easier to move the people in this area of town. I've seen the first of these paths and I have no idea why anyone would want to use it.
It's hard to believe they could be worse than the ones Stewart photographed 10 years ago:
http://scruss.com/enterprise.net/crappylanes.html
but they do appear to have managed that at the Tron gate. It seems Andy has been busy taking photos of it which you might be able to see here:
http://www.cyclestreets.net/photos/space/33495/
Rather than just going straight through a controlled junction we're supposed to take a left though a residential area then a right then cross the Saltmarket and take a right back up to the Tron where we can take a left to be where we would have been anyway. Perhaps I misunderstand it but that seems to be the idea.
There seemed to be spending for spending's sake on the run up to Velocity in the '90s. If that's what they spend it on I'd rather they did something more useful with the cash.
Posted 13 years ago # -
If her aim is to improve cycling overall then more power to her.
Its her blog and she is entitled to her opinion - and if she perused this forum would no doubt be delighted at the debate / traffic.
As I said before, singling out one city is pointless, as they all have things to learn - including cambridge.
Edinburgh might not be the best to cycle in UK (I wouldnt want to speculate), but its is not the worst based on what I have seen - e.g. if paths is your thing, many would be delighted to have the ones we already have.
Edinburghs biggest cycling issue is the road system and how cyclists interact with other road users.
I am not convinced that any administration is ready to take any step which removes perceived 'rights' to car users and gifts them to peds/cyclists - as evidenced by the South Edinburgh 20mph nonsense.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"And I'm not convinced it makes a great difference."
That depends...
Whatever the 'cycling establishment' (an almost rude allegation/slur) thinks about on/off-road facilities it's only the most churlish who don't think that Sustrans is a good idea.
Sustrans paths are far from perfect, not always in the right place etc. etc., but they undoubtedly have encouraged people to try cycling. They may become healthier, they may become road/commuter cyclists, they may drive less - they may even drive more to get their bikes to Sustrans paths!
Mr. Swinney likes to be cautious about spending money (I won't use the word prudent...) and likes to see "evidence" of value for money.
The problem is that he, and all other politicians live in worlds where MASSIVE sums have to be spent on Forth Bridges, Aberdeen bypasses, HS2s, trams, Tridents, etc. because 'they are worth it'/'necessary for the economy' - 'we' are all too stupid to understand this.
Mr. Swinney's Government also did away with a lot of ring-fencing - mostly a good thing in my opinion. Results are that LAs, theoretically, have more control over what they spend. So most cycle facilities are the responsibility of LAs, not "the Government" - except of course that a lot of them wouldn't happen without Sustrans money - which comes from The Government.
In addition, of course, Mr. S has imposed a Council Tax freeze, so even councils that 'like' cycling find it hard to 'justify' spending.
And yet Scottish Government's New Year message included 'drive less, walk/cycle more'.
And it talks about "preventative spending".
Not-a-lot-of-joined-up-thinking.
This is NOT a PARTY issue - they are all as bad as each other.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Edinburgh will never be like Cambridge. Edinburgh is hilly and Cambridge is flat. Go into a Cambridge or indeed Oxford cycling shop and tell them you are from Edinburgh and they go all misty eyed about Glentress.
I am approaching ten years of commuting the same route [now partial] and have seen an upsurge of cyclists [first in the summer and often with poor manners, shoaling or just cycling right in front of you at a junction] but now most definitely all year round.
Lothian buses nearly all behave in an exemplary manner towards cyclists now. I have seen in this very chatter forum that First Bus are cottoning on a little. So we have some reasons to be cheerful. All a bit melancholy at the moment.
When I voted in minority for congestion charges to be introduced to Edinburgh there was a survey [oh yes another survey] saying that Edinburghers love their cars more than anyone else. This is what we are up against. Maybe the cars versus cyclists debate [well worn and moribund script - RLJing, H-ing, No Lights, Hi-viz, No Road Tax pavementing, etc] needs deflected to One Family One Car [OFOC]? The day I fell off on the ice I then had to get back on and cycle to a barge in Leith where an advertising dude who had re-invented himself as ethical ad man [good pitch] described how knife crime was tackled in Strathclyde. Part of the strategy was to tackle those on the fringes and divert them away from gang culture. So my campaign would be Cars are useful BUT do you really need another one? Why not Downsize your car, reduce your number of cars, use your car less?. All sounds a bit lame but I am trying to come up with a strategy that would have some impact and which the Scottish Govt wouldn't be scared of. They need to promote more exercise but they need to link that to using the car less. They are very scared of most things. Why do we not have higher taxation? Business would move south. Why are we not independent? Business would move south. Why are we not effectively tackling the very obvious issues around driving? [Congestion, environment, casualty, fatality]
Posted 13 years ago # -
I agree with mins reading, and to a certain extent the piece.
Cycling somewhere with proper segregation, especially in large cities is wonderful. I have been cycling for a long time in all kinds of environments, I've been a courier, tourer and commuter in several countries and have had more near-death experiences on and off the bike than I care to remember. I am not scared of riding, but I do feel that the current traffic systems are very dangerous. In Copenhagen you can just ride to work and the only worry is passing another cyclist. Here we ride in traffic and as was so brilliantly understated by the BJ we have to 'keep our wits about us'.
We need better infrastructure. Yes we need more cyclists but we have to acknowledge what prevents people from cycling and deal with it. I really do believe if you build it they will come (if you get it right of course).
Posted 13 years ago # -
Ooooooj I might be churlish about Sustrans.
I have a horrible suspicion that the routes they have over here promote cycling as a thing you go somewhere to do and not a way of getting around. There are even handy car parks beside some of them.
The one I use every year in England is different. I don't know why as it just follows an old train line across the Isle of Wight from Cowes to Sandown but it has more users than I ever see here and it seems to go to useful places. If it didn't take me from the boat to my auntie's house I wouldn't use it because the surface is poor on the southern half. Lots of tree roots have broken up the tarmac and it's a wee bit like Derek Guyler's washboard but it does take a fairly simple, direct path unlike the road round the coast so that's how I travel.
I don't think Sustrans actually have anything to do with the canal path that runs through Kirkintilloch and along the south of the Campsies but it doesn't really go anywhere. It's a nice run but people are going to get there by car and off load their bike like they do at Lochwinnoch, Paisley Canal or the line north from Callendar.
Route 75 follows the river through the east end of Glasgow and if you have a look at page 2 on this leaflet:
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/leaflets/clyde_corridor.pdf
you can see what that does to the route. It's not really the fastest route between any two points. It can be nice to meander along if you don't mind the occasional hooker (and I don't) but even outwith that it's not going to get you places quickly. Even my old boss who liked the 75 route, and now maintains the western end of it, didn't stick to the path from the Green east because it's just too wriggly.
I suppose the point of this particular rant is that the Sustrans routes I see round here are for recreation not transportation.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"So my campaign would be Cars are useful BUT do you really need another one? Why not Downsize your car, reduce your number of cars, use your car less?. All sounds a bit lame"
Not at all "lame".
The problems are that there is no coherence and not much evidence that government led 'self interest' campaigns work.
UK still imagines that "the great car economy" is more important than most other things. The more people use cars the higher goes GDP - and we all know how important that is.
Cars = freedom = votes. People who can't afford cars are less likely to vote, so...
Boris has done a lot to encourage cycling BUT he is still keen on 'making the traffic flow smoothly'.
One problem is always said to be the short-termism of politicians - looking no further than the next election.
However when it comes to major infrastructure investment a longer view is taken. Why is it so difficult to take decisions that will have health benefits/NHS savings in 10-20 years?
Clearly there must be statisticians working out the relative costs of healthy people living to 80 v sick people dying at 70.
Any such calculations (whatever the conclusions) can't take into account all 'soft' factors.
It's right to reduce the number of people smoking.
It's right to confront alcohol excesses.
It's right to encourage people to walk/cycle more - but a LOT more needs to be done to get people to be willing/able/confident etc.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"I suppose the point of this particular rant is that the Sustrans routes I see round here are for recreation not transportation."
Yes, but that highlights various things.
Recreation and transport are not mutually exclusive.
Former railway routes in Edinburgh are definitely used for both. Not always the most direct - though they do avoid some hills/valleys.
Parts are labeled with NCN numbers but most of the work was done by Lothian Regional Council.
In recent years quite a lot of 'basic' infrastructure upgrades have been done by CEC with Sustrans/SG money.
Sustrans don't just build stuff they also do a lot of promotion, work with schools etc.
If Sustrans had never existed there would be a lot fewer people cycling and a lot fewer places it would be possible to cycle.
I wonder if there is a list of the bridges that Sustrans has reinstated or created.
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
