I was through there last night and appreciated how the lines encourage me to hit the sunken drains head on.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
New white lines in Melville Drive
(84 posts)-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
The key thing is that there are various paths currently marked No Cycling 'incorrectly'. This means conflict between pedestrians and cyclists both where people are cycling legally (in spite of contrary signs) and not (when they may think they are).
Posted 14 years ago # -
If someone walks along a path marked no cycling, then I think they have every right NOT to have cyclists blasting past them, even if the cyclist thinks it is 'legal'.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"If someone walks along a path marked no cycling, then I think they have every right NOT to have cyclists blasting past them, even if the cyclist thinks it is 'legal'."
Quite, the 'problem' is it IS legal and the Council has so far avoided clarifying the issue.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Yes, it's legal, but is there really any need for it? I never use the paths marked No Cycling because they're much narrower than the shared-use ones and the potential for conflict is much higher. Most pedestrians don't know the No Cycling markings are incorrect and all they see is a cyclist cycling where they shouldn't be. I don't think it's unreasonable to just not cycle on them.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"I don't think it's unreasonable to just not cycle on them."
That is a reasonable point of view. The fact remains, those 'warnings' aren't legal (are they illegal Anth?)
Some people realise it's legal to cycle, and do so, some don't and cycle thinking they shouldn't be and may, consequently, cycle faster.
A few know and don't cycle. Some pedestrians will know and deal with it, others will assume it's not legal and will be 'outraged' or have their prejudices confirmed.
This state of affairs is the Council responsibility.
It may be desirable to have some of the paths barred to cyclists - in which case they should be making that situation legal. But...
Posted 14 years ago # -
Well they're not 'illegal' (as in no-one would be found guilty of a criminal offence for putting up a 'no cycling' sign), rather they're 'unenforceable'.
A lot of the focus seems to be on the access legislation making this the case. Technically cyclists are prevented from using pavements, which is defined as a walkway bordering a road. Pedantic hat on, this means that walkways which don't have a road on either side are free for cyclists to use. Have been for quite some time. UNLESS there is a specific bylaw.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"UNLESS there is a specific bylaw."
Thought this was part of the problem - there aren't "bylaws" in the way there used to be.
It used to be legal for under 12s to cycle on Meadows paths.
It was also illegal to expose your wounds - under the bylaws.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I've had a look at various bits of access legislation and guidance, though (caveat) not as a qualified lawyer ;)
Hey ho.
AIUI, the Meadows paths are paths in the sense of access legislation, and not footpaths in sense of roads legislation. Therefore, the No Cycling paint (which pre-dates the Land Reform (Scotland) Act) probably does not comply with that legislation, or the Scottish Outdoor Access Code.
Access rights under that Act (and the code) are rights of **responsible** access. They extend to cycling and other forms of non-motorised transport. Responsible access means not interfering with other people's access. Scything down pedestrians of whatever age is not responsible. It's possible to cycle the meadows paths responsibly. Enforcement is a problem (partly because of the way the law is drafted).
The "No Cycling" paint probably does not comply with the Act/Code. However, the body repsonsible for enforcing this aspect of the Act is the "access authority" - which in this case is CEC.
As the access authority, CEC can make byelaws under the 2003 Act - but it's not clear at this time on a Friday whether or not they've actually done so ...
Posted 14 years ago # -
"but it's not clear at this time on a Friday whether or not they've actually done so ..."
I am confident that CEC hasn't.
Their legal department is 'always overworked and underresourced' so just deals with important/essential things.
Of course if I'm wrong it's probably also the case that the one bit of the council that ought to know, doesn't.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Quite. There could be bylaws that override the access granted in the Land Reform act, but there aren't. The council seems to think that by putting up signs which anyone who is slightly "outdoorsey" will know are rubbish, they are somehow making the situation better, but I think it only makes it worse.
The type of cyclists who "scythe through pedestrians" will do so regardless of the law (do a search for footage of police in London ticketing literally dozens of riders who shoot pedestrian crossings - are they going to stop riding in the meadows because it's "officially a bit naughty"?)
At the same time, cyclists who want to play nice, and therefore are extremely unlikely to terrorise toddlers and grannies, have to take the awkward ways around.
In the middle are types like myself, who neither want to terrorise grannies or be needlessly put out of my way, and so both I and the misinformed pedestrians are both being put out by each other.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Posted 14 years ago #
-
"In the middle are types like myself, who neither want to terrorise grannies or be needlessly put out of my way, and so both I and the misinformed pedestrians are both being put out by each other."
Are you really put out by having to use the other paths?
Posted 14 years ago # -
"Are you really put out by having to use the other paths?"
Issue is not whether individuals are "put out", inconvenienced or civicly considerate.
It's about a) reducing confusion - some of the signage is wrong, b) being able to 'enforce' a higher degree of adherence to the rules - by either legal sanction or justified 'peer pressure' - or (even better) because desire lines (for cyclists and pedestrians) are convenient and attractive.
Posted 14 years ago # -
Just off to 'survey' signage in Links/Meadows.
Posted 14 years ago # -
There are about 20 "No Cycling" that have questionable validity.
Quite a few of the paths have only got No Cycling at one end.
Like this one and it looks like the dropped kerb is being re-instated after being 'missing' for at least 10 years. Removed because people were cycling....
Path goes here - just opposite James Gillespie's Primary and close to JGHS and the Bike Co-op.
Suspect it will get used more now there isn't a high kerb to jump!
Posted 14 years ago # -
New thread on cycling in Meadows/Links
Posted 14 years ago # -
"Are you really put out by having to use the other paths?"
Assuming I want to go where the path goes, then yes. If I don't, then obviously not.
Suppose you're going from Marchmont to the Doctors pub at the top of MMW, and back. You can either cross Melville Drive at the bottom of Marchmont Road and ride across the Meadows, or you can cross onto the cycle path, ride along to MMW, negotiate the terrible mess of The Maze, wait for the green light (since this light is actually binding), and then up MMW. Repeat on the way back.
It's not essential. If that half of the Meadows was turned into housing I wouldn't cancel my journeys, just go along to MMW. But since there is a perfectly good path there, why not use it?
Apart from the railings at the southern end, the Jawbone Walk is actually wider than some points on the Roseburn Path, which is a cycling highway. It's certainly much safer to cycle along than facilities like the underpass of the West Approach Road at Fountainbridge, which is narrow and has several blind corners. (The latter is another good example of a facility which serves a desire line, if it was banned to bikes you could still cycle around either end of the WAR but it would be a contrived hassle).
Posted 14 years ago # -
What's wrong with turning right onto Melville Drive and cycling approx 30 sec to MMW and turning left onto it?
Posted 14 years ago # -
"But since there is a perfectly good path there, why not use it?"
Because it is actually illegal.
Whether it should be is another matter.
The main point of this thread is that most of the Meadows/Links markings are NOT backed by the law and therefore are causing confusion and potential danger and allowing cyclists to be considered as law breakers - when they are not.
ALSO the Council has known about this for a while and was supposed to be 'just about to do something' TWO years ago - http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=532
Posted 14 years ago # -
Because it is actually illegal.
I still haven't seen a satisfactory justification of this. The Land Reform Act covers everywhere that isn't a pavement running alongside a road (or your back garden).
Either the council have a bylaw (they don't appear to) or the path is officially a road, but with a Traffic Regulation Order prohibiting bikes (again, no sign of this - they would also need 'no cars or motorbikes' to prevent people legally riding motorbikes up the "road" too).
Or did I miss something? They're the only two possibilities I can think of.
What's wrong with turning right onto Melville Drive and cycling approx 30 sec to MMW and turning left onto it?
Nothing... why would there be? In fact, if in a hurry I'd expect it to be faster to do what you describe, because there are no obstacles to building up maximum speed. Especially as one can legally avoid a red light on Melville Drive by simply crossing the pavement into the park before the white line (it's illegal to ride or drive along the pavement, not to cross it to enter i.e. a driveway or park).
But there's so much more to route selection than simply whatever is fastest or most direct. Think about commuters coming in on the A90. They clearly prefer the 4 lane road to the parallel cycle facility - but there are also people on that facility, who wouldn't want to be on the road. I've done both, many times... enough to make a town planner's brains boil, I should think :)
Sometimes, it is simply the more desirable choice to cross the park direct. Clearly, large numbers of cyclists agree, and (at best) the legal grounds for the 'no cycling' signs are dubious.
As I said, you can opt for another route if you like, but not understanding why people prefer a different way, is clearly not the same as saying there's no advantage to do so.
Posted 14 years ago # -
PS. thanks to the Land Reform Act again, there's no reason why you can't just ride over the grass, wherever you please. The reason this doesn't apply to Holyrood is because there's a specific legal act against it .
Posted 14 years ago # -
"Or did I miss something?"
I believe so. The Council is quite sure that MMW + three other Meadow's paths + Leamington Walk (?) are legally roads.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"there's no reason why you can't just ride over the grass,"
I'm sure that is the case. However as someone has posted, it's about RESPONSIBLE access, so riding across the cricket pitch is probably legally an offence.
Posted 14 years ago # -
"The Council is quite sure that MMW + three other Meadow's paths + Leamington Walk (?) are legally roads."
But in that case, why can't people ride (or drive) along them?
The only answer is either a TRO or a bylaw, but in both cases there would need to be signage to prevent people from driving motorbikes (for example). As these signs don't exist, it's not clear to me what the basis of the restriction is.
Maybe as an interested user, I should just send them an FOI request for the underlying legislation? We could post it up here?
Posted 14 years ago # -
"The only answer is either a TRO or a bylaw"
Well yes. I'm sure it's all 'above board'.
It had to be dealt with 30 years ago when cycling was first allowed on MMW.
I suspect we'll get some definitive answers soon.
Posted 14 years ago # -
I have sent an FOI request for "applicable bylaw(s), TRO(s), or other legal basis for the regulation", I'm not sure what the response time is but will let you know what I get back.
Posted 14 years ago # -
20 working days otherwise you can report them...
Posted 14 years ago # -
Dave - I still think your answer basically amounts to 'because it is there' or in an even less sociable form 'because I can'.
The argument you've given above could equally apply to drivers resisting the creation of a pedestrianized zone, or wider pavements, or one-way streets: the street is there, I demand to drive down it.
And no, I do not understand or sympathize with this perspective.There are clearly times when restricting types of access (different from who gets access a la Nicholas van Hoogstraten) makes places nicer, more usable, and better for us all. Neither bikes nor cars need to be able to go anywhere and everywhere some drivers/riders want to take them.
(despite this, the council should obviously not label paths 'no cycling' if there is no legal basis for it, and I look forward to hearing the results of your FOI; but that still doesn't mean that we should 'understand' when people insist on 'riding there, because it is there')
Posted 14 years ago # -
Now we're getting closer to the nub of the argument, I think. Personally I'm quite against these sort of pointless restrictions - miles of railings that stop you crossing the road ("why would you want to, is it such an inconvenience to walk 200m to the lights?") for example.
So while it's true that there is no 'need' for *any* cycling in the Meadows (because there are perfectly good periphery roads), I haven't really heard an argument against cycling on any given part of the Meadows, which isn't an argument against cycling on *all* of it.
Imagine how much nicer Middle Meadow Walk would be if it was pedestrian only, you could let your dog / child / parents wander without worrying they'd be taken out, and so on and so forth. In fact the argument applies to pretty much any facility where you can encounter a different 'tribe'.
Near the office in Leith, there is a good sized park with narrower paths criss-crossing it than the Jawbone walk. And plenty of cyclists use them, and nobody seems to mind.
Posted 14 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
