CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

New white lines in Melville Drive

(84 posts)

No tags yet.


123

  1. LaidBack
    Member

    I think the Meadows is unusual in having one very decent direct path in Edinburgh though (and poor east west ones) .

    MMW has a 50/50 split so park users can see there is cycle provsion. This sort of sets the tone for crossing Meadows quickly. I reckon I can use fairly quickly -watching out for children and animals of course.

    The Jawbone Walk path I wouldn't generally use as I find the lights awkward and it appears to be too busy - plus the signage (right or wrong) discourages me.

    Of course Argyle Place is awkward too with cars having the best line.

    I use the green Sri Chimnoy path to do some practice rides and I do ignore the 'No cycling' painted at the East End near the WCs. (So I'm inconstant)
    You usually find a council van parked here. Also some parents drive their kids to park across 'no cycling' signage.
    The green path is not marked with anything so I consider legal to cycle (carefully)

    Maybe I'm part of the problem - though my 'law breaking' is only on Sunday mornings before 11am.
    I do recognise that people have right of way / shared use etc.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  2. SRD
    Moderator

    "Personally I'm quite against these sort of pointless restrictions "

    Point is, how and when do we decide what is 'pointless'. Seatbelt laws? Speed limits? traffic lights?

    Libertarians would argue that your objection to railings 'for your own safety' is of the same class of objections to any of the above restrictions on car users.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  3. Kim
    Member

    Surely we need to engender a sense of respect for all, rather than a set of rigid restrictions. Cyclist and pedestrians should be able to co-exist without conflict. The problem comes when cyclist start behaving like drivers, showing no consideration for others.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  4. LaidBack
    Member

    "Personally I'm quite against these sort of pointless restrictions "

    I know that's Dave's quote. I'll through in my tuppence worth anyway...

    City is full of inconsistancies with regards traffic.

    My favourite example is on Lawnmarket and Castle Hill where people can legally drive onto a street full of pedestrians when Festival is on. Now you'd think the Council would try to manage that as some drivers feel they have a right to run over anything that they consider to be in their way (Swan thread!). Oddly enough it seems to work - albeit it would be nicer as a pedestrianised street (which is what I would like). Of course you still have taxi drivers tooting their horns, but the sheer weight of people walking means it is in effect a pedestrianised street with no legal basis to be so.

    Would we then let bikes cycle on the crowded pedestrianised street?
    If we followed many places in Europe the answer would be yes.

    Sloten Park in Amsterdam allows you to cycle on all paths - but then again 50% of people seem to cycle there.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  5. Dave
    Member

    Point is, how and when do we decide what is 'pointless'. Seatbelt laws? Speed limits? traffic lights?

    Libertarians would argue that your objection to railings 'for your own safety' is of the same class of objections to any of the above restrictions on car users.

    Surely not. The reason for stopping people driving at 60mph past primary schools is because they are likely to harm other people. Similarly, driving through a red light at 30mph poses a risk to the people who have green, and assume they can proceed.

    There is a sound argument that putting bikes anywhere near pedestrians might be considered "bad" as it potentially reduces their safety in comparison with a pedestrian-only environment. But crucially, this does not justify a "no cycling" policy on the Jawbone walk, while letting people ride at full-tilt along the Fountainbridge underpass, for example. Although the Meadows can be busy, the underpass is often quite crowded and crucially, has some blind corners around the stairs where people could easily be mown down.

    So which is it to be? Do we accept that 'shared space' is OK, or that it isn't? Or is there some other reason why parts of the Meadows are unsafe, compared with narrower and often busier alternatives that we do accept?

    I guess the underlying position for me is, just because people don't *like* something, is not sufficient reason to prohibit it.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  6. SRD
    Moderator

    "just because people don't *like* something, is not sufficient reason to prohibit it" #

    When there are alternatives and the options make for better experiences for all, then I don't see why some things can't be prohibited. Just as we can argue that some paths ought to be made cycle-friendly - eg removing stairs, making ramps, or whatever, the reverse must also be true. Different users have different needs/preferences. I still don't see how 'because it is there we should be allowed to cycle it' stands up as an argument. Neither does 'because we're allowed to cycle in other potentially dangerous places, we should be allowed to cycle in all safe places. This is reducing the factors to one, when it reality it is much more complex, and requires recognition of multiple uses and preferences.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  7. Dave
    Member

    "When there are alternatives and the options make for better experiences for all, then I don't see why some things can't be prohibited."

    There's a false assumption there, surely, because if not riding in place X is a better experience than riding in it, we wouldn't be having this discussion? What's really being debated is whether the benefit of allowing people to ride offsets the disbenefit of making "sole use" pedestrians grumpy.

    And so, the reason "because it is there we should be allowed to cycle it" stands, is because we passed legislation very specifically making this position. In fact you could argue that (from a cyclists' perspective) the crowning achievement of the LRA was to draw a line under the idea that people can't use a bike simply because of the "preferences" of others.

    It was, of course, challenged by all kinds of people, but rarely must the act have been attacked by cyclists themselves. Do we think the position that pedestrians sharing use with bikes is OK, or do we think that it is not?

    If we wanted to set about "righting the boat" as far as pedestrian exclusivity goes, I would argue that we should pedestrianise the canal first, as it is both much narrower and often busier than the Jawbone walk, and where the presence of bikes must be an enormous irritation to everyone on foot.

    Yet they're paving more of it (something which is an advantage only to those who get about with wheels!)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  8. SRD
    Moderator

    "Yet they're paving more of it (something which is an advantage only to those who get about with wheels!)" of course this includes those with buggies, wheelchairs etc.

    I quite agree that cyclists on the canal are often not very considerate of other users, but there is not another off-road path that could easily be used. Therefore, not sure that cases are really comparable. Was thinking in earlier discussion though that Harrison Park is another good example where shared use works! BUT it is not as densely used as meadows.

    Meadows seem to be an exceptional case where there are multiple paths going to same places, and it funnels such a high proportion of pedestrians at particular times of day. (Much more reminiscent of pedestrianised shopping areas, where cyclists are usually expected to dismount.) Given densities of use and multiple paths, what is wrong with SOME paths being reserved for pedestrians?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  9. Dave
    Member

    But why stop at *some* paths only? Cyclists could just head around the side of the entire park (as you would in a car) using the local road network.

    I guess I feel that either a) it's OK to have bikes and people together, in which case we should just let them get on with it, or b) there is some criteria which has to be met first.

    But in the latter case, any criteria I can come up with, is just as much an argument against riding anywhere, as on the two particular paths in question.

    It is quite possible to ride out to the west on normal roads instead of using the canal, and we'd probably find in a "fair" assessment that a relatively small number of cyclists are spoiling the path for a relatively large number of pedestrians. (But for me, that's not an argument against riding there - my morning run was spoiled by a mobility scooter, but that's not an argument against mobility scooters)

    Posted 14 years ago #

  10. SRD
    Moderator

    Come on, the whole point is that we are discussing a place where there are multiple, off-road paths. The choice for cyclists is not between paths and roads, it is 'which path'.

    I am not saying 'cyclists shouldn't be on paths'. Yes, there are ROADS we could use instead of canal. But there is no parallel off-road path, so a good case is made for multiple use.

    Again, given densities of use and _multiple paths_ what is wrong with SOME paths being reserved for pedestrians?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  11. Dave
    Member

    I guess, because it makes no more sense to me to provide a 'pedestrian refuge' from cyclists, than from people with those giant buggies, mobility scooters, roller bladers, skateboarders, even runners.

    I know when I run to work that it must annoy a good proportion of the old biddies who I "speed" past. Why not have a "walking only" path, given that there are also multiple ways to run through the Meadows? etc. etc.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  12. miggy_magic
    Member

    Must admit, not too keen on opening up all the paths for cyclists. As a dad of a wee toddler, my concern is it will probably increase the likelihood of us encountering an irresponsible cyclist whilst my boy is stoatin' about around the paths.

    He's already nearly been mown over by some clown on a path marked "no cycling".

    This is the kind of "pedestrian refuge" that I quite like, and which I feel overrides any benefit I may receive as a cyclist.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  13. LaidBack
    Member

    I've been busy all day and I see the debate's been going full tilt!

    My point about a city centre road becoming pedestrianised due to weight of numbers is that it shows that, given demand, things can change without painting in things or putting up signs.

    At the moment we maybe don't have enough cyclists to make demands on more space in the park.

    One extra factor is the Friends of The Meadows.
    Someone else may have some info on them.

    I know they don't like skateboarders.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  14. SRD
    Moderator

    "My point about a city centre road becoming pedestrianised due to weight of numbers is that it shows that, given demand, things can change without painting in things or putting up signs."

    This is a good point, and it would be nice if more things worked this way. This is also, I believe the logic behind the move towards 'shared space' roads, which has been criticized because it is difficult for blind and visually impaired people to negotiate.

    I do like the 'shared space/considerate use' signs from London that were posted up above, and more like this would be good - eg at canal along Harrison Park.

    We were in Glasgow last weekend, and were really taken with all the kids learning to cycle in Kelvingrove Park - also the skate park there - and how everyone considerately avoided each other. Can't think of anywhere in Edinburgh with the same effect.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  15. gembo
    Member

    SRD - We were in Glasgow last weekend, and were really taken with all the kids learning to cycle in Kelvingrove Park - also the skate park there - and how everyone considerately avoided each other. Can't think of anywhere in Edinburgh with the same effect.

    When I used to live in Glasgow there was a great degree of people considerately bumping into you, how things change.

    Edinburgh is some place, London voted for congestion charge, Edinburgh rejected it. Edinburghers love their cars. Sometimes on this forum the cyclists sound a bit like motorists - 'we want this route for ourselves', 'we cause less hassle because we go fast' etc, at other times we can be quite enlightened.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  16. Dave
    Member

    miggy_magic illustrates the problem behind the thinking in his own post. Cyclists who want to run over toddlers or grannies are not deterred by 'no cycling' signs anyway (probably whether they are actually legal or not).

    You wouldn't argue against a new pedestrian crossing on the basis that people currently run in front of cars there. Not the easiest analogy, but I don't think you can really argue against the removal of (possibly illegal) no cycling signs because they somehow cause people to only run over grannies on the 'approved' pathways... ("he likes to ride dangerously, but only where the council says he's allowed to ride"?)

    It's ironic that in the same discussion that we are ripping apart the idea of pedestrian/cyclist 'shared space', the idea of car/pedestrian/cyclist 'shared space' comes up. The former is far less controversial than the latter, but if it's not acceptable then "full on" shared space has got to be a nonstarter.

    I think (to reference the last point by gembo) that an essential prerequisite of shared space is that it is not having something "for yourself". In fact, this is almost the opposite of the definition of shared space. The whole idea that we should fight for more "unshared space" to save pedestrians from the evil cyclists is, well, more the sort of idea that you'd expect from the Daily Mail than other cyclists.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  17. SRD
    Moderator

    Again, the argument here is not in the abstract about shared/unshared space in general, it is about very specific paths, where there are multiple off-road paths to same destination. In this context, what is wrong with SOME paths being reserved for pedestrians? (I know I keep asking the same question, but you keep not answering it).

    Posted 14 years ago #

  18. recombodna
    Member

    There is NOTHING wrong with SOME paths being reserved for pedestrians........nope just checked again nothing wrong with that. as long as there's not too many of them.

    .....But why don't we all just watch where we're going??

    Posted 14 years ago #

  19. miggy_magic
    Member

    Dave, I said opening up the paths would "increase the likelihood". And I didn't say there were cyclists, irresponsible or otherwise, who "want to" run over toddlers or grannies. I suggest you're being a bit OTT.

    It just takes a lapse in concentration, a gust of wind, a glance at a girl (or a guy) in a short skirt, a quick manoeuvre to avoid mating frogs and there's an increased likelihood of a wee bump. Not necessarily irresponsible, granted, but an extra worry for a dad checking his sprogs in specific areas that were hitherto relatively free of cyclists in a park which has (in my opinion) quite sufficient provision for cyclists in the paths and roads. That's all I'm trying to say. Does that make me a Daily Mail reader?

    Posted 14 years ago #

  20. Dave
    Member

    "Again, the argument here is not in the abstract about shared/unshared space in general, it is about very specific paths, where there are multiple off-road paths to same destination. In this context, what is wrong with SOME paths being reserved for pedestrians? (I know I keep asking the same question, but you keep not answering it)."

    The problem with your question is that it is implicitly based on a perspective that pedestrians would be much better off with exclusivity, and that pedestrians have some fundamental right over and above other users which puts them at the top of the food chain for said exclusivity. As this isn't a value position I share, I can't give you an answer in the way that you want.

    As a pedestrian I am often annoyed by cyclists (particularly), roller skaters, joggers (particularly), grannies, children, and virtually everyone not walking in the same direction as me at about the same speed. When I'm running, I would love exclusivity! And also when I'm cycling.

    Yet I do not feel that I am somehow missing out on my "dues" and that what should really happen is that other user groups should be removed for me.

    So, I don't support the idea that in this specific case, we should ban one group (cyclists) from one particular path even if there are others which can be used instead. Any more than I would support banning cyclists from Queen Street just because we could use George St at minimal inconvenience. It would certainly make a lot of drivers happy though.

    In fact that's not a bad analogy. With paths, as with roads, I don't think that it's OK to ban some groups just because there are other options, and some groups would like to have things to themselves.

    It's probably worth pointing out that 9 times in 10, if I'm in the Meadows I will be on foot!

    Posted 14 years ago #

  21. Dave
    Member

    "It just takes a lapse in concentration, a gust of wind, a glance at a girl (or a guy) in a short skirt, a quick manoeuvre to avoid mating frogs and there's an increased likelihood of a wee bump. Not necessarily irresponsible, granted, but an extra worry for a dad checking his sprogs in specific areas that were hitherto relatively free of cyclists in a park which has (in my opinion) quite sufficient provision for cyclists in the paths and roads. That's all I'm trying to say. Does that make me a Daily Mail reader? "

    Sorry, I just picked up on this - I wasn't trying to suggest that you'd have to be a frothing Daily Mail-ite to support segregated paths in this particular example.

    The problem is more one of principle, you can see that your argument above, which I must say sounds perfectly reasonable, is just as applicable to saying "Melville Drive is quite sufficient provision for cyclists, think of the gust of wind or the migratory frogs on MMW that could easily cause a (not irresponsible) accident with someone's toddler".

    Quite quickly we can create an accepted idea that it's generally wrong to have shared space (accepted even by cyclists making it all the more pervasive), but we might grudgingly allow it when there's no easy alternative; instead of saying, as a base state sharing between cyclists and pedestrians is not incompatible, which is the situation I would put up as an aspiration.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  22. SRD
    Moderator

    "The problem is more one of principle". NO. Actually it is not. We are talking about a very specific case, with quite unusual ground conditions (as detailed ad nauseum above).

    Dave, do you spend any time out and about with people unsteady walking either through illness, disability, age etc and/or visual impairments? Maybe you do, and I am not prejudging, but you might experience public space differently if you did.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  23. miggy_magic
    Member

    No, Dave, you're wrong about this application you inferred from my posts. The principles of 'preventing access to' and 'expelling groups from' areas are quite different, for a start.

    By all means, keep concluding what you want from my posts.

    Posted 14 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    I'm closing this thread - at least for the time being

    It's been brought to my attention...

    Posted 14 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

123

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin