The no-left-turn from Bankhead Drive to Cultins Road might now be legal if one is cycling on the shared use path, rather than the road. Some pics of the area:
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Police clampdown on cyclists and maybe other infringers?
(148 posts)-
Posted 12 years ago #
-
the police said that their motivation was to stop me from being mangled by a bus (specifically) on my second infringement which was the left up cutlins, the one four other cyclist took when I was in the back of the van. The no entry, buses only signs on Bankhead are recent as the cones have only recently been taken away that prevented any east west travel. It could be that buses are going to start using it more.
I've been using this route for at least three years. I've never seen a bus using the bus lane at the foot of Cultins Road. There are certainly no scheduled routes using this bit of road.As the Google Streetview images of this location reveal, there was a shared-use section of pavement that allowed you to avoid the one-way section and make the left-turn up Cultins Road completely legally. This was blocked off years ago and - with the typical "you're on your own now - so f*ck you!" attitude that prevails when cycling provision is disrupted by contruction works - no alternative was ever provided. So, I've been ignoring both a one-way street and no-entry sign for some time.
Other higlights on this stretch have included the complete closure of the pavement with high barrier fencing, forcing all the passengers from Edinburgh Park to walk along the road with traffic approaching them from behind. As Min says above, this sort of thing doesn't happen to motorists and it could easily be avoided - a barriers-protected section of road for the pedestrians and a temporarily coned-off section of the bus lane for cyclists.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"
Edinburgh Trams (@EdinburghTrams)4/13/12 2:37 PM
@CyclingEdin Thanks for the feedback - have passed on your concerns and project team is looking into signs along the route
"
Posted 12 years ago # -
The power of CCE.
Hopefully.
One thing I think we all agree on. It IS barmy.
I was thinking about the law breaking thing. Can't remember if it's actually law or not that you should/MUST indicate. And while I always do in the car, when I'm cycling, if the road surface is horrible, or I'm close by traffic, or need to brake, then often I won't.
I was pondering this as being sort-of equivalent to Insto cycling on the pavement with his daughter on tagalong, in that both are derogating from the rules for easily explained safety reasons.
While I don't think the OP could be argued away as a 'safety' reason (maybe?) I'm beginning to wonder whether, if there's no suitable alternative, if safety is a genuine excuse for breaking the law. I'm new to this thinking, bear with me...
Posted 12 years ago # -
You'd have to be fairly strict with the definition of safety, after all rlj is occasionally dismissed with safety in mind. Some drivers will claim in some cases its safer to be in excess of the speed limit than not.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Hmmm, good point. I need to think this one through a bit more.
Posted 12 years ago # -
64
You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement.
(Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & R(S)A 1984, sect 129)versus
66
You should
- keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear
67
You should
look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so. Give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do (see 'Signals to other road users')which includes:
103
Signals warn and inform other road users, including pedestrians (see 'Signals to other road users'), of your intended actions. You should always- give clear signals in plenty of time, having checked it is not misleading to signal at that time
Nothing about "not signalling means the police may do as they wish with you, no matter what the road surface is like".
Posted 12 years ago # -
I have absolutely no concerns that cycling on the pavement would somehow open some imaginary door to motorists claiming 'safely' as a spurious justification for their own poor driving.
There's no practical (and hence, for me moral equivalence) in the two. The consequences of me cycling on the pavement are trivial. I slow to a crawl around other people. Sometimes we choose our sides of the pavement and pass each other with a smile. Sometime people stop or step off the path onto the grass and we pass with a smile. You'd have to cook up something extreme to provide some catastrophic consequences - riding like a loon down Princes Street and crashing into a fragile old dear, who bangs her head with fatal consequences.
The consequences of a car doing anything unsafe in fairly normal circumstances are always potentially catastrophic both for the occupants and anyone around them. Even when they think what they're doing is unsafe, drivers rely on previously getting away with it - nothing happening or not getting caught - for "proof" of its safety. It is not inherently safe.
It will take a generation to create a network of appropriate paths but a segregated infrastructure already exists that cyclists could, in most circumstances, share with pedestrians without any danger. I guess I'm just no longer willing (and not in a ethical position) to condemn reasonable cycling on pavements where it's (in the opinion of a reasonable cyclist) safer to do so.
Posted 12 years ago # -
That's a powerful argument and I agree with anth that it deserves an airing in CC's next edition (genuinely).
PS. I need to return your panniers... PY again at some point perhaps?
Posted 12 years ago # -
Insto, I am with you here, simply as the safety of said sproglet is paramount.
When I go out with my son - 6 - and I go road / him pavement, there are still some who give him the 'you dont belong on the pavement' look.
Although as previously noted, kids seem to be allowed on the pavement Carlton Reid article on the subject, it is pretty straightforward to me - Tom stays on the pavement until I deem him competent enough to take to the road, which I imagine will be well before he hits double figures anyway.
However my main point is that - a person may have a child of 10-16 who has recently taken up cycling, or an older child with (hypothetically) learning difficulties who is not yet road competent.
In these circumstances, I wouldnt be comfortable letting that child/person loose on the road - although the law appears to say they should.
Carlton reids article does suggest a fixed penalty offence, however this wouldnt be given to any child under 16.
Cycling law / codes of conduct seem riddled with holes / untruths / myths (no cycling allowed in MMW etc) - No wonder Gembos police officers took the 'let off with a warning this time' route.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I'm having a hard time constructing a Devil's Advocacy difference between an adult with child attached cycling on the pavement, and a child cycling on pavement.
Best I can do is hypothetical reckless parent riding like a nutter on the pavement with a nipper bolt-on, but I can't fit the square peg of the rational mindset that owns childseats/tailers into the round hole of nutter pavement riding.
The two young lads I saw on their MTBs riding on the pavement by Evans this lunchtime, however, are swine.
Swine 1: They're young. Wasted on them. I bet they don't even appreciate not having knees that tell you what the weather's like.
Swine B: Riding on the pavement. Fine, I can't go nuttermental since that pavement is a Pugsley and they were going at jogging speed, if that, but still...
Swine Fourth: MTBs when they're miles from the nearest mountain! Chthulhu Ftagn and chainsaws to them, their parents, their grandparents, their greatgrandparents and every sibling spawned. We must wipe their seed from this clean Earth!
Swine last: Young.Posted 12 years ago # -
Watched a fully loaded car transporter lorry blast through the no entry (local buses only) signs as I took my usual left up past Fiat Abarth on Bankhead Ave tonight. How ironic I thought, I was lifted by the polis for doing that the other night. Next they will be ticketing the BMX riding children on the pavements.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Picking up on an old point in this thread about drivers not coming across road closures without warning and with no diversion offered...
Streets around here were closed for the Edinburgh half marathon. You'd only really have known about it if you'd been out and about in the 48 hours prior in the area and seen one of very very few signs warning of it. People from elsewhere, of course, who happened to be passing through would be nonethewiser. As would, say, weekday bus passengers, or people who simply hadn't been on the specific road.
Because despite living two streets back there were no signs around our place, nor anything through the door. Just a few yellow signs on the road itself to be closed.
Anyway, this morning, 'Road Closed' barriers erected. That was it. No explanation of why, or for how long, and no diversion signs. Much much motorised confusion as I walked to the park. Most turned round, headed off down side streets. One enterprising couple had the lassie get out and shift cones so the chap could drive through. Which seemed a bit cheeky.
Anyway, I know it's a bit random, and not as frequent as that which we face as cyclists all the time - but just struck me as interesting this morning that it 'can' happen to drivers.
Posted 12 years ago # -
Sure, with that exception noted, I still think Min's general point is a good one. The system is designed and managed with cars in mind; as the priority. It makes sense, in a way, cars are harder to just turn in the road and head off somewhere else but wandering around in Edinburgh on Friday, I was in no doubt that some of the roads I was walking down were going to be affected by a half marathon today. You could say that the methods chosen by the council were poor - signs on lampposts etc - but if car drivers haven't seen them it's because they don't pay attention, assuming that all will be as they expect it to be.
Posted 12 years ago # -
I guess this is a good example of a surprise road closure affecting motorists. Only a few days notice and only closed for a few hours. :-/
Posted 12 years ago # -
As opposed to bike path/route closures going on for months, even years with no alternatives. St Andrew's Square being one example, it was even being used as a huge car park at one point and yes I have complained to the council but it's naebody's problem.
Posted 12 years ago # -
what was bizarre was that there were a lot of 'no parking' half marathon signs, but none about the actual road closures. I spent quite a lot of time sunday morning trying to find the council document that liosted the closures, and then had to divert a long way around to avoid one quite short stretch of road on strathearn. lovely cycle, but a bit odd.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"I guess this is a good example of a surprise road closure affecting motorists. Only a few days notice and only closed for a few hours. :-/...
As opposed to bike path/route closures going on for months, even years with no alternatives"
The length of time something was closed for was not a factor in the initial query... ;)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"... but if car drivers haven't seen them it's because they don't pay attention, assuming that all will be as they expect it to be."
Or that they haven't been on the roads where the signs went up in the two days or so that they were up before the event. Perfectly feasible to have not seen them because you hadn't been where they were (as noted above, I live two streets, less than 100 yards) from the route, and there were no signs anywhere until you were on the actual road affected - not even at the many and various crossing points)
Posted 12 years ago # -
"The length of time something was closed for was not a factor in the initial query... ;)"
Erm, no it wasn't but it does illustrate that the worst a driver can expect is a few hours.
Posted 12 years ago # -
"what was bizarre was that there were a lot of 'no parking' half marathon signs"
Loads and loads and loads of the no parking signs on the south park road I noticed this morning. On a road that no-one ever stops on (don't think I've ever seen someone parked there) and that is closed on a Sunday...
But actually, thinking on it, you're right, the signs were all 'no parking' rather than 'road will be closed' so actually even if the motorist had seen the sign then they wouldn't know the road would actually be closed the following day (and if they don't live on the road then they'd see 'no parking' and probably ignore the rest as not applying to them - a bit like the 'no parking, gully cleaning' signs).
Posted 12 years ago # -
was at decathlon this evening, I forgot to take pictures but they've finally had a go at sorting out the junction with Cultins Road.
Main road has been narrowed and a built up pavement added and a new tram crossing is in progress to join with the under pass to the gyle.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Wow just wow, an update to a thread that started 9 years ago with “I was apprehended this evening”.
And what has CEC been doing since???
Posted 3 years ago # -
Blast from the past :)
Where is Min these days?
Posted 3 years ago # -
I think Min moved out of Edinburgh to pastures new. I miss her dry and witty updates on Blipfoto, too.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I always felt @min was tolerating me patiently. Bit like one of the polis at the start of this thread.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Thought folk would get a kick out of this thread!
Posted 3 years ago # -
Polis Scotland making friends with the cycling community again (not really):
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
