Three counts. A dangerous undertake up the inside of a bin lorry followed by overly aggressive bell ringing, and a separate incident involving lack of due care and attention resulting in a collision with a bollard. All witnessed during Paddington 2, which was an unexpectedly lovely sequel.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
Today's rubbish cycling
(4520 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
In the all-too-real world - being close bike-passed when I stopped at the Fountainpark bus stop to let an indicating bus leave the stop. Bus driver was in the wide awake club and thankfully remained stationary until the errant bike had passed.
I caught and passed said bike by the next lights of course. Then was leapfrogged at Semple St red light by same bike flying along pavement (presume it had mounted pavement back at Gardner's Cres).
The trifecta was complete when the bike zipped across the ped crossings at the top of Semple St and bullied and wobbled its way, still seated, past waiting peds into the 1-person-wide (at most) barriered-off temporary footway towards Lothian Rd.
Sigh. Complete idiocy. Student female pilot, by the looks of it.
Posted 7 years ago # -
what does 'female' have to do with it?
Posted 7 years ago # -
..About as much as when the sex of the cyclist is quoted as being male, as happens in quite a lot of the posts on this thread.
Posted 7 years ago # -
This evening around 18:35.. Palmerston Place, Douglas Crescent, Im running on foot with a flashing lezyne on my chest. there is a ramp up through the road work barriers onto the pavement and a bloke late thirties in full expensive looking kit and mountain bike, full beam head lamp rides onto the pavement between the barriers and i need to stop so he doesn't hit me....well he does ...but only just ... I give him a piece of my mind.... he has earphones in ..barges past me and continues on the pavement.. unbelievable.
Posted 7 years ago # -
what does 'female' have to do with it?
I'm guessing the bike wasn't riding itself?
Posted 7 years ago # -
When going downhill through the Leith Street lane I always wait behind the chicane bit so that people coming uphill can get straight into the lane, but usually find some dingbats coming past me and waiting in such a way as to block the chicane. I encountered my first blocker in the other direction this morning, who seemed to not notice anything was amiss with his positioning until I hove to in front of him and politely requested passage.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Hmm yes, I have noticed that too. You'd think they'd realise but no.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The guy cycling up Leith Walk this morning, completely unlit at the back, but with both red and white lights flashing away merrily on his handlebars.
I still marvel at the fact that since birth, every vehicle they've ever seen after dark has red lights at the rear, white lights at the front - yet this has spectacularly failed to register with their brain.
Posted 7 years ago # -
What's the level of light that's required by law? I was behind a roadie on Causewayside who had an led on his back which put out less light than an elderly glowworm. I could only tell it was there from about 5 feet away.
Posted 7 years ago # -
I saw someone with a similarly low-powered light yesterday. His was clipped to the waistband of his trousers, which was novel!
Posted 7 years ago # -
After using my aldi fake moon 100 lumen any other light seems dangerous dim, I bought a new aldi fake moon at the last sale to use when my original one breaks after noticed many other have had problems with the fake moon, mine is still going strong after 2 years. I like the way the fake moon is so bright still stands out in the day.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Snowy - Cycling UK recently published this guide to lights and reflector legislation: https://www.cyclinguk.org/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations
No mention of minimum brightness for non-flashing lights, but flashing lights "must emit at least 4 candelas" (about 50 lumens).
Posted 7 years ago # -
Yesterday's rubbish cycling, actually, but...
Bloke on an MTB and wearing a red jacket rode eastbound through the tram stop at Haymarket yesterday lunchtime, weaving his way through the numerous ticket machines, shelters, signposts and pedestrians - including me. Bear in mind that the tram stop is enclosed by barriers on its north side at the moment, so there's even less room for emergency avoidance than usual (although throwing yourself into the traffic to avoid a rogue person on a bike should absolutely not be required anyway.)
I know it's a pain that Haymarket terrace is closed eastbound at the moment but I've always been of the opinion that one of the handy things about riding a bike is that you can turn into a pedestrian at a moment's notice if the need arises.
It makes me sad that entitled and lazy behaviour is occasionally displayed even by a few practitioners of what should otherwise be a healthy and society-friendly activity.
Posted 6 years ago # -
I've seen a few people cycle through the tram stop at haymarket within the tram tracks... I'm not sure how bad this is. Tempted to follow them but don't want to get squashed by a tram or contribute to giving cyclists a bad name.
Posted 6 years ago # -
Cycling between tram tracks is generally very safe in these tram only areas.
But the downside is that there are signs to ban bikes I think, so assembled tram passengers will show dissaproval. Disrespectful to trams etc.Posted 6 years ago # -
I would never cycle between tramtracks anywhere on my road bike although other bikes may not have a problem.
On my first venture along Princes St after the tracks were installed I thought I was being very clever at the Lothian Rd junction by positioning myself between the tracks (there's only about 6 inches of space to the left). Of course continuing along Shandwick Pl the tracks veer to the middle of the road, and traffic was bearing down behind me, I couldn't get out of the tracks without slowing down almost to a stop, with a bus behind me, and gingerly crossing the left rail at a safe angle. Never been between the tracks since.
Posted 6 years ago # -
it's amusing (in a strange way) that the tram tracks feel like more of a threat to safety than the actual massive, moving, multiple tonne trams do.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"(there's only about 6 inches of space to the left)"
Also a couple of wheel-grabbing ruts between different bits of surface.
Posted 6 years ago # -
it's the actual massive, moving, multiple tonne angry cars, 4x4s and buses [that are a threat to safety]
FTFY
Posted 6 years ago # -
@LaidBack: there are signs to ban bikes I think
There are standard No Entry signs with "Except trams" signs beneath at both ends of the Haymarket tram stop (streetview and streetview). It's not specifically aimed at bikes, but at all vehicular traffic except trams. I have felt, but not expressed, disapproval on the few occasions when I've seen cyclists ignoring the signs. (I did express my disapproval of the guy riding his bike through the tram stop platform, but he was probably too far away to hear by the time I'd formulated some words in my mind which weren't likely to alarm the ladies there present.)
There are similar signs at the north and south ends of the short bit of S St Andrew Street between Meuse Lane and Princes Street. That didn't deter someone on a bicycle from attempting a very weak imitation of a tram when I was passing that way a week or so back.
There are also such signs at the south end of the St Andrew Sq tram stop - presumably to ensure that anyone initially heading southbound between St Andrew Square and Meuse Lane and then performing a U-turn knows to turn left along the south side of the square. That's the only legal way that I can see to find yourself heading northbound along that bit of road (although come to think, a cyclist could have walked their bike round the corner from Princes Street). I presume that's also the explanation for the Keep Left sign on the south face of the low hoarding around the overhead line pole on that stretch of street - trams don't have much of a tendency to swerve on to the wrong side of the road (unless something has gone terribly, terribly wrong).
Posted 6 years ago # -
I don't think a u-turn there is legal despite the signs (and the fact that posties do it every day) as it's one way. Bit weird though - there weren't lights controlling the left turn back onto St Andrews Square there initially, but there have been ever since West Register Street was closed around a year ago. They have their own green phase, however I've never seen them without an orange hood. Perhaps it was intended to become two way during the works and then they changed their mind - or have they operated during a closure of Meuse Lane?
Posted 6 years ago # -
@ejstubbs: words in my mind which weren't likely to alarm the ladies there present
I hadn't realised that I have an innate tendency to feel distressed by the sound of profanities. Clearly it only works if someone else swears, since I do so all the time to no ill effect.
Posted 6 years ago # -
"I think the council have explicitly clarified that bit of pavement between Lothian Road and Princes Street isn't shared use. It was designed to be, but they changed their mind. Is there any signage which suggests it is?"
the red lanes painted towards the dropped curbs seem to suggest an intended path, and there's a ped/cycle signpost smack in the middle of the area. it's not the little circle sign, but a larger one with destinations and distances. overall, everything suggests that this is a shared space, and nothing says it isn't. so legally, it may not be shared, but given how few cyclists walk it (and many of these i see cycle through and then walk on the pavement at House of Fraser), it would appear that most folks think like i do.
Posted 6 years ago # -
yesterday: two cyclists ahead of me, going from Shandwick Place to Lothian road. lots of cars, bussess at the bus stops. second cyclist decides first cyclist is too cautious, and attempts to insert himself between her and the cars--there's about as much space as his handlebars for this jockeying. he doesn't ring, doesn't call out, just edges in while out of her peripheral vision.
stupid male pilot?
Posted 6 years ago # -
I finally found the post I was looking for last time: http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=16888#post-234117
I think the tram bike lane thing is just a coincidence - aren't there three of them? If you choose any individual object on the pavement at least one will probably line up with it :P
Posted 6 years ago # -
i do wonder why there are three??
Posted 6 years ago # -
I seem to recall (maybe just a dream) that there is a bit in the highway code about pavement cycling i.e. Cyclists are allowed to cycle over (as opposed to along?) a pavement/footpath to access one cycle route from another. Cycle routes don't have to be "exclusive" bike paths.
its only a small stretch to argue crossing that corner is doing just this.
Ring any bells?
Posted 6 years ago # -
Flippin' 'eck, someone did it again this evening. Passed me from behind as I was walking eastwards along the westbound tram platform at Haymarket this evening, probably having emerged from Haymarket Yards. No audible warning of their approach, first thing I knew was when they shot past. If I'd taken a slight step to the left at the wrong time (a) it would probably have hurt, and (b) the loon on the bike would probably have gone off the edge of the platform on to the tram tracks.
Twice in two days is getting to the point where a complaint to the polis could be in order.
(I didn't see where the offender went after I loudly advised him to desist, but it wouldn't surprise me if he was one of those who cycle across the pedestrian lights at the bottom of Dalry Road when the green man comes on - and then magically become road vehicles again when they reach the reservation in the middle, and turn right up Dalry Road southbound.)
Posted 6 years ago # -
@Edinburgh Cycle Training: I can't see any advice to that effect in the "Rules for Cyclists" section of the Highway Code. I think the relevant rule would be rule 62, but there's no mention of it that I can see in there. It may be one of those things that someone at some point has said will be tolerated/treated with discretion, but AFAICS it's not officially sanctioned or enshrined as such in law.
Rule 64, of course, does say: "You MUST NOT cycle on a pavement."
You're not thinking of Rule 145, are you? "You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property, or in the case of an emergency."
(I've been of the opinion for some time that it would be helpful if more use were made of the terms "footway" and "carriageway", to distinguish between the parts of the road on which wheeled vehicles ie carriages are permitted, and those which are reserved for solely traffic on foot.)
Posted 6 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
