CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Today's rubbish cycling

(4520 posts)

  1. jdanielp
    Member

    I take a similar approach to Focus with regards the aquaduct, continuing to cycle until I get close to someone (unless it is a police officer, in which case I'll get off my bike since one of them has told me off before) and then moving right up against the handrail to give them as much space as possible to get by (more than if I was pushing my bike on foot). Most people seem more than happy enough to walk by me like this. It doesn't stop someone occasionally saying "the sign says that you should get off your bike" or similar, to which I generally reply "I know". No one has replied to that, although I have mentally rehearsed my "I can actually give you far more space this way" come back many times!

    I don't go out of my way to avoid joining the aquaduct if people are on it already unless I see that someone is just about to exit before I join it. I ring my bell prior to joining or exiting just in case. If I catch up with someone heading in the same direction as me I will just slow right down and roll along quietly behind them.

    Most pedestrians seem happy to give way to me although I will happily cycle by them if they offer, although I sometimes get a little nervous depending on how much space they have given and how random they look for fear of being pushed in, not that that has happened to me...

    The thing that I am most unsure about is giving way to other cyclists who have remained on their bikes too. I generally go with the strategy of giving way to anyone who was already on the aquaduct before I had joined it, although clearly not everyone shares the same viewpoint because some cyclists will basically try to force their way by regardless of the situtation which can be hairy!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  2. Kenny
    Member

    I stayed on the bike until I was pretty close, maybe 8 - 10 feet away when I dismounted to allow us both to pass.

    I must admit, if you did that to me when I had a pram, I wouldn't be impressed. 8 to 10 feet is not a lot, and if you only got off at that point, especially when I'm pushing a pram, I'd be assuming you were going to try to ride past me, until you obviously got off your bike, but by then, it would be too late to prevent me getting into defensive mode. So while you did "the right thing" and got off to pass, personally, I think you should have done it sooner to try to make it clear, nice and early, that you were not going to try to squeeze past while cycling.

    I never cycle across it. I did once, on a road bike, and I nearly ended up in the canal because the cobbles are not easy to ride on. I think I'm quite crap on cobbles generally though.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. Dunny
    Member

    Thanks for the advice folks, its always interesting to see other peoples views in a situation. Thinking about it, I stick to the left on any path or road, that's just natural to me and probably most people in this country. So, on the aqueduct, I do the cling to the fence thing too when heading east, and I dismount and walk by when heading west (as I was when the elderly man told me off). @mkns - I should mention that I did slow almost to a complete stop a good way before I did actually stop, aiming to show the man my intention to stop. I have pushed my daughter in her buggy along it countless times, and I've never felt nervous about approaching cyclists as their intentions to move over or stop are always clear to me. Nobody wants to swim in there. I'm pretty sure the guy just wanted to tell me I disobeyed the sign, rather than having any genuine concern that I would hit him, because he started telling me of as we were passing, not as I was approaching.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. Dunny
    Member

    Thanks for the advice folks, its always interesting to see other peoples views in a situation. Thinking about it, I stick to the left on any path or road, that's just natural to me and probably most people in this country. So, on the aqueduct, I do the cling to the fence thing too when heading east, and I dismount and walk by when heading west (as I was when the elderly man told me off). @mkns - I should mention that I did slow almost to a complete stop a good way before I did actually stop, aiming to show the man my intention to stop. I have pushed my daughter in her buggy along it countless times, and I've never felt nervous about approaching cyclists as their intentions to move over or stop are always clear to me. Nobody wants to swim in there. I'm pretty sure the guy just wanted to tell me I disobeyed the sign, rather than having any genuine concern that I would hit him, because he started telling me of as we were passing, not as I was approaching.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. Focus
    Member

    Too late to edit: "aqueduct" not "viaduct" Doh!

    mkns does make a good point about the point at which you stop. The impression you give may differ from the action you're actually taking. Stopping earlier makes you look more patient as you wait there for the other person to approach.

    As for meeting someone riding the other way, I just decide to be the one to take the "submissive" role and stop by the rail. Somebody needs to stop for a safe pass, it might as well be me. That way the other person has the option to ride past by the water's side or hop off and walk.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. Greenroofer
    Member

    I do the aqueduct every day. My approach is that people on bikes heading East should do the railing-cling thing and give way to people heading West. On that basis I will tend to proceed westwards on the assumption that cyclists heading East are going to give way, but when I'm heading East I expect to give way and do so in good time.

    I'm not going to be stupid about it, though. The consequences of getting it wrong are too wet to contemplate. If a cyclist heading East doesn't do the railing cling thing, I'll stop when we meet and shuffle past them.

    I always give way to pedestrians unless they are kind enough to give way first. I don't ride right behind people who are walking in the same direction as me.

    Every now and again somebody complains (usually at weekends, tbh). I smile and nod say that the most important thing is that nobody ends up in the canal.

    I does strike me, however that the signs say 'Cyclists please dismount', not 'must' and they are not a British standard 'No Cycling' sign.

    Courtesy and consideration is all we need.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. Uberuce
    Member

    Like everyone I've just mentally directed a light sabre duel on the viaduct between the Courteous Knight and the evil Baron von Numpty.

    Shades of Montoya vs Wesley in bantering, wee bit of Broken Sword vs Nameless as they dance across the canal, and a cheeky twist of Fred'n'Ginger, since they're in SPDs on the cobbles and its clicky.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. Dunny
    Member

    "Like everyone I've just mentally directed a light sabre duel on the viaduct between the Courteous Knight and the evil Baron von Numpty."

    Haha! Who won?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. Dave
    Member

    As a Johnny-come-lately to the canal business I took my cue from the actions of everyone else. That is, I keep riding providing there's room (including riding past an oncoming cyclist who also keeps cycling, if they are up for it).

    I would never dismount. Instead I simply stop for as long as required for whoever needs to pass me to get past, then continue riding.

    I also follow the convention that westbound cyclists have priority, because eastbound have the safety of the railing. That said, if I'm heading east and a rider coming west stops on the railing, I just ride past. No point getting into a standoff.

    The huge majority who ride over the viaduct has stopped surprising me. If I had to guess I'd say ~90% don't dismount, and the disruption caused by someone who walks over is very noticeable. (That's not to say they aren't completely within their rights to walk over. Just that it can cause a tremendous and entertaining snarl).

    I've got a great video of such which I should really share.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I would never dismount.

    Scenario: pram or wheelchair coming other way?

    I generally walk because I don't like the cobbles on skinny tyres, but I go that way so infrequently that it's not really an issue.

    I'm happy for cyclits going either way to ride past me.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. Dunny
    Member

    I've been working on a wee technique when I pass on the canal side. I kind of dip my bar end toward the water, meaning there's a bit more room to pass. I myself stay vertical. It must look pretty daft. One day I'm going in, and it will be my own fault.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. chdot
    Admin

    "One day I'm going in, and it will be my own fault"

    Stopping is an option...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. Dunny
    Member

    Stopping is an option...

    You mean stopping and dismounting to let people pass? As is not stopping, and carrying on my merry way! If I get this technique down, I'll be more likely to be able to without stopping. I'd rather not stop if I don't have to.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. chdot
    Admin

    No, dismounting takes up to much room!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. wingpig
    Member

    "...and the disruption caused by someone who walks over is very noticeable..."

    I dismount and walk/trot (quickly) across, but take what sounds like the unusual precaution of looking both ahead and behind both slightly before and whilst I cross, so that I can make it clear to opposite-direction-of-travellers that I'm happy to be the one to hop up onto the coping stones at the bottom of the fence and wait for them to pass at their own pace, with access to 90% of the width of the path. People approaching from behind are either given exactly the same treatment or pointedly ignored, depending where they fall on the self-important-hurrying-rudeness scale.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. What wingpig said....

    I've only gone across a few times, but always dismounted. Fair point about it taking up more space, but as I approach someone I will stop, bike leant on railings, me standing behind. Et voila, not actually as wide (just because you dismount doesn't mean you have to keep walking at all times...).

    Horses for courses. I always cycled over the bridge in Musselburgh that a wee while back, finally, got a sign on it asking cyclists to give way (argh! cede priority!) to pedestrians, rather than asking them to dismount. But it's wider, with fencing on either side.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. fimm
    Member

    I won't cycle across both a) because I don't feel safe from falling in the canal and b) because cyclists are asked to dismount and in my eyes it is just the same as running red lights or cycling on a non-shared-use pavement, i.e. at the minimum gives weight to those who see cyclists as inconsiderate, law-breaking what-have-yous.

    However - I don't cycle across at rush hour, and I do understand what others are saying about a person walking with a bike being a problem at that time. In fact I rarely cycle on the towpath at all, being an impatient person who would rather be on the road.

    (If I were in charge, I'd ban [adults] from cycling on the towpath - and they wouldn't want to, anyway, because the roads would be Dutch-like havens of peace and tranquility...)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Fair point about it taking up more space

    I always walk behind the bike, pushing it from the saddle (rather than alongside it, from the bars), so don't think it takes up much more room.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. SRD
    Moderator

    My policy is always to give children or otherwise vulnerable users the 'railing' side. Have been astonished by (male) cyclists barging through on the railing side, even when we started across first, forcing children holding heavy bikes towards the canal.

    I think they're oblivious and inconsiderate rather than lunatics, but why?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. "because cyclists are asked to dismount and in my eyes it is just the same as running red lights or cycling on a non-shared-use pavement, i.e. at the minimum gives weight to those who see cyclists as inconsiderate, law-breaking what-have-yous"

    Bit of mischief making, but on another thread didn't you say you will happily continue to enter ASLs in an illegal manner? ;)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. jdanielp
    Member

    oops, when I said "Most pedestrians seem happy to give way to me although I will happily cycle by them if they offer" above I actually meant "Some pedestrians seem happy to give way to me and I will happily cycle by them if they offer" - I think I spent too long restructuring that post and ended up confusing myself...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. fimm
    Member

    Actually, Mr Wilmington's Cow, I personally didn't. ;-)
    I described ASLs as "useless pieces of 'infrastructure'", if I recall correctly.

    Given my comments are about perception, then given that most people don't know about the legal and illegal ways to enter an ASL, I'm unlikely to alter perceptions of cyclists by entering one illegally, am I?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. "Given my comments are about perception, then given that most people don't know about the legal and illegal ways to enter an ASL, I'm unlikely to alter perceptions of cyclists by entering one illegally, am I?"

    I like your semantic thinking. Wasn't an accusation - as I said I dismount on the canal, but didn't on the bridge in Musselburgh which used to say dismount. I'm slightly of the view that it actually doesn't matter what we do, there will always be a negative perception (you just know that at a junction you could have 15 cyclists waiting at red, and one will RLJ, and everyone around will take that as evidence that EVERY cyclist RLJs) - but I still don't ride on the pavement primarily because of the perception I tihnk it reinforces (while my view on others doing it has softened - I'm not a logical being).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. jdanielp
    Member

    Interesting to hear the view about giving way if cycling East and expecting to be given way to when cycling West across the aquaduct; that goes some way to explaining the behaviour of a few of the more serious looking cyclists, which I previously interpretted as being a bit pushy and rude. I'll definitely bear that idea in mind from now on.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. fimm
    Member

    I didn't take it as an accusation - just as mischief-making, as you said...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. GDR
    Member

    I also tend to dismount at the Musselburgh bridge unless I can see that there is nobody on it. Unlike the ERC who just steam across en masse no matter who is on the bridge! Perhaps there is also some unwritten rule as per the aquaduct about giving way depending on direction/serousness of the cyclist? eg if the ERC is heading east, then others give way. If the ERC is heading west,then others give way :)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. I always take what I consider to be a pragmatic approach. If the aquaduct is quiet, I cycle. Irrespective of which way I'm going, I give way to everyone - unless they have already given way to me!

    If its busy two way cyclists and/or pedestrians, I get off and walk when I 'catch up' to those ahead.

    IIRC, in the old days of British Waterways, a license to cycle on the towpath (which was free) was subject to giving way to pretty much every other user. I am happy to go along with that.

    It seems a bit daft to me to use the towpath if you are in a hurry anyway.

    Had a couple of near misses with dog owners letting pets run amok, but loads more incidents with cyclists who think ringing a bell is a fair alternative to slowing down.

    I used to only use the roads (porty to the gyle) and it took about 45 mins. Via the canal is way more pleasant and at my 'leisurely' pace takes about 55 minutes. That 10 minutes extra is worth it. If a lot more cyclists were a bit more considerate, it would be an absolute pleasure!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. Dunny
    Member

    I like your view Bikeability. I'm never really in a hurry on the canal, I use it to get to work (which is a longer route overall for me) just because it's nice to be on. And I can assure you, I'm never in a hurry to get to work!

    The reason I try not to get off the bike if possible is down to pure laziness on my part I think. I do get off if I think there might not be enough room, or if there's kids, buggies or people with crutches, vulnerable users to quote SRD. Also if it's busy.

    But I just can't be bothered getting on and off. That may make me a rubbish cyclist, but if it's only for that stretch of the world, I can live with that. I know I would never put someone else in danger on it, so that's good enough for me.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. Dave
    Member

    "I would never dismount."

    Scenario: pram or wheelchair coming other way?

    I guess I can't imagine how standing beside my bike would take up less room than straddling it? In the unlikely event that, for some reason, I had to hold my whole bike above my head for a wheelchair or something that would indeed be an option.

    Or letting the whole bike hang over the far side of the railings (not sure, that might be some kind of public safety offence?)

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. wingpig
    Member

    "I can't imagine how standing beside my bike would take up less room than straddling it"

    If you stand with your feet on the stones at the bottom of the railings then your feet are not taking up any of the path surface. If you stand sideways you're probably protruding less far out from the railings into the airspace above the path than if your hip is against the railings whilst seated on a bicycle. If you push the wheels of your not-currently-being-sat-upon bike as far as possible against the stones at the bottom of the railings (or sit it upon them, like your feet) then your bike is occupying less of the width of the surface of the path than it would if you were still seated upon it and not able to push it quite as far in towards the railings, assuming a non-zero leg width. The situation may obviously vary depending on handlebar width, number of trailers being towed, body proportions, inclination to stand on the stones at the bottom of the railings and so on.

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin