CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Is the practicality of cycling its downfall?

(8 posts)
  • Started 12 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
  • Latest reply from LaidBack

No tags yet.


  1. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I'll often witter on about cycling being great because you can just stop to look at something; you don't actually need dedicated parking; you can turn round in the street easily; find cut-throughs; get off an push to go by things... etc etc etc.

    In short, cycling gives you a freedom that isn't available to you when you're in a car. This seemed to manifest itself on the thread about the proposed Bruntsfield Market, with a division between "they should be allowed to obstruct the path" and "it's easy to get off the bike and csoot round it".

    While I'm in the former camp (i.e. I can't see the point in having facilities if you're then going to block them) I can understand the second point, because I'm so much in the "cycling is utterly practical" camp, and have pushed past things like this before (for example, trees down on the Innocent that were clambered around and over - can't do that with a car).

    It appears in local newspaper website comments as well - there will be a complaint about cyclelanes being blocked, which gets the stock response of "well they'll just cycle on the pavement anyway". In essence it's the beauty of cycling; a blocked road will completely stuff you in a car - it doesn't do so on a bike (without going into the whole "poor facilities mean you won't attract new cyclists" angle).

    No idea where I'm going with this thought, just brain-dumping...

    Posted 12 years ago #

  2. steveo
    Member

    Bit like the internet routing round blockages/censorship.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  3. wingpig
    Member

    I think I'm looking at it more from the point of "keep the cycleway clear so that people bimbling around a market are not taught that they can bimble randomly over cycleways without heed for those using them for their intended purpose". Present it to customers as "there'll be a market near (but not on) the bike path but we'll at least stick signs up asking people to keep clear of the walkway and cycleway," not "we'll be blocking the path; onto the grass, wheelbags". People bimbling around markets might one day be people steaming about in cars, so if they're taught to respect cycle lanes and footpaths when they're in their squishy human form it's be a lot easier to get them to behave around cyclists and pedestrians if they're not first encouraged to disregard them.

    It's sort of like my thing of trying to prevent the wingpiglet from getting hold of potentially dangerous items (not yet counting data available on the internet, which (like leaking water and gas) will pretty much go where they want - mere physical items which can be easily made inaccessible by being moved to higher shelves or locked in cupboards) until he's old enough to not immediately use them in a dangerous way if he should get hold of them, rather than allowing him to get hold of them and then having to attempt to get them off him, which usually begets wailing.

    But yes, there could be something in the "What? A low-cost and accessible-to-almost-all method of easily travelling at thrice walking speed? One which renders standard vehicle-blocking techniques (including, to some extent, stairs) easily insurmountable? One which uses the same fuels as power normal humans? THWART IT! IMMEDIATELY!"

    Posted 12 years ago #

  4. Uberuce
    Member

    I think it's a universal that contractors will want to minimise the space and resources put into providing alternative routes past work sites.

    The difference is that builders can reasonably be assumed to understand the needs of pedestrians cars, vans and HGVs very well, but I doubt many know what cyclists on standard steeds require, let alone the trailer/bent/trike/bent-trike/tandem variants.

    I'd be very surprised if there isn't a tome of clearly worded mandatory guidelines concerning traffic diversion, and equally surprised if there was one for cycling provision.

    I say this mostly since TIE seem happy enough to break theuir own guidelines by 20 degrees with the tramline/marked route angle across Princes Street.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  5. wingpig
    Member

    "The difference is that builders can reasonably be assumed to understand the needs of pedestrians cars, vans and HGVs very well, but I doubt many know what cyclists on standard steeds require, let alone the trailer/bent/trike/bent-trike/tandem variants."

    Whilst there may be guidelines in the place for providing alternative pedestrian access where an existing pedestrian access is being made inaccessible they often lack convenience, Haymarket's last three arrangements being typical examples. Vehicle diversions are usually signed at the point a vehicle needs to divert to get around an obstruction, whereas blockage of pedestrian cut-throughs or sections of roads where footways no longer exist in a usable state are sometimes only discovered at a point where a lot of (slow, pedestrian-pace) backtracking is required to go round an alternative route. That the slower method of locomotion where correction of errors takes much longer is given the least warning and often the most circuitous diversion suggests some inequality with the provision of alternatives for clumsy road-bound vehicles.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  6. Morningsider
    Member

    Uberuce - you mean the Safety at Street Works and Road Works Code of Practice:

    http://www.roadworksscotland.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.aspx?lID=377&sID=80

    Surprisingly, this does mention bikes, cycle lanes etc - including not parking on cycle facilities. It's just that no-one really pays any attention to this.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  7. wee folding bike
    Member

    On the odd occasion when the snow is too deep and traction too low I can just get off and haul it. That hasn't happened for a long time and it has knobblier tyres now.

    You can mend most of it yourself too. I'm in a specially bad mood with cars because I lost a key for one a few months ago. A new key & fob was £200 and you need to have it done in the shop.

    Posted 12 years ago #

  8. LaidBack
    Member

    Yes...

    Because it's easy to do 'freelance' signs to discourage cycling are now starting to appear as seen here.


    Double negative no cycling sign by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr

    Got to remember that the Friends of the Meadows never wanted cycling anywhere in the Meadows.

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin