CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Edinburgh residents urged to use new Petitions Committee. Members of the public are being given a voice to influence Council decisions in the city with the date being set (Monday, 3 December) for the first meeting of the new Petitions Committee.
OK so who is going to get the first petition up and running?
Small print:
Petitions from individuals require at least 500 signatures though in some cases petitions with 250 signatures can be accepted.
Petitions from local businesses need the support of at least 20 other businesses within Edinburgh before they can be considered.
If a petition is invalid, the petitioner will be advised of the reason and given the opportunity to refine and resubmit it.
Hashtag to use if tweeting about the Petitions Committee is #edinpetitions
I'd been talking with people about launching a petition regarding canal access at YeamanPlace even before the new facility.
I fancy doing one to get them to widen the Seafield Road shared use path: where it goes over the railway bridge, and along the sea shore until it turns off along Porty Prom. http://goo.gl/maps/rjsfo
It's crying out to be done and would not cost much. While they're at it they can remove the outdated 'no cycling' signs from Porty Prom.
I've often thought that would be great, but while there's loads of room leading up to the bridge, how would they (cheaply) widen the bridge?
TBH if they just removed the jungle of posts embedded in the path it would be much more rideable.
"how would they (cheaply) widen the bridge?"
The road is reasonably wide, I reckon it could cope with being a metre narrower buy moving the barrier between the road and pavement.
Of course even that would probably cost about £5 million or something.
TBH if they just removed the jungle of posts embedded in the path it would be much more rideable.
Absolutely. There's the crash barrier posts, arguably necessary. Then behind that they've erected posts for the chevron markings. The chevrons may be needed too, but can they not move them closer to the barrier or even incorporated into it? It's like an obstacle course behind there just now.
Similarly, lamp posts and speed limit signs are plonked all over the show between the bridge and the Prom, some put there recently by the looks of it. Creating a chicane effect in a couple of places. Why did they not just put speed limit signs on the lamp posts?
Hm. I've just realised that if you look on Googol street view at that bridge, there are NO CHEVRONS. Which means they must have installed them in the past few years! The idiots! What on earth were they thinking?
Also the speed limit signs appear to be new. I can see why they're needed but the positioning is poor for path users.
Anyone would think the roads department were deliberately trying to make it difficult to cycle along that shared use path...
EDIT - There is this one, which appears to have been removed/replaced: http://goo.gl/maps/Qs6mz
"I reckon it could cope with being a metre narrower buy moving the barrier between the road and pavement"
Often wondered the same thing - I think there's one on the other side as well though so I'm wondering if they're structural?
That section though is ridiculous with all the signs - especially when they've gone and widened the path further west to be proper shared use (are the shared use signs on that yet?).
are the shared use signs on that yet?
No. I believe that TRO was 'called in' for review late in the last council reign as a local councillor was concerned about 'speeding cyclists on the pavement' following some EEN rabble rousing on the topic...
Ah yes, I remember the councillor, whose child was almost hit by a cyclist in a completely different part of town on a non-shared use path.
Here are the relevant articles. Mercifully the frothing comments seem to have disappeared into the ether:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/wheels-in-motion-to-allow-cyclists-to-ride-on-pavement-1-1630312
http://www.scotsman.com/news/fears-over-pavement-cyclists-1-1776071
Cllr Joanna Mowat, daughter of a British Army Officer, lost the Tory group leadership contest to....a cyclist!
"
Cllr. Andrew D Burns (@AndrewDBurns)
09/10/2012 09:36
Thanks for all the RT's re- new Petitions Committee: andrewburns.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/new-pe… ... no petition submitted yet: it could be yours! #edinpetitions
"
Haven't read the rules etc. and think there's something about not asking for what council is doing already, but mine would be something like -
Calls on CEC to be much more active in providing improved conditions for pedestrians and cyclists and be more active in promoting awareness of rights and responsibilities of all road users.
Wait, so the widened cycle path connecting to the prom (which everyone cycles on) is not, in fact, a cycle path? Did nobody think to point out the enormous tracts of Edinburgh where this is already happening?
Only in Edinburgh!
I wonder if we could lean on the new leader of Edinburgh's Tories, who I have actually seen riding around (i.e. not just at photoshoots) to sort that out?
There are going to be sooooooooooo many petitions about trams and bus lanes and speed cameras and closed-to-cars roads.
Dave, yip, technically you can't cycle on the widened-to-be-a-cyclepath path.
Transport Committee Report, 23 September 2013:
1 Purpose of report
1.1 To request the Committee’s approval to commence the necessary statutory procedures to permit cycling along sections of footway (for use by pedal cycle and foot only) at the following locations:
a) A199 Seafield Road – the north footway between Seafield Street and Seafield Road East.
b) The junction of Carrington Road/East Fettes Avenue.
c) Arboretum Place at the entrance to the Royal Botanic Garden.
Seafield Road
3.10 The section of footway where cycling is proposed to be permitted along the A199 Seafield Road is part of a project aimed at providing a continuous off-carriageway cycle route from Leith to Portobello which will form part of the City’s ‘Family Network’ of cycle routes.
3.11 The route will link to an existing off road path on the old railway line from Leith Links to Seafield Street. At the schemes’ eastern end from the s-bend railway bridge to the Portobello Promenade ramp, the existing footway already permits cycling.
3.14 Another point was raised by a member of the Committee on the feasibility of widening the footway to 3.5m at the schemes’ eastern end from the s-bend railway bridge to the Portobello promenade ramp. Cycling is already permitted on this section of footway which is around 2.7-3m wide. Given the fact that this section of footway already operates satisfactorily as a shared footway and the additional cost of widening this section is estimated at £100,000 it is not proposed to take this option forward at this time.
From the minutes, 27 September 2011:
25 Seafield Road and Craigleith to Botanic Garden Cycle Route – Commencement of Statutory Procedures to Permit Use of Footways by Cyclists
Approval was sought to commence the necessary statutory procedures to permit cycling along sections of footway at Seafield Road (north footway between Seafield Street and Seafield Road East), junction of Carrington Road and East Fettes Avenue and at Arboretum Place at the entrance to the Royal Botanic Garden.
The Committee had continued consideration of the proposals to this meeting to allow the Director of City Development to brief Committee members and local Ward members on the costs and detailed design of the proposed scheme and to respond to additional points raised by members at the meeting on 2 August 2011.
A summary of the responses arising from the briefing sessions was submitted.
Decision
1) To instruct the Director of City Development to initiate and make the necessary Redetermination Orders for the A199 Seafield Road and the north section of Seafield Place between its junction with Seafield Road and the north east corner of Leith Links under the relevant sections of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
2) To instruct the Director of City Development to initiate and make the necessary Redetermination Orders for the junction of Carrington Road/East Fettes Avenue under the relevant sections of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
3) To instruct the Director of City Development to initiate and make the necessary Redetermination Orders for Arboretum Place at the entrance to the Royal Botanic Garden under the relevant sections of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.
So by now I'm guessing you are allowed to cycle along the Seafield Road path. They just haven't put signs up yet?
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/meetings/meeting/2531/transport_infrastructure_and_environment_committee
"
Spokes CycleCampaign
@SpokesLothian
Pls sign tram-train bike petition! http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/39937 @CyclenationUK @CTC_Scot @CyclingEdin @CyclingScotland @allpartycycling @carltonreid
"
I think we're going to move forward with this mini-campaign for canal access at Yeaman place. Starting a new thread.
Well!!
"
That Dog Owners be required to keep dogs on a leash either on or within 10 meters of a shared path. A shared path being defined as being permitted for use by cyclists and / or horses along with walkers / dog owners.
This would bring council rules on shared paths and cycleways into line with the current highway code.
"
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/directory_record/172290/dog_control_on_shared_paths
Signed.
Also signed. Come on folks, let's get it past the 500 signatures mark!
Done, though it isn't something I get very cross about. Is the Yeaman Place Canal access petition in existence and if so is there a link to it?
*not signed*
"... within 10 meters of a shared path..."
Sledgehammer, meet Mr Nut. I'm afraid I still see parks like Inverleith Park as primarily a place for people to relax and exercise and play, and not a transport thoroughfare.
Also, there are already laws that people must control their animals. Seriously, they already exist. It's possible to have control of a dog off a lead ("leash"? Sheesh...); it's possible not to have control of a dog on a(n extendable) lead. 'Control' is the key here, not a length of rope.
Dog runs across path trailing extendable lead; cyclist clothes-lined; but he was on a lead m'lud.
Dog walking to heel, not going anywhere; cyclist cries out that the dog is not on a lead; string him up!
"... within 10 meters of a shared path..."
Or metres(?)
Did wonder what that meant.
In this case it's not entirely about 'law' or "control" it's enforcement.
Or - obviously much better - education.
It would be interesting to know if the cause of reduction in dog fouling in Edinburgh can be ascribed to law, enforcement, patrols, fines, education, public disapproval, etc.
Obviously all of those, but I wonder if anyone thinks they know which bit was the trigger for change or the most significant continuing factor.
Also - I wonder if anyone has been fined for flinging bags into the undergrowth.
@WC, define 'control'.
I'm sure the owners of hounds that they let roam free, to then charge up to you, teeth bared, think they're just friendly and that they have them under control. They will no doubt be deeply offended if you suggest otherwise (see threads passim).
IIRC the rules for parks state that dogs need to be kept under control. As do the new 'rules' on signs along Porty prom. Not much sign that dog owners are paying any heed mind you. Good luck with enforcing that!
At least 'on a leash/lead' is definable: the dog's either on a lead, or not.
But presumably you agree that, on an extending lead, it can still run up to you teeth bared etc etc etc. (and define 'control'? Not running up to people while roaming free baring teeth...)
Yes, the owners may be deeply offended, but it's not them you have to convince on the 'control' point, but rather the authorities.
But we've done dogs to death. Sign if you want to, I'm reserving my right not to, for the exact reasons stated above.
"
Although this petition received 785 signatures, you only need 500 to get heard or 20 if you are a business.
"
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/download/meetings/id/37543/item_no_61-leaders_report
Really??
Well 'we' are in the 'business' of making Edinburgh nicer...
So Boab's the Joiners (one man and his white van) can get twenty of his drinking mates to petition about double parking (allowing it, presumably). Yet ordinary folk (who don't happen to run a business) who want something else (eg. better enforcement of parking bans on cycling lanes) need to find five hundred folk to back them.
Is this the way they do "consultations" too?
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts