it would benefit from repaving. then a different light sequence. cars often run the reds there too. and pedestrians wander out at will.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
The latest 'danger' from cyclists
(63 posts)-
Posted 11 years ago #
-
@Uberuce The first few times I used that junction as a cyclist, I nearly came a cropper because I assumed that the light sequence wouldn't allow Tarvit Street's traffic forward at the same time as Gilmore Place's right-turning traffic because it's so completely and obviously Gozer-spawningly stupid to try and cross those streams.
I'm pretty certain I've got video of the middle-un cheerfully turning right (on green) out of Tarvit Street into oncoming left-turning traffic too - to the 9 year-old eye that doesn't look like a manoeuvre requiring giving way, as it doesn't appear that you're crossing a stream of traffic.
Thankfully the approaching driver ceded priority, but it could have been nasty...
One of those "I can't believe he's just done that" moments.
Not that I'm saying you've the mentality of a P5 boy!
Robert
Posted 11 years ago # -
I am one of those 'dangerous' cyclists who dismounts and walks the bike across on the pedestrian phase. And why not? When you dismount and push your bike, you are a foot passenger, ie. a pedestrian.
I won't do it if I know the lights will shortly change to green, but if I get caught short by a change to red, and the pedestrian phase is coming next, I see nothing wrong at all. It is generally far safer for me than sitting with the cars, vans , buses and lorries, engines revving, ready to race each other from the green light. After all, I'm no longer 'in the way' if I give myself a head start.
I highly recommend walking across the junction, when the lights sequence favours it. It's one of the benefits of cycling has over using a motor vehicle: you can instantly transform into a pedestrian.
Another variant that is useful is when approaching lights, about to turn left, no ASL/ASL occupied, and left turning vehicle in your way. Far safer to dismount, walk the bike around the corner on the pavement than to try and filter to the front and risk left hook crushing death. Again, only to be done if the lights sequence is favourable. If I know the lights are about to change, clearly no point and just wait behind the left turning motor. If they've just gone red or into pedestrian phase, you can save time by walking rather than waiting and avoid the 'frustration overtaking' and left hooking that may occur if you sit in a big queue of traffic.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Walking through reds should probably be in bikeability. I'd certainly say it's something society should try to encourage rather than have a moral panic about. After all, the very existence of bicycles is already a giant annoyance to 'free motorists'...
Posted 11 years ago # -
Going back to the OP, it does appear that the reason it's seen as dangerous is that people are remounting, and setting off unsteadily, as the traffic gets going again and is already caught back up to them.
Which is, I guess, different to the perfectly safe walk across and remounts described here. But what it does highlight is that it's getting on a bike and looking 'unsafe' that's the actual issue, but those who think it's dangerous tie it in to the walking across a red instead, which hints at them actually just being annoyed that a cyclist can do that, and having to come up with a reason beyond pure jealousy.
You see it in the EEN comments quite often - people moaning that cyclists just 'become pedestrians when they feel like it'. Well yes... That's one of the benefits of cycling!
Posted 11 years ago # -
When I commuted via the Meadows and the canal, I would always get off and walk across the Kings Theatre junction if I arrived in the ASL as the lights turned red. I could be over the junction, on my bike and turning left into Valleyfield Street before the traffic got going again. And I hate being in that ASL when the buses turn right into Gilmore Place.
Posted 11 years ago # -
the right turn at end of Gilmore Place at the Kings, if I arrive just as the lights change to red, otherwise it's a long wait
I've been through that junction twice in two days and both times the lights at the end of Gilmore Place have gone red just as I've got to them, and both times I've walked the right turn. I think it is mostly prefering to move rather than wait!I have also had a fright there when I didn't realise that the Tarvit Place traffic also gets a green light when the Glimore Place right turn traffic does...
I also once had a chap in a BMW overtake me through the right turn there, impatient person.
The other place I "walk through reds" is going up Market Street; once I get to the junction with The Mound it is easier to get off and push the bike past the queue and left round the corner, and then restart the other side of the pedestrian crossing, rather than having to do a very slow standing start there where it is quite steep.
Posted 11 years ago # -
I think at one stage there must have been a closely fought competition to design the most cycling hostile junction in Edinbugh. The person who designed the Gilmore/Kings one got first prize! As with others above I didn't realise the right turn didn't mean it was only our turn to proceed.
Also the busses coming into the ASL caught me out the first time too!Posted 11 years ago # -
"...I assumed that the light sequence wouldn't allow Tarvit Street's traffic forward at the same time as Gilmore Place's right-turning traffic because it's so completely and obviously Gozer-spawningly stupid to try and cross those streams."
I've seen several cars make that assumption over the years.
I regularly walk across that junction. I've never had anyone criticise the choice though.
I can't imagine how walking over on pedestrian can be dangerous??! I figure it's slightly quicker, but also massively safer. The worse experience I had on the junction was someone driving a van, from Tarvit to Gilmore P, I gave way - was still in the ASL, but they bombed it past me TO MY LEFT (as in on the wrong side of the road), while another car was passing to my right (correct side). I had no idea what escape protocol would be advised in such a situation. The high-way code seems oddly lacking in "what to do when someone is complete crazy"...
Posted 11 years ago # -
If there was any junction to trial a cyclist+pedestrian lights phase, that would be it.
In regards to your frankly surreal experience, lionfish, that's when you take off, nuke the site* from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
*licence
I'm not much of a dismounter. The only two places I regularly partake of the pleasures of the multimodal side are the entry points to the Broomhouse obstacle course, and even then only when I'm going into the office unusually late. I'm normally in before 7am, so there's no gain to using our caterpillar/butterfly interchangeability.
Posted 11 years ago # -
WRT 'getting on as the traffic starts', I'm not sure that's tied to walking through in any way.
The alternative is doing the same start but from a couple of feet in front of traffic after all....
Posted 11 years ago # -
"WRT 'getting on as the traffic starts', I'm not sure that's tied to walking through in any way."
It was the person complaining about the walking through red lights who tied them in when I said the walking through wasn't dangerous, she clarified that it was the getting on in a wobbly fashion in front of moving traffic at the other side.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"she clarified that it was the getting on in a wobbly fashion in front of moving traffic at the other side."
She might be right.
But was it a one-off that she then applied to all cases?
I suppose getting on a bike and not instantly moving in a straight line might look dangerous to some people.
IF done without consideration for any approaching vehicles might be dangerous.
But it comes back to the whole 'I'd better not do that because someone might misunderstand/disapprove and blame all cyclists'...
I think there's definitely a lot of 'I don't understand cycling so anything I wouldn't/couldn't do as a driver must be mad/bad/sad/wrong/dangerous/illegal etc.'!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Many people seem to be confused about what amounts to cycling. A while back, due to a puncture, I was walking my bike along a walkway next to a cycle path.
An officious-sounding local resident stopped in front of me.
"You're not allowed to cycle here. You should use the cycle path," he said.
"I'm not cycling," I replied.
"That's true," he admitted, and let me go on my way.Posted 11 years ago # -
"But was it a one-off that she then applied to all cases?"
I think it's more than likely it's a tiny minority of cases that is then inflated to 'everyone' - a bit like 'all' cyclists run red lights. People are more willing, and more likely, to ontice someone doing wrong. Often I'm sat at a crossroads, and there are 6 or 7 cyclists sitting at red waiting. One can jump the lights, and you just know there are people watching thinking, 'See! They all do it!'
""I'm not cycling," I replied.
"That's true," he admitted"That makes me smile :)
Posted 11 years ago # -
Sorry, poor phone posting is poor.
What I was thinking was more along these lines: after a junction there's a cyclist getting on their bike, who may or may not be wobbly (not a crime, and something that any driver wishing to overtake is naturally obliged to wait for and take into account).
Did they get there by walking over the junction? By unlocking their bike and putting it on the nearest bit of road? Did they just pull over to adjust their shoelace and are now setting off again?
Obvious corollary: if it was by walking, the alternative is the cyclist trying to set off in the middle of the traffic stream and being wobbly, which doesn't seem like an improvement.
So, it's not clear at all that the behaviour of walking over a junction is tied into being wobbly, and that means it boils down to "I saw a cyclist being wobbly! This is dangerous and terrible!" which is, if we're honest, just something that a modern driver has to be able to cope with?
Posted 11 years ago # -
Random Google find
"
Grannies and all other cyclist can wobble. There was a judgment c,80 years ago on the subject when a cyclist was run over by a driver who claimed the cyclist wobbled. The jusge said every cyclist is allowed their wobble. So its case law now.This is picked up in the highway code.
The Highway Code instructs motorists to provide an overtaken cyclist with at least as much room as would be left when overtaking another vehicle. There is judicial comment suggesting that a cyclist must be allowed a corridor or at least 1 metre in width in which to proceed noting “every cyclist is allowed his wobble”. Beyond that corridor the Highway Code and guidance for those holding vocational licences (LGV and PSV drivers) require additional clearance to be given.
So mr A-L should read the code.
Posted 11 years ago # -
Ah I see.
Yep, seems absolutely right to me. The 'walking across' just gives the driver a hook to hang it on.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"I saw a cyclist being wobbly! This is dangerous and terrible!"
Not dangerous, in that it poses no danger to others. Potentially hazardous, in that it may possibly pose a danger to the cyclist, but only if passing motorists leave insufficient room (see chdot's comment above).
every cyclist is allowed their wobble.
I like this.
Posted 11 years ago # -
if we're honest, (it's) just something that a modern driver has to be able to cope with?
It seems that too many drivers are forgetting that at speeds approaching zero, a vehicle with only two wheels in line tends to fall over. Who'd have thought?
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
cyclistsinthecity (@citycyclists)
17/10/2012 20:29
Just cycled across toucan crossing on green light. Taxi driver drove thro red & honked me. His fault but i blame poor junction design"
Posted 11 years ago # -
A cyclist having a "wobble" as they set off from the lights is no more dangerous than a driver that stalls on a hill start or one of those types who turns the ignition off at the red light then forgets to turn it back on green. It's the responsibility of those behind (driver or car or whatever) to make sure it is safe to do so before they set off or try to overtake.
I had some frightful wobbles on the way home tonight in the dark and the rain attempting not to fall prey to the potholes full of water looming out of the dark and dazzle of over-bright headlights. Precisely why you don't drive (or cycle) 1 foot off someone's wheel or pass with only inches to spare. Any vehicle can suddenly need to avoid a hazard in the road, it's not peculiar to bikes but they are more vulnerable to road hazards and probably much more likely to have to take avoiding action.
Posted 11 years ago # -
The Kings/Home/Tarvit junction is the MOST appalling in Edinburgh. The lights are very badly timed when turning right out of Gilmore Pl and into Leven St, both for cyclists and motorists.
What happens is you wait to turn right out of Gilmore Pl, feeling exposed in this awkwardly shaped junction, while the oncoming traffic of Tarvit St passes. Then your light goes to red, but the one on Tarvit St stays at green and the oncoming traffic keeps coming!. This means you get stuck in the middle of the junction and are forced to complete your turn on red!
Cars get stuck there too, and then they complete the turn by driving through the green man as the ped phase has started by then. The cars behind have also backed up, blocking the ASL.
Truly awful. And on NCR75 as well!
Posted 11 years ago # -
On the bike breakfast feeder ride, I raised this intersection (and in particular the surface) very informally/causally with a senior city politician who rides through it daily - and was appalled that he seemed to thnk it wasn't that much of a problem. This made me think that I was over-reacting, but maybe we should try to lobby more concertedly around this intersection (in the way that Londoncampaigns have targetted intersections).
Of course the London campaigns tend to focus on intersections after there have been accidents. Sometime ago a map was posted showing accident hotspots in Edinburgh and I was very surprised that this one was not included. I can't believe that pedestrians don't get regularly knockeddown there, but the stats don't include them if so.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"maybe we should try to lobby more concertedly around this intersection"
Given the number of posts here that might be a good idea.
I think the problem is the same old UK/Edinburgh one of trying to make it a bit better without 'disadvantaging' anyone.
My understanding is that CEC is looking at this as part of the 'Family Cycle Network'. It is a key element of the Innocent to Canal route which is perhaps even more important than the 'Quality Bike Corridor' and will be a key indicator of how serious CEC is about cycling.
There may be money (via Sustrans) for improving North Meadow Walk. Obviously it's good if CEC can get 'extra' money, but things like NMW (even if it wasn't part of the FCN) wouldn't be seen as "extra" in a city that really wanted to meet its self-imposed cycling targets.
But back to the 'King's junction'.
'Obviously' it needs to be redesigned so that bikes turning right from Gilmore Place are 'safe'. The 'obvious' answer is to not let vehicles come from Tarvit Street when others are turning right from GP.
Of course this would change the 'balance' of the lights - potentially reducing the time for the main Home Street - Leven Street route. That I suspect is part of the 'redesign' problem - i.e. the 'free flow' of traffic is more important than 'vulnerable road users'.
It would be possible to close Tarvit Street (or at least have a very short green phase). Bikes could use Valleyfield Street 'when' that has a contra-flow lane, other vehicles would go on the main roads rather than using a residential cut through. (There is no convenient way to go from Gilmore Place to Melville Drive at present so it's hardly a main (two way) route.
There is no good reason to have a left filter from GP. It 'helps traffic flow' when the right filter from Home Street is on. The latter is probably a good idea as it helps the buses.
SO, only having one lane (plus a decent width cycle lane) in Gilmore Place (and no traffic from Tarvit Street) would mean the ASL box could be narrower. Even left turning vehicles infringe it -
There would also be the opportunity to improve the pavement on the corner.
This is a busy pedestrian area - especially at theatre time.
Simples - in a world designed for people more than motor vehicles.
Posted 11 years ago # -
You definitely aren't over-reacting SRD, it IS awful.
Looks like most people are coming out of Gilmore (which is awful) but coming out of Tarvit Street is also awful. You have right of way going straight across but is anyone going to give way to a cyclist? Mebbies aye, mebbies nae.
Posted 11 years ago # -
"
Dan Smernicki (@DanSmernicki)
19/10/2012 11:28
@CyclingEdin god yes. Good to realise that so many others think so too. Not quite as crazy as the Holy Corner omnishambles though."
"
Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
19/10/2012 11:28
“@scotbot: @CyclingEdin It's bad enough as a pedestrian, never mind as a cyclist. Way too many cars in the area.” Yes link mentions peds too"
"
Cycling Edinburgh (@CyclingEdin)
19/10/2012 11:27
“@F1les: @CyclingEdin all junctions are dangerous” Some more than others! Design & usage both factors. #cyclesafe #cycling #Edinburgh"
Think we need a new Junctions thread!
Posted 11 years ago # -
Does Tarvit Street actually need to have a connection to Home Street? Closing it, or making it access only in the reverse sense to the current direction, would seem to make sense - possibly raising the carriageway and creating a decent through footway where pedestrian traffic will be high, especially when a show is on at the King's.
Tarvit Street is often well occupied by the vans loading from the scene dock at the King's closing it off to through motorised traffic could be a real advantage in many respects - what need is there for a cut-through from Mellville Drive when an earlier junction provides a similar connection.
Eliminate the Tarvit Street 'feed' and the light sequence could be simplified, with one further enhancement possible if the right turn traffic from Gilmore Place can be bled off back as far as Polwarth and sent via Holy Corner, which I suspect is the case for a lot of regular users
Posted 11 years ago # -
This show up the way in which cycle infrastructure designed for "confident, experienced cyclist" differs from the approach taken in places where cycling is considered a means of transport for everyone...
Posted 11 years ago # -
I think you're crediting these 'facilities' with too much thought about the 'design' Kim. I don't think they've actually been designed with 'confident, experienced cyclists' in mind either - but rather put in because you're 'supposed' to put in cycle infrastructure. The user, and the experience of using, have been bypassed completely.
Posted 11 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
