CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

Today's rubbish walking

(230 posts)
  • Started 12 years ago by Arellcat
  • Latest reply from the canuck

No tags yet.


1…456…8

  1. Uberuce
    Member

    I still don't intend to reacquire a bell even after adding the canal to my stable of routes t'office.

    1) I'm too skinflint to buy one of the nice brass ones that sound friendly.

    b) Even those ones can only say 'please', leaving me to say 'thank you' and if I'm going to speak to people once I might as well speak twice.

    Fourth) When I did have a nice friendly bell(the one on the iron horse) a minority of people were still arsey. So far no-one's been upset by me asking if I can get pass.

    And anyway) If I'm on the canal then by definition I have time to slow to a crawl under bridges and quite happily keep pace with walkers until they've noticed me or been asked for permission to pass.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  2. Morningsider
    Member

    Waiting for the Zebra crossing to clear on Chambers Street. A pedestrian decided to walk round behind me, or more accurately through me. Walking straight into the back of my bike, breaking off my rear mudguard mounted reflector.

    Apologies to anyone in the area at the time - I may have used industrial strength language.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  3. paddyirish
    Member

    Last night cycling along the old railway line from Newbridge to Dalmeny was chased by a dog to the point where I had to stop. Owner had let it off the leash and couldn't control it. He was using a lot of industrial strength language himself and the dog was just ignoring it. That dog should never be let off a leash and nor should the owner...

    Posted 10 years ago #

  4. Darkerside
    Member

    @Uberuce; we possibly have different bell use cases...

    I'd only use the bell (which is of the expensive, loud, friendly type) on shared use paths if I felt someone needed advance warning or might be startled by my voice in their ear. Loose dogs, stray children, someone lost in reverie, etc.

    In that I think we're quite similar.

    I also use it (much more often) on roads if it looks like someone's about to step out. In that case it's either bell or shout, and bell has better results.

    Much more frequently than either, I'll slow down, stop, go around, or whatever.

    Erm. Did I have a point to make?

    Hmm.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  5. dougal
    Member

    I have got one of those loverly brass bells and it does absolutely nowt for getting people's attention. It has Spinal Tap levels of sustain though.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  6. Dave
    Member

    67 You should... watch out for ... pedestrians stepping into your path
    72 Do not ride on the inside of vehicles signalling or slowing down to turn left.

    The main one is "when filtering in slow-moving traffic, take care and keep your speed low" [88].

    It would be odd to have a specific instruction on how to do something if that activity wasn't legit, but people keep on querying it, so it can't be as obvious as I think?

    211 instructs people to "look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful ..." blah blah which (combined with your two above) would seem to cover all the bases.

    As I said up thread, these things will always come down to a magistrate apportioning responsibility. They will balance the various factors, is it reasonable to step out without looking on a road with hundreds of cyclists passing stationary traffic? How about the rider's speed, were they belting along at 30mph or were they going pretty slowly? (Video plus points here).

    Proving it is the difficult thing I guess, as the magistrate will normally have to rely on their own prejudices to pick between the two conflicting stories. "He was speeding along on the pavement at 40mph and shouted 'get out of my way, I'm not stopping' " vs "I was just cruising along at walking pace when they leapt out of nowhere into the road" ;-)

    Posted 10 years ago #

  7. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Heading down Gilmerton Road in the advisory cycle lane, I had queued stationary motor vehicles on my right.

    I was rather taken aback when a lady with a baby in a push chair and a six year old in tow suddenly stepped out into my path from the pavement. I deployed the drogue chute and all sea anchors, slithering to a stop motocross style a few centimetres short of her.

    'Lady, what the fleckerl was that?' I enquired. She did not turn around but went her way, visibly blushing. The small boy turned and looked at me, eyes wide and actually apologised for his mother. I hope all three of them are alright. She appeared to be unconcerned that he was scared by the event.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  8. algo
    Member

    @IWRATS - you appear to be having plenty of opportunities to test your handling abilities and brakes… perhaps you could coordinate these manoeuvres into a stunt show?

    Posted 10 years ago #

  9. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @algo

    There is automotive craziness in the air, no doubt about it.

    Speaking of bike handling I'm quite enjoying seeing how far out of shape I can get the bike on Greenroofer's Railway Snicket without falling off. It is now quite unsuitable for passage on road tyres due to a thick coating of mud and leaf preserve.

    Posted 10 years ago #

  10. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    Dude walking his child to school down Gilmerton Road just stepped off the pavement into traffic with nary a rearward glance. I suggested that he might have been risking his life, but he didn't hear me until he took his earphones out.

    Fancy walking your kid to school and not talking to him. Brutal times we live in.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. 559
    Member

    Had to drive early this morning to sorting office, number of pedestrians crossing road who were almost totally invisible, only detected due to picking up a movement.

    Fully appreciate that peds or cyclists dont have to wear hi vis. But even a white plastic bag (5p paid) would have been welcome

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. Charlethepar
    Member

    Wierd one this morning. Was cycling through a green light from Laurieston Place onto Forest Road. Young woman, noticing that motorised transport had come to a halt through congestion, but not looking to her right at all, made to step off the pavement less than a metre in front of me. 'Woah' I shouted. No abuse. She stops and shouts aggressively 'On shut up!' What did she want me to do? Cycle straight into her? Did not have time to stop and ask.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. Kenny
    Member

    Was heading along Western Terrace up the hill towards Balgreen Road tonight on the way home, head down into the wind, when a runner who was crossing over the other side of the road shouted angrily at me "RED LIGHT!!". I looked back to see that the light going the other direction was red, and thus I figured there was no way the one I went through was also red at the same time, and I'm not the kind of person to RLJ. I shouted back politely that it was green, but it niggled at me on the way home, as I wondered whether I had indeed run a red. Camera FTW - it was green. I suspect the runner mistakenly thought it was a green man all the way across. Hopefully he has already realised the error of his way, otherwise he's going to get himself run over.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. wingpig
    Member

    Someone going down the steps between the western apices of the Hawkhill Avenue access slope to the Restalrig Path in shoes so unsuited for walking that after stepping off the bottom step they had to totter all the way across the path to the guardrail and stop themselves with their hands.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. davidsonsdave
    Member

    Cycling slowly on the shared use path next to Brandfield Street heading towards the Western Approach Road. There's a few people walking towards me effectively blocking the pavement. It's a narrow pavement and the crossing for the WAR takes forever to change so I am never in a rush here.

    It is clear that the lady that I am heading towards is not going to move over so I slow further to a stop about 3m in front of her and smile and say something vaguely friendly. She then proceeds to berate me for being on the (shared) pavement and tells me I should be on the road, presumably cycling against the one way system which is on Brandfield Street at this point.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    I had never actually thought about that being a one-way street!

    The shared-use pavement is FAR from being clear to all.

    LOOKS like a pavement (it is a pavement). Might even be 'private' and not subject to CEC influence(?)

    No wonder 'we' get so much grief for being law abiding - riding on (shared-use) pavements, passing on the left, 'weaving' through stationary traffic, holding up 'traffic' etc etc.

    As I keep saying, CEC really needs to clarify things around 'shared-use' and mark such places better and not 'panic' every time there is a perceived problem (Barnton golf course path!) AND 'communicate' it better to bike-riders, feet-users, and anyone one else who just wants to get around safely and conveniently.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. wingpig
    Member

    I assumed the reason for the shared-use-ness all the way through (rather than just on the wider end bits) was solely to let cyclists legally go north along it and be able to make use of the WAR crossing, geting round the one-way-ness of the road. Maybe the footway will widen one day, when the fence bordering it to the west is finally no longer needed...

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. chdot
    Admin

    "Maybe the footway will widen one day, when the fence bordering it to the west is finally no longer needed..."

    CCE doesn't do optimism often!

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. wingpig
    Member

    "CCE doesn't do optimism often!"

    Maybe they'll stick in a mandatory cycling exemption-lane to the one-way system along that bit. I'm sure the developers/owners wouldn't mind a few dabs of thermoplastic over their fancy grey stone road surface.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. davidsonsdave
    Member

    I agree that it isn't clear to most pedestrians and so cycle accordingly. However, this is actually one of the best signed shared use paths around with several of the blue signs within spitting distance of each other, one of which I pointed out to the lady at the time.

    I agree that the one way street isn't obvious either when you are cycling this stretch. I used to use the road rather than the narrow pavement until I was beeped by a car coming the other way.

    I don't hold out much hope for any improvement. Not only is the pavement too narrow for shared use, the road is just wide enough to drive a car along, presumably to discourage parking.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Just because the cyclist stops

    [+] Embed the video | Video DownloadGet the Video Widget

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. chdot
    Admin

    Re Brandfield Street (above)

    "

    South West Team (@southwest_team)
    11/03/2015 15:09
    @CyclingEdin @LivingStreetsEd This area is not currently adopted by the council, however, the signs that are in place are installed in accordance with Traffic Signs: Regulations and General Directions 1994 and provides sufficient clarity. IF

    "

    Posted 9 years ago #

  23. richardlmpearson
    Member

    Traffic Signs: Regulations and General Directions 1994 is not current. The current standard is 2002.

    I can't recall what 1994 says, but the 2002 and Traffic Sign Manual guidance says:

    "17.33 Where a footway (forming part of a road) or
    footpath (e.g. through a park) has been converted to
    a route shared by pedestrians and cyclists, signs to
    either diagram 956 or 957 are used. These prohibit
    the use of the route by any other vehicles. The sign
    to diagram 956 indicates an unsegregated route.
    It should be located where the shared route begins
    and must be used as a repeater, at regular intervals
    (direction 11), to remind both pedestrians and
    cyclists that pedal cycles can be legally ridden on
    the footway or footpath. The sign to diagram 957
    indicates a segregated shared route that should
    be delineated by a continuous white marking to
    either diagram 1049 or 1049.1 (see para 16.15 in
    Chapter 5). The sign may be reversed in a mirror
    image according to which side of the route is used
    by cyclists and which side by pedestrians. The sign
    should be located at the start of the segregated
    route and must be used as a repeater at regular
    intervals along the route (direction 11)."

    I think a Diagram 956 sign is required at the eastern end.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  24. chdot
    Admin

    "Diagram 956 sign"

    http://www.sustrans.org.uk/sites/default/files/images/files/migrated-pdfs/Technical%20Note%205%20-%20Signs%2005%281%29.pdf

    (P17)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  25. chdot
    Admin

    "

    @southwest_team: @CyclingEdin @LivingStreetsEd @LAHinds @AndrewDBurns As this land is not currently adopted, we will refer this issue to our development control team to ensure that current standards are met prior to adoption This has been raised under ref SR 832712. ^IF

    "

    Posted 9 years ago #

  26. UtrechtCyclist
    Member

    There are a lot of problems with Brandfield street, but I'm not sure the signage is that bad. The main problem for me is that the pavement is absurdly thin for what is quite a major pedestrian and cyclist route.

    The building plans for what's happening on the other side of the fence haven't been finalised yet, I went to a preplanning meeting and the developers appeared quite receptive to the idea both of widening the path significantly and sorting out the junction at Dundee Street, although maybe they were just being polite. I blogged (in a hurry, not very well written) here.

    Anyway, I think this link is phenomenally important and we should be fighting for significant improvements at the proper application stage.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  27. SRD
    Moderator

    the problem is that most people do not recognise/understand shared use signs.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  28. Morningsider
    Member

    This is where the Council really falls down. The carriageway on Brandfield Street is narrowed by pavement build-outs and large planters. The carriageway could have been narrowed by installing a fully segregated cycleway instead. The planning department could have made that a condition of the planning permission. I doubt the developers would have minded as it wouldn't have added to the cost or detracted from the desirability (?) of the development. It wouldn't have cost the council anything and an important new link would have been created.

    It's great that people like UtrechtCyclist are raising these issues at pre-application consultation. However, it would be better if council planners were insisting on this as a matter of routine.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  29. chdot
    Admin

    "the problem is that most people do not recognise/understand shared use signs."

    I'm sure that's entirely true.

    Perhaps such signs should be in the written driving test!

    Or CEC could start an education programme or at least a debate.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  30. mgj
    Member

    "the problem is that most people do not recognise/understand shared use signs"

    Too true. The Sustrans signage guidance for example says that where there is a sign showing a cyclist on one side of a white line and a pedestrian on the other side, pedestrians are restricted to that side; they are not. Daft rule, makes no sense, but true.

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…456…8

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin