CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

Guerilla anti cycling signs

(78 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by nedd1e_h
  • Latest reply from nedd1e_h

  1. bax
    Member

    might help your cause if you weren't being quite so unpleasant.

    unpleasant towards who exactly, steveo ?

    i have a rant on the forum, and i have a laugh (sardonic as it may be)

    its therapeutic, considering the daily aggro faced during a thirty mile round trip road commute.

    but i don't think i've been unpleasant toward anyone.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

    "i have a rant on the forum, and i have a laugh (sardonic as it may be)"

    Aye the dangers of conveying 'tone' on the Internet!

    No I'm not allowing emoticons!!

    Be careful out there.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  3. slowcoach
    Member

    Not being familiar with this path, is it a road (as many paths are)? If it is a road then any signs have to comply with legislation and this doesn't seem to (not using proper symbol) so it could be illegal to put them up.

    If these are Council lighting columns, then asking the street lighting section might help. Street Lighting engineers are often keen to prevent any signs going on "their" poles.

    Is it a Core Path? If it is, then access legislation apparently supersedes roads legislation "7 (1) Section 6 above does not prevent or restrict the exercise of access rights over any land which is a core path." see http://www.cyclingscotland.org/news/roads-legislation-and-core-paths/ so the council might have a duty to get the signs removed?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  4. wingpig
    Member

    The problem with nobvious things like tone (and in-jokes etc.) is that they could put off newcomers, or be unrepresentative of the general usual reasonableness of the contributorship if read in isolation by, for example, a police, councilperson or parliamentron.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  5. Morningsider
    Member

    kaputnik - I've had a good look into your query about the powers of police to erect these signs. Police do have powers (Sections 66 and 67 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) to erect signs that deal with temporary road restrictions due to special events and emergency situations. They do not seem to have any specific legislative powers to erect the signs shown earlier in this thread. That's not to say the signs are "illegal" - the police may have some general power to post informatory signs that I am not aware of - police powers are pretty broad and are not really something I know much about.

    It is pretty clear that these are not "road signs" in any formal sense, that is a type of sign defined in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (as amended).

    Posted 5 years ago #
  6. bax
    Member

    well, that's a fair point, wingpig.

    i admit that moderate reason is not the cut of my jib, but frankly neither are the conditions out there on the roads daily.

    i don't seek attention unduly, its just personal therapy, so i'll sign out.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  7. LaidBack
    Member

    Pavement stencilled signs were done elsewhere at Albany St and got a thumbs down....
    Can't find shot - sure chdot has one.

    I was musing on the whole pavement cycling thing this morn whilst dog walking (almost as bad as cycling you know!)

    In 15 mins I saw three variants of how to do a right turn on a cycle when it's a red light. (Also saw at least six other vehicles doing a lot worse but that's OT ).

    • Going from High St to Library - continuing on red and then cycling up onto pavement past Hotel Missoni using ramp at green man. They just snuck in before it came on.

    • Going from North Bridge to High St - using ASL to make right turn across stopped traffic then cycle up onto pavement at corner then right turn onto High St. Basically this is almost continental as the cyclist felt safe following the pedestrian phases rather than going diagonally.

    • Going north towards The Mound - stop at red light, wait till green man comes on. Then cycle over slowly.

    It wouldn't surprise me if this sort of bike use becomes more prevalent as no-one on pavement seemed to care. I know it doesn't make it right but it is one trend that seems to be happening as can be witnessed from my shop window. Slightly OT but related I know.

    What might have been better is to mark out a cordoned off bike route round where the desire line is/was at Roseburn. This might have taken some road space out but not a problem for any other reason it seems.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  8. SRD
    Moderator

    "as no-one on pavement seemed to care"

    Or too 'proper' to actually 'glare' at someone or confront them (as I have done), but will whinge til the cows come home on the EEN comments page/Community council meetings etc?

    Posted 5 years ago #
  9. SRD
    Moderator

    "Pavement stencilled signs were done elsewhere at Albany St and got a thumbs down...."

    Also at George Square where I have very much opposed them for several reasons.

    But if the police feel obliged to respond to the safer neighbourhood things, at least signs on pavements would be clearer, AND I didn't suggest spraypaint, but chalk. Exactly what the council uses to highlight dog-mess, so proportionate, and temporary.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  10. LaidBack
    Member

    In that case I'm part of the problem.... I didn't ask the girl who cycled down the pavement to the library why she felt that was ok. Likewise the young asian student who decided that it was ok to use the crossings at the Tron.

    I have of course criticised my own daughter for doing similar things in the past - although we're all safe now as she leant her bike to a friend and it got nicked!

    Posted 5 years ago #
  11. Cycle PC
    Member

    Hello,

    I will have to do some investigation into these signs and get back to you. I have not seen them before and had no knowledge of them until today.

    Paul

    Posted 5 years ago #
  12. nedd1e_h
    Member

    I believe the path between Balgreen and Corstorphine is a shared use path, as shown on these signs located near Pinkhill:


    Balgreen - Corstophine path signs

    Posted 5 years ago #
  13. chdot
    Admin

    "I believe the path between Balgreen and Corstorphine is a shared use"

    Yes, which is why the positioning of the "police" signs is likely to do more harm than good.

    Posted 5 years ago #
  14. HankChief
    Member

    Perhaps their should be better signing of what are and what aren't shared used paths would help pedestrians know where bikes are allowed and cyclists where they aren't allowed.

    Wouldn't stop everything but would help clear up any misunderstanding of where bike are allowed.

    Oh, and also a clear way of getting the missing links in current shared paths sorted out. (recent chat on here about broomhouse and gyle routes spring to mind)

    Posted 5 years ago #
  15. Cycle PC
    Member

    I have been in touch with the local officer's and the signs at Pinkhill will be removed and their location revised.

    I am keen to take on board your suggestions regarding other cycling matters and with the assistance of Edinburgh Council, use these to try and improve the cycle infrastructure in Edinburgh. Please feel free to PM me any thoughts you have.

    Paul.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  16. Navel gazing FTW! ;)

    Thanks for the info Cycle PC.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  17. SRD
    Moderator

    Thanks for the ACTION and the info CyclePC!

    Hope something can be done to make relations between cyclists and pedestrians in that area a bit less fraught....(and not get the PCs caught in the middle)

    Posted 4 years ago #
  18. nedd1e_h
    Member

    Thanks CyclePC

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin