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.
"... ride round them? ;o)
On a recent pic I saw that you could just ride on the grass to the side."
Yes, but the path itself was fully enclosed by barriers (it wasn't just some barriers blocking the entrance, they go the full length of the path), so there was nowhere to 'ride round' at the western end. The grass to the side was basically riding alongside the path, separated from it by big wire barriers...
Some people just like riding for ridings sake [embaressed] :O)
That new path looks lovely though doesn't it!! May have to make a detour just to ride it. Shame it leads onto the That Junction outside Kings!
Are they doing it in stages or is it just the western end of the path being resurfaced? I was in the Meadows a week ago and east end of NMW at Buccleuch St still open and apparently untouched...
Pedestrians have been moving the barriers to cut across from Chalmers st etc. so it's not impossible to escape
@crowriver they've started on the east section now
"
Gavin Corbett (@gavincorbett)
07/06/2013 07:04
The western bit of North Meadow path, newly re-opened for business (and my Brompton)! @SpokesLothian @CyclingEdin pic.twitter.com/2IqkyDSEKa
"
I rode along the finished bit last night, and this morning.
It's so smooooooooth, it's lovely. :)
"
Spokes CycleCampaign (@SpokesLothian)
07/06/2013 09:51
@CityCycling @gavincorbett @CyclingEdin Meadows delight: people-power got the cash! Updat
http://www.spokes.org.uk/wordpress/2012/09/cycling-up-very-slightly-in-budget
@SustransScot @AndrewDBurns
"
Of course some will still resolutely walk in the cycle bit...
New Meadows Path by blackpuddinonnabike, on Flickr
I was beaten to it... the new path is pretty good though. Makes this route something you'd want t use rather than endure!
North Meadows Path - wider and smoother by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr
Went this way this evening - a bad idea as it is not all open yet. I hope they are going to paint lots of bicycle symbols on the bike side as at the moment there are pedestrians and bikes everywhere
but in the sun, it's lovely to have an excuse to ride on the grass instead of the path!
Sorry fimm and anyone else viewing... should point out that only part of path from west side to junction of MMW is sort if open. At the junction of MMW and the North Meadows path there are barriers and riding round carefully is required. Work is now shifting to section towards east.
Will be worth it though.
I'd happily divert my route home along here and cycle the extra 500m or so, looks like a great surface.
Now as someone (might have been chdot) said the other day, we just need to sort out a bike contraflow lane on Valleyfield Street and things will be looking up for the east/west route.
I'd rather see the legislation change so that the cycle half of these lanes was not shared with pedestrians. It just generates conflict. We do it for motorways.
as rachel Aldred (other thread) says:
Contraflow cycling should be a no-brainer: insisting cyclists travel in one direction only should be seen as being like insisting that pedestrians only walk in one direction where there are one-way streets. (Of course, in very rare occasions we do – usually temporarily – limit pedestrian movements in this way, and I’m happy to concede that in perhaps one in a thousand cases we may need to maintain one-way cycling).
So, this would be the first thing I’d recommend the authority do. Wherever changes are being made and one-way cycling still exists, legalise contraflow cycling as part of the scheme. There should also be an authority-wide programme to legalise contraflow cycling more broadly. But a scheme should never be proposed that retains one-way cycling restrictions, unless accompanied by some excellent and evidenced reasons.
I'd rather see the legislation change so that the cycle half of these lanes was not shared with pedestrians
I think you'd be fundamentally changing the rights of the pedestrian then, for the worse.
I think it needs more than a stripe of white paint though - different colour of tarmac is good, as is a tactile or similar ridge down the middle to remind people when they are crossing (and is advisable to aid the partially sighted).
What seems to work well in other countries is just sheer weight of bikes and the fact people are used to it.
my recollection of the plans was that there was to be a lot of different colour tarmac esp at the intersections, but that at some stage, that seems to have been taken out. i also definitely saw something saying that in response to spokes (I think??), they were reducing the number of 'bike' signs.
but there should be some going in.
"insisting cyclists travel in one direction only should be seen as being like insisting that pedestrians only walk in one direction where there are one-way streets."
Except pedestrians are on the pavement, which is naturally two-way - where the rtoad has been made one way it then needs additional infrastructure to create a contraflow for cycling on (unless the pavement is a shared use path, but then the one-way restriction doesn't hold).
I'd say there are more than one in a thousand places where this wouldn't work - while agreeing with a general principle that we should have contraflows, but in this case the comparison with pedestrians is particularly invalid.
I know we've had this argument a million times, but I don't understand why you are so determined to resist this principle - Princes Street presumably being your 'one in a million'.
I go through valleyfield / semple street most days as commute but also regularly and frequently on shopping trips, taking the kids places etc, and to me it seems totally obvious - not just the specifics but also the general principle.
How would it work without the infrastructure? That's my point. This was the quote: "insisting cyclists travel in one direction only should be seen as being like insisting that pedestrians only walk in one direction where there are one-way streets"
That seems to suggest that on eone-way streets treating cyclists like cars is daft and that they're actually like pedestrians. But unless you put contraflow markings on the road then just how does cycling two-ways on a one-way street work - instead it creates conflict by either cyclists riding like salmon without any markings in their favour, or on the pavement without them being shared use. So the comparison with pedestrians in this instance is incorrect because, where a street has been made one way, pedestrians automatically have the right to travel both ways, whereas to confer the same right on cyclists would necessarily involve new infrastructure (even if that's just paint on the road).
I'm not resistant to the idea, note: "agreeing with a general principle that we should have contraflows", I was resistant to the direct comparison with pedestrians on one-way streets which is completely wrong.
And xseriously, does anyone actually read what I actually write on Princes Street? Again, once more, for the umpteenth time, I'm not saying I would be resitant to a contraflow lane there, not in the slightest, I would never say, and never have said, that we shouldn't have it; but rather, for the gazillionth time, that if George Street is done correctly I don't think Princes Street contraflow is a big miss. I'm afraid that's a HUGE difference from, "you are so determined to resist this principle".
So let's sum up. One-way contraflows for cyclists = good, great, super, I'm fully in support. Cyclists being able to travel against the flow on a one-way street without either infrastructure in place or a shared use path = bad. Saying that cyclists should be able to use one-way streets both ways because pedestrians can do so = missing the point on fundamental differences between the modes of conveyance.
One last time - one-way contraflows for cyclists are to be applauded and desired. In certain, very specific, situations they may not be possible (e.g particularly narrow street on which a contraflow lane genuinely cannot be fitted, with a particularly narrow pavement which cannot be rendered shared use); and in others, while desirable, might not be missed because of alternatives available (in my case, this covers Princes Street, though I'm aware many more people don't want to have to cycle all the way up to George Street and not be able to ride to a shopfront).
2 puddles! Owing to technical difficulties, I was unable to photo them.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts