CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years 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.
I think this work includes a commitment to make sure bike detection works.
Don't suppose there is any intention to improve reaction/waiting times.
There is of course no prospect of 'always (bike) green' until a car triggers the lights (and waits a minute)...
... still have to break the law ... "
Could always get off and walk to the button... (I know it defeats the purpose, but I hate anyone saying they have to break the law (like a driver who has to break the law by crossing a double white line to overtake a cyclist) when there are actually simple, practical, steps to avoid breaking the law.
The use of the word 'vast' was deliberate, and more a commentary on how awful it was before. It's not perfect, by any stretch, but it's now properly 'useable', and that left turn is a lot less sharp and narrow than it use to be. The layout would have been difficult to eliminate that if we're also talking about pedestrians having to use this - they need a refuge to cross what are effectively three lanes of traffic there - having a 'straight on' lane for cyclists would see this shunted further down the hill, and split by the cycle lane so requiring them to shuffle right from the path, cross two lanes of traffic, cross a cycle lane, cross a lane of traffic, shuffle left; whereas the current system sees, cross two lanes of traffic, cross one lane of traffic.
As mentioned above, best scenario would have been closed to through-traffic, but we know that was never going to happen!
Could always get off and walk to the button... (I know it defeats the purpose, but I hate anyone saying they have to break the law (like a driver who has to break the law by crossing a double white line to overtake a cyclist) when there are actually simple, practical, steps to avoid breaking the law.
You're making the assumption (which admittedly applies in the majority of cases) that the cyclist is able to dismount and walk. Significantly may not apply to customers of Laid-Back who are effectively on "mobility bikes" (generally trikes).
True, even people with no legs using a handcycle probably *can* crawl over the pedestrian section to use the button and therefore don't /have/ to break the law.
But, well... you know what I mean.
So, "Do handcyclists and people on mobility trikes still have to break the law to press the button" then? ;)
OK, so today we were walking to George IV Bridge, come down Argyle Place approx 12.45, and the temporary lights / crossing are all turned sideways - i.e. still 'on' but not working.
A couple of Crummock workmen were 'doing stuff' so we (2 adults and a child) crossed carefully and I made the presumption that it was being 'fixed'.
Came back at approx 3pm and nada, zippo, nothing has changed - except the workmen have disappeared.
I wont be around tomorrow (down south) to check if they came back to fix it, or if the original crossing is now on (wasnt at 3pm) but if anyone goes by there tomorrow morning, might be worth a rant/tweet to CEC as this has potential to be pretty dangerous what with kids going to school / rush hour traffic / snow etc.
Still don't think this is the best design for 'access'. Seems tighter turn in than before too.
Cars don't have to give way for pedestrians
So red cycle lane gone missing
Seems a lot of effort for a tiny bit extra width.
"... but if anyone goes by there tomorrow morning..."
Working again this morning. But that's a few times now the temporary crossing has simply been rendered unuseable. Really, seriously, what goes through their heads?
Seems a lot of effort for a tiny bit extra width.
yes but now it's world class width!
I'm not sure Argyle Place is meant to be open again yet, but someone has moved some of the cones out the way and cars are using the left-filter lane again (although the rest of street still closed off).
Couple of right idiots barrelling down the hill without slowing when people were crossing. The speed bump isn't really having the intended effect,
"The speed bump isn't really having the intended effect"
Well yes, apart from the generality of 'pedestrians have rights' and 'just because they are on the road you not supposed to run them over', that raised bit has no meaning.
But will cause world class confusion.
just because they are on the road you not supposed to run them over
I had a tete-a-tete with a couple in a Focus on Friday who had come round Drummond Place onto Great King Street at such a rate of knots that I was obliged to finish crossing the road by leaping for the pavement. I saw Mrs Focus bad-mouthing something to Mr Focus as they approached so I bad-mouthed something loud enough back at them that they decided to stop the car and bad-mouth me back.
I was carrying a bicycle wheel with me that DaveC had just donated to project skipbike so I waved it around a bit and gave them a lecture about slowing down if someone is already 3/4 way across the road, so they called me a few more names and drove off. So I called them a few more names back and like to think I got the last word in.
That would have left me fuming and thorougly ruined my day. So I'm glad it was you, not me!
The speed bump isn't really having the intended effect
It might not be a bad idea for CEC to paint a zebra crossing at that point. The one at the top of Chambers Street is probably the most robustly followed one in that bit of Edinburgh.
"It might not be a bad idea for CEC to paint a zebra crossing at that point"
Simple. Perfect. Time to start lobbying for that?
Those on George Street seem, for the most part, to be well adhered to as well.
"It might not be a bad idea for CEC to paint a zebra crossing at that point"
Well yes but
It would have to be a proper zebra and they cost money and there's no call for one and anyway we'll just have to see how this expensive new layout works for the next few years because the ENews will not be complaining about this like they did when the City Centre Traffic Management Scheme was introduced...
It is shocking that most drivers do not understand Highway Code rule 8 "...If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way" and Rule 170 "... watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way".
@Kim indeed, their interpretation of the HC was that they didn't hit me so what on earth was my problem? They did not think that giving way involved any use of their brakes.
"It is shocking that most drivers do not understand Highway Code rule 8"
True - though some must, but don't want to hinder other cars they are crossing in front of.
I always (usually) wave pedestrians across (when I'm cycling). Some say thanks others wave me on instead.
I suspect most aren't used to having anyone wait - and probably don't realise they are supposed to.
Might be a more useful road safety campaign than pretending to stop cars using ASLs.
In operation now. Traffic still going round without indicating.
It is an improvement in some areas but...
This shot shows how well MMW was cleared so well done to CEC for that.
First day of revised Argyle Place / MMW crossing by LaidBackBikes, on Flickr
Indeed, they've created a heavily engineered car-prioritising channel with the cut-out. It really needs a short, sharp speedbump protecting it before the crossings.
If you have started crossing and traffic wants to turn into the road, you have priority and they should give way" and Rule 170 "... watch out for pedestrians crossing a road into which you are turning. If they have started to cross they have priority, so give way".
The cut through road is treated as an extension of Argyle Place. 9 out of 10 drivers don't indicate as there is no dividing line indicating they have changed lanes. Basically Argyle Place runs round both sides of the traffic island with yellow bollards pointing the way left. This is the problem.
Bikes on the other hand do have to turn sharply into the island so naturally slow down as the bike path is engineered to discourage speeding bikes.... Imagine if they made cars turn left sharply... people would have to drive below 20mph!
Suppose we'd better have an opening ceremony.
Tap water?
As a tandemist, the revised layout is certainly better - wider angles, easier to turn.
But it is at least as bad, maybe worse, for pedestrians.
The actual design itself is intrinsically flawed,
"It really needs a short, sharp speedbump protecting it before the crossings."
Actually it needs a red light that goes green at the same as the cycle and right turning car lights.
Instead of tap water how about white paint. A give way triangle before the speed bump? Or if we have enough a zebra crossing? Gloss ought to do it.
"But it is at least as bad, maybe worse, for pedestrians."
Don't think that's true - at least compared with what was.
"The actual design itself is intrinsically flawed,"
That's true.
(Is intrinsically the same as fundamentally?)
Why do you think it is better for pedestrians? I watched two with a buggy, trying to negotiate their way from argyle place. They didn't try to get onto the 'islands' but chose to walk in the newly widened 'bike lane', but, of course, as a result ended up smack-dab in my way.
Is intrinsically the same as fundamentally?
Not quite. Intrinsic refers to something that forms part of something else, and usually an essential part. Fundamental is explicitly the most essential part, that which provides the core or the base.
The frame and wheels are the fundamental parts of a bicycle, while the handlebar and pedals are intrinsic parts.
If our junction was considered great for bicycles and poor for pedestrians, then in that sense it would be intrinsically flawed from a pedestrian's perspective. The earlier layout was probably fundmentally flawed because it disadvantaged everyone.
"Why do you think it is better for pedestrians?"
Well
If they do what they are supposed to there is a nice new raised bit of road and and a clear route in front of the bicyclists dutifully stopping in front of the white line.
Before it was far from clear what they were supposed to do.
AND there's a clear route on the south side too.
That's the theory.
The reality is that it's fundamentally not fit for any purpose other than not inconveniencing left turning motorists and keeping contractors in work.
I obviously still don't understand what you're supposed to do there. We need diagrams with arrows. Then we could hand them out to pedestrians and explain what they're supposed to do.
"They didn't try to get onto the 'islands' but chose to walk in the newly widened 'bike lane', but, of course, as a result ended up smack-dab in my way."
Of course they're allowed to do that, a bit like those damned cyclists who ride in the road when there's a perfectly good cycle lane for them to use ;)
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts