CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Considerate Cycling Project - University of Edinburgh

(25 posts)
  • Started 11 years ago by Arron.considerate cycling
  • Latest reply from Arron.considerate cycling

  1. Arron.considerate cycling
    Member

    Greetings,

    Please help us map the cycling conflict hotspots for our University of Edinburgh MSc project on considerate cycling.

    Steps to add conflict point:
    1. Click the link to the map: http://www.zeemaps.com/map?group=501320&x=-3.188267&y=55.953252&z=4&add=1
    2. Click on “additions” à “add marker – simple”
    3. Use button “click on a map location” in the window that pops up.
    4. Click “OK” and click on the map where you want to add the conflict point. (You may have to move the pop up window to the side. You can zoom in or out and scroll the map before you click)
    5. Enter a description – who gets into conflict with whom? What is the underlying cause?
    6. Click “Submit” at the bottom of the pop up window.
    7. Thank you!!

    More on the project:

    We are a group of University of Edinburgh masters students conducting research in conjunction with the Edinburgh City Council to develop a community engagement strategy for considerate cycling in the city.

    The result of this mapping exercise will assist us in illustrating the importance of the City of Edinburgh’s strategy on considerate cycling. It will be presented in the Scottish Parliament buildings on March 26th, as part of the presentation on our broader project on considerate cycling.

    We would greatly appreciate your involvement.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. chdot
    Admin

    "City of Edinburgh’s strategy on considerate cycling"

    ?????????!!!!!!!!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. Instography
    Member

    I feel the urge to confess - I've been inconsiderately blocking the lane at every pinch point in an effort to save my own life. I plan to continue this abhorrent practice and I'm considering jumping lights in furtherance of my life-saving agenda.

    I hope they mean considerate driving towards cyclists. Otherwise they can ...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. gembo
    Member

    Not sure where this project is going.

    If there is a conflict point then I would feel as a considerate cyclist that the cars need to calm down? I will pull in from primary to allow cars to pass whenever this is safe and doesn't leave me stuck behind a car inconsiderately parked in a cycle lane usually with the logo despatch box or paragon (not illegally parked as will be single red or yellow, dependent on how long they stay there, but same vans on my daily commute)

    I will try logging and see what happens

    Nice map came up but couldn't add the cycle lane outside Evans having despatch box van parked in it most mornings, causing me momentary conflict

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Snowy
    Member

    Missed opportunity for http://www.fixmyride.com ...?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    Doesn't work with iOS.

    Useful list of conflicts 'we' know about - many about inadequate infrastructure (and inconsiderate motorists).

    Also -

    "
    Accident

    Description As a pedestrian, I was knocked over by a cyclist at this crossing. The pedestrian lights were green and the cyclist was going through the red lights. However, I was partly to blame as I didn't look properly before crossing. The cyclist did ask how I was, but he was away by the time I realised my chin had split open. I had to go to the (old) Royal Infirmary for stitches

    "

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. Min
    Member

    I can't say I waste much time worrying about people merely being inconsiderate towards me when I am cycling when so many are murderous.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. Dave
    Member

    Yes, in some ways feels like it's missing the point, doesn't it?

    Having girded my loins to duck between speeding cars onto Picardy Place roundabout, dodged a couple of aggressively-driven taxis to make my exit, the last thing on my mind really is merely being 'considerate'.

    'Intact' is probably (understandably?) the main objective so far.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. Greenroofer
    Member

    Arron might want to respond to these points himself, but I met him yesterday and pointed him here. I think the thrust of his project is about interaction between bicycles and pedestrians on shared use paths. It certainly seemed that way from the questions he was asking me.

    I said that we need clarity about what the 'rules' on these paths are and that Porty Prom has benefited from signage making clear that all path users have resposibilities to each other. I also said that uncontrolled dogs are a menace and that, while it might be good to agree that 'two tings' from cyclists is a good thing, this still upset some pedestrians.

    Arron, would you care to comment?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. Instography
    Member

    Ah. I was completely thrown by the total absence of references to cyclist / pedestrian interactions in that first post there and on the website. Some mention of that would have clarified a lot.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. Dave
    Member

    Ah, I see.

    Something I observe a lot is that I'll ride up behind people on foot, and just slow down (they'll eventually notice me, and if not, I can always speak to them). However, a subsequent rider behind me will then ping everyone out of the way.

    If using the bell causes people to move aside when they otherwise wouldn't, it can hardly be said to be considerate (it's only considerate relative to blasting past them).

    i.e. truly considerate cycling would be allowing people time to move out of the way (if they want to) rather than ping-pinging them to the side so me'lud can proceed without having to stop.

    Or am I wrong?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. steveo
    Member

    The cycling equivalent of toot toot Mr Toad?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. Dave
    Member

    Although as a corollary to that, it's a pre-requisite of considerate walking to be aware of other people (including cyclists) and to take them into account.

    I consider people on foot who are obstructing a path to be discourteous (the height of which is people with out-of-control dogs) and I think in truth there will always be path tension while either group is discourteous to the other.

    All you're left with is cultural norms asserting themselves. This is why there are no "courteous walking" campaigns for pedestrians, only "courteous cycling" ones - you can even see cyclists criticising themselves for using a path, IMO often quite unreasonably. Yet, the same argument against people with prams (which came on the scene long after shoes) is essentially unheard of.

    I guess the effects of outgroup status are powerful enough even to penetrate the group itself?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Ooh, this has lead to arguments here before!

    I've done the tinging, and the non-tinging. My non-tinging is aided by using Dave's 'slowign down' method, which means freewheeling with a Campag hub which has a lovely loud tick.

    I personally 'feel' that tinging is a bit like a driver behind you tooting the horn to 'tell' you to move over. But I've had a very interesting discussion with an elderly pedestrian on a shared use path who took offence at my 'slow down' method and said that in every case a bell was better. It was nothing to do with it being a 'call to shift to the side', but simply that it gave better/more warning of the fact a cyclist was coming past (she was walking along and to the side, hence the belief in me that I didn't need to ting as there was already space).

    It was quite enlightening. Though I still rely on slowing, freewheel tick, and voice. Each to their own, I think that tinging can be perfectly considerate if accompanied by slowing down, and saying thank you - that dispels any thoughts of it being a shout for folk to move out the way. If you ting then flash by throutgh the recently opened gap, that, in my mind, is inconsiderate; but from the above discussion I had, so is not tinging, and going through a gap that's already there but without any notice.

    Sheesh, minefield. Just be nice whatever you do, that way if anyone complains you can be sure that it's their problem and nothing you've done.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  15. earthowned
    Member

    As far as I'm concerned it's up to the fastest mode of transport to be considerate to the slower ones. Doesn't matter where you are.

    If as a cyclist you don't slow down and give room for walkers then you have no right complaining when the same happens to you on the road in reverse with a car.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  16. SRD
    Moderator

    There are a bunch of cycling related projects planned for next week as part of 'innovative learning week' as well. I'll see if I can find a webpage/get permission to post about them here.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  17. cc
    Member

    I'll often ring my bell when people are walking on the cycling half of a divided path such as Middle Meadow Walk. In the summer, when there are tourists about, I'll often stop and gently explain that they're walking on a cycle path and that their children might be safer on the pedestrian side of the line.

    It would all be a lot easier if these divided paths were properly built so as to tell everyone at a glance which bit was for bikes and which for walking - if for instance there was a slight angled step up a kerb from the cycle road to the walking path, and if the cycle path was (say) slightly smoother and a different colour to the pavement surface.

    On a truly shared path I'll always try to be polite and give way to pedestrians. I think a friendly bicycle bell and a cheery "thank you!" generally work well. But these shared paths really aren't good; we need cycle roads (for cycling) with pavements (for walking), not shared paths.

    And as others have said, the priority surely has to be removing the conflict between active travellers, of whatever sort, and motor vehicles. For that we need a fundamental redesign of the roads to remove all conflict points, as well as changes in the law to protect the vulnerable, and better education of road users.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  18. Dave
    Member

    If as a cyclist you don't slow down and give room for walkers then you have no right complaining when the same happens to you on the road in reverse with a car.

    While there are elements of truth to this, it's all in the detail. For instance, do you need to slow down and give room to someone on the pedestrian side of MMW (if you're cycling on the bike side!) or is there "enough" room that you "don't need to be considerate"?

    For instance, if I'm in the bus lane I don't feel the need to complain about people driving in the 'traffic' lane for any reason at all.

    Is this because of the painted line (which won't be respected by many pedestrians, especially children, and of course dogs) or is it because of the width alone? I'd also be comfortable with any sort of overtake by a motorist where they left such a lot of room in the *same* lane.

    We've been into the self-flagellating victim mania before ("can't complain until...") but we can all probably agree that it's a bit of an oversimplification to say that being crushed by a truck has a similar risk profile (and therefore demands similar behaviours) to bumping a pedestrian and coming off your bike (when, in fact, the cyclist is likely to come off worst).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  19. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    Slightly disingenuous there Dave.

    I think it's fairly obvious that we're talking about things like 'close passes' and so on. It's not the 'magic white line', it's the distance.

    So if someone was walking right beside the white line on the pedestrian side, and you could only pass also right beside the white line, then yes, slow down and be considerate. If the pedestrian is plum in the middle of the pedestrian side and there are no dogs and no side paths and the cycle side is completely free, then no, there's no need to slow down. It's all about the context. As you point out, dogs and kids won't 'respect' the white line (and they don't have to) and so 'considerate' in this case is slowign down in recognition of that fact.

    And obviously the potential relative harm is different, but being 'considerate' isn't about the effect, but simply about 'being considerate'. Whizzing past a pedestrian with inches to spare is unlikely to result in a death, but let's face it, it's not a very nice thing to do (or as a pedestrian to experience) is it?

    Posted 11 years ago #

  20. gkgk
    Member

    Oh, it's considerate cycling now? Intriguing. This is no doubt the Edinb Uni course that came up at the Nordic Horizons meeting about the Danish cycling infrastructure, back in December.

    The whole discussion had been about improving safety for cyclists until the chap (minuted as "Roger S") piped up that he was looking for participants to help him in his course about "inconsiderate cyclists". The minutes are very clear on this point. What an oddly loaded request to come from a social scientist, I thought. Showed a complete lack of self-awareness.

    Anyway, I notice that the minutes skim past the dressing down the fellow got from host Lesley Riddock. My goodness, it was quite a sight and really very heartening.

    Treat with caution, perhaps.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  21. Morningsider
    Member

    Hi Arron - I think you need to provide a bit more detail as to what you are after. Particularly what areas/routes you are interested in and what constitutes "conflict".

    Also, I'm intrigued by the idea of a community engagement strategy. How would this work for cyclists in Edinburgh? I appreciate that cyclists could be termed a community of interest, although I don't really share that view myself. How would you target any engagement strategy so it had an impact on a significant number of cyclists? Pretty difficult I would have thought - it's got to be more than putting up few posters along cycle routes telling people not to run over pedestrians.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  22. Instography
    Member

    The correct answer is, of course, that it all depends. If you set out to be considerate then you'll almost always make the appropriate choice in the circumstances. But you'll still sometimes get it wrong either in your own or someone else's opinion.

    You've got more chance of making the right choice if you have a broad range of options to choose from so even though I don't favour it as a way of alerting people, I have a bell.

    If I use it, I give it one loud, sharp ting from quite far away so that if I had to I could do it again before I got too close and the bell got too shouty and still be able to slow down and pass at a pace that wouldn't scare a horse.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  23. wingpig
    Member

    When considering proxy-dinging when approaching path-sharing entities I'm careful to distinguish between people riding in front of me who slow down by applying their brakes and ceasing to pedal as opposed to those who slow down much more subtly, using only air resistance.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  24. neddie
    Member

    I agree with Instography: One loud bell ring from a long way back definately helps. I've even had people thank me for warning them 'well in advance'.

    Unfortunately, the natural reaction of a ped when they hear a bell/voice close behind them is to immediately jump out of the way, even though it isn't necessary for them to move (I'm going to go around you wherever you are, and slowly if necessary).

    Posted 11 years ago #

  25. Arron.considerate cycling
    Member

    Hello all,

    Sorry about causing such confusion!! Yes the project is about engaging with relevant stakeholders, ie cyclists pedestrians, community groups, spokes etc... to determine an engagement strategy which will improve the relations between the relevant groups on shared pathways, such as the canal tow path or the old railway lines across the city.

    We would like you to cite any dangerous areas on the map so that we can use it to help us to develop the best possible strategy.

    I should have checked the exact wording of the post before putting it on. I will let the group know it is confusing and get another one written up!!

    Thanks for all the feedback though, it is really useful to get so many responses!!

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin