CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Commuting

Cyclist down - Argyle Place / Melville Drive

(30 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. Coxy
    Member

    Kid, hard to say age, 10-ish?. On the meadow side, just west of the junction.

    Ambulance with them, plus a few people. Couldn't tell what happened or whether a vehicle involved.

    Kid was sitting up though. Phew!

    Posted 8 years ago #
  2. chdot
    Admin

    Not jumping to any conclusions, but presume this is west of current road closure and (therefore) the temporary lights?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  3. SRD
    Moderator

    crap. really hope that's not a result of the silly diversion, which pushes cyclists out into the road right before where the intersection used to be.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  4. Would echo what SRD says. If it's west of the junction then that suggests it's the stupidly unsigned bit that spits you out onto the road rather than diverting you round the back to the temporary crossing.

    Hope the kid is alright - maybe they'll take the need for safety there more seriously now?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  5. kaputnik
    Moderator

    just west of the junction

    I'm trying to picture this in my head. Assume they would have been in the eastbound cycle "lane" therefore?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  6. Dave
    Member

    Or trying to get from south Meadow Walk onto MMW. It's not at all obvious where to go (when running home from work yesterday I almost resorted to vaulting the fences).

    Posted 8 years ago #
  7. SRD
    Moderator

    That's the question, are the on the north side of MelvilleDR, heading east, OR have they come off SMW on the 'diversion' and are trying to get to MMW.

    I was assured that there was a path to enable pedestrians and cyclists to get to the temporary lights, but then discovered this morning that it isn't along Melville Drive. which just convinces me that that signed diversion taking cyclists/peds left from SMW is really dangerous - UNLESS there is a sign saying gong right from SMW to access temporary lights.

    I've argued all along that the diversion should be from Marchmont Rd onto Melville drive or Jawbone walk.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  8. That's what it sounds like. The metal railings at that point slope down to the road at the side of the path that runs off to the left, which makes it look like that's the way to go. But of course it just ends at the road. With no crossing. The temporary crossing being 20 odd yards further east.

    Saw loads of folk, including a couple of cyclists, get caught out by this when watching it the other night.

    Prime example of pedestrians and cyclists not being considered and this causing conflict (even after a 'solution' has been implemented).

    Certainly without knowing the facts we can't blame either the cyclist or the motorist - but there can definitely be a level of blame laid at the door of the layout (the other thing I saw were lots of drivers on seeing the temporary red light stopping at the 'closed' crossing, then realising it was closed and starting up again to stop at the tepm line - this almost caught some people out as they started to cross when the car initially stopped).

    Posted 8 years ago #
  9. Coxy
    Member

    Hi again.

    They were on the pavement/grass on the Meadows side of the road. Just at the temporary traffic lights on the west side of the junction.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  10. SRD
    Moderator

    Do you mean the east side?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  11. Coxy
    Member

    Nope.

    The end nearest Tollcross.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  12. SRD
    Moderator

    I'm confused - are there temp lights there? there weren't any this morning...

    Posted 8 years ago #
  13. chdot
    Admin

    Have they moved lights?

    This is east of Argyle Place

    Posted 8 years ago #
  14. Hmmmm, I'm popping out at lnuchtime and will check out the position... (I didn't ride that way this morning so didn't realise they must have changed the position of the lights).

    Posted 8 years ago #
  15. Coxy
    Member

    The flow of traffic along Melville Drive is being controlled by lights (about 50m apart). All traffic is stopped to allow pedestrian crossing. There's even a temporary mobile 'beep-beep' machine. Never seen (or heard) one of them before.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  16. Snowy
    Member

    Hope the victim is ok.

    Wonder if anyone in the council will have the integrity to apologise for such an ill thought out and downright dangerous set of roadworks.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  17. kaputnik
    Moderator

    There's even a temporary mobile 'beep-beep' machine. Never seen (or heard) one of them before.

    Neither had certain parts of the cooncil, apparently, until SRD and others hassled them to put it in.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  18. SRD
    Moderator

    To be fair to the council, the issue seems to have been that they tendered the contract, a contractor was awarded , and implemented it. But the contractor does not seem to have considered pedestrians. Which, given the scale of use of that crossing is appalling.

    What sort of guidance would/should have been given to contractors and/or what their best practice is, seems to be up for debate.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  19. SRD
    Moderator

    btw, I did a quick recce over lunch and the crossing is still at the east side of the normal/closed crossing.

    Also saw a cyclist walking along MD against flow of traffic, then remounting, and urged him to write his councillors if he thought it was inadequate signed.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  20. Snap, my recce coonfirmed the same.

    "... the contractor does not seem to have considered pedestrians. Which, given the scale of use of that crossing is appalling."

    This.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  21. steveo
    Member

    To be fair to the council, the issue seems to have been that they tendered the contract, a contractor was awarded , and implemented it.

    But the council accepted the tender in it fundamentally flawed state. The contractor does only the minimum to make sure it has the lowest bid and gets the contract, its up to the council with guidance/regulation from councillors to ensure the tender considers all stake holders and is therefore adequate before accepting it.

    Temporary pedestrian crossings should be a given where road works removed existing ones. This isn't the first time its just a much more dramatic example than Gorgie a few months ago or any where the trambles have been.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  22. cc
    Member

    Coming back north through that crossing half an hour ago, I saw a group of people walking south off MMW straight into the road, then half way across the road realising that they were trapped on the road, then wandering along in the road looking for a southwards escape route. I think they had been too busy talking to each other to notice any of the "temporary crossing" signs.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  23. kaputnik
    Moderator

    or any where the trambles have been

    The numerous closures of the crossing on Broomhouse Road just before/after the roundabout were pretty shocking given the proximity of St Augustine / Forrester Schools. Pederstrians and cyslists just left to take their lives in their hands and wander out into 30mph+ traffic speeding off the roundabout or the cut-through lane (same problem as westbound exit off of Argyle Place)

    Posted 8 years ago #
  24. Snowy
    Member

    What sort of guidance would/should have been given to contractors and/or what their best practice is, seems to be up for debate.

    That's the key point, really. The contractors hopefully have a set of regulations to follow - some sort of highway code on how to set up roadworks? Or is there just some sort of verbal folklore that contractors pass on through the generations? No prizes for guessing whether it includes such topics as 'pedestrian and cyclist safety'.

    And it still doesn't let the council off the hook, imho - they are accountable and cannot wash their hands of it.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  25. Snowy
    Member

    Where do I get hold of bunch of roadsigns that say

    "Road ends. Drivers get out and push."

    Posted 8 years ago #
  26. SRD
    Moderator

    snowy - I totally agree, but I don't yet know if there is no guidance, or if there is guidance but it is generally ignored.* Either way, we need to ensure it is changed.

    * in theory there is a third option, which would be that this was a one-off, but we know that's not true.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  27. LaidBack
    Member

    I notice they have moved the control box to press button closer to end of path at Argyle Place side - so easier to reach if you are on bike.

    People are still arriving from Bruntsfield path end (as noticed) and using routes that aren't safe to go round barriers.

    Do we need more signs?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  28. Nelly
    Member

    "Do we need more signs?"

    Yes - and earlier on the route coming from from Bruntsfield. I was looking around there on saturday and its pretty obvious if you come down Argyle pl and turn left - but can totally understand why people end up on the road coming the other way.

    Any idea if the kid is/was ok, or the circumstances leading up to the accident?

    Posted 8 years ago #
  29. Morningsider
    Member

    SRD - The key document is Chapter 8 of the Traffic Signs Manual, which you can find at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4464/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-08-part-01.pdf

    The key paragraphs for cyclists are on pages 61 and 62. As you can see, no shortage of general advice on signage etc for road works - just not much specific to cyclists.

    Advice to the operatives on the ground can be found in the Code of Practice for Street Works. Which you can find at:

    http://www.roadworksscotland.gov.uk/nmsruntime/saveasdialog.aspx?lID=377&sID=80

    Page 42 and 43 provides advice on work at pedestrian and cycle crossings.

    I think it is clear that the Council/contractor has already gone above and beyond what is required by these documents. So no stick to beat them with there.

    Posted 8 years ago #
  30. Snowy
    Member

    I think it is clear that the Council/contractor has already gone above and beyond what is required by these documents. So no stick to beat them with there.

    I'm not so sure! - in the intro of the Safety Code it has a whole page as follows:

    Key Question
    Ask yourself this question :
    “Will someone coming along the road or footway
    from any direction understand exactly what is
    happening and what is expected of them?”

    Enough said. #fail

    Posted 8 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin