Also, when I've got the bike fully loaded up with 2 children, getting off and pushing isn't really a sensible option. Same thing applies for disabilities, exactly what do they expect someone on a handcycle to do.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Murrayfield - Saughtonhall: Water of Leith Path Resurfacing
(89 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Update: Council passed it their West Team to check. West Team have replied to me with a phone number for the Flood Prevention Project managers and told me to phone them to ask about the sign, as they might be able to assist.
Don't know why I bothered asking them, really. Probably better to try and catch an actual workman in Roseburn Park and ask him instead, as I doubt a Project Manager in an office will have a clue about it.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I had a look at the closure and the diversion on the way home today. I laughed at the six motorists who thought that they could just sneak through the road closure, only to discover that the signs ought to have read "Road Closed: yes, really".
Unfortunately a velomobile is extremely unmanoeuverable in those circumstances and I had to engage maximum offensive light output to not be reversed into. I really need to sort out my Cannonball Run style twin-tone air horn.
The diversion on the grass was grippy enough on three wheels, but I'd be going a bit canny on two.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Cyclist Dismount" signs on the WoL path, either side of the gate here:
Why? Why does a cyclist need to dismount? Give way maybe. Beware of cross-traffic maybe, but dismount? No.
Is it so that contractors vans can speed out of the gate and across the bridge without bothering to look out for cycles or peds?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"
Cycling types interested in what’s happening in the park next year as a result of flood defences, and proposed re-routing of some paths, please get in touch! Friends of Roseburn Park is taking the view that the Council should be considering improvements to the park following the works.
"
http://www.friendsofroseburnpark.org.uk/2015/11/13/cycling-and-flood-defences-in-the-park/
Posted 9 years ago # -
The bollards at the west side of the park aren't well placed. The single bollard at the east end isn't very visible in the dark. The dropped kerb at the east end needs a double-yellow line.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Am I correct in assuming the blue rectangular cyclist dismount signs are advisory.
I got challenged today by a dog walker as to why I hadn't dismounted I tried to calmly explain that add far as I understood there was no legal requirement to do so....numerous times... whilst she ranted about all the bad things that cyclists do which according to her I was solely responsible for
She got quite irate and swore at me and called me a bad name.
Deciding that she was not up for the open and reasoned debate I had hoped for I departed questioning her as to whether she thought her behaviour gave dog walkers a good name.Posted 9 years ago # -
I departed questioning her as to whether she thought her behaviour gave dog walkers a good name.
Well played.
Posted 9 years ago # -
The only time these signs are mentioned in the Highway Code is as follows:
82. Level crossings/Tramways. Take extra care when crossing the tracks (see Rule 306). You should dismount at level crossings where a ‘cyclist dismount’ sign is displayed.
Note the 'should' - this means it is not compulsory, but is recommended. Or as you say, advisory.
However, the gov.uk site adds another factor:
Blue circles generally give a mandatory instruction
and
Blue rectangles are used for information signs except on
motorways where blue is used for direction signsGoing by this, a circular 'cyclist dismount' sign must be obeyed, but a rectangular one is merely informational!
And page 36 of that doc, which specifically mentions the sign in question, is infuriatingly unclear on whether this specific sign is mandatory or informational: Pedal cyclists to dismount at end of, or break in, a cycle lane, track or route.
There's also the viewpoint that you can't have traffic management signs on something which is not actually a road, in that sense.
Personally, I think that for it to have the weight of law it would have to be the circular white sign with a red border and showing a cycle thus indicating 'no cycling', underpinned with a blue 'cyclist dismount' sign. To me, that would indicate a legal imperative.
TL;DR: Advisory!
Posted 9 years ago # -
I think the problem with the Cyclists Dismount sign is that councils have tended to put them up in the wrong places, i.e. places where you can quite legally cycle. The Traffic Signs Manual is pretty clear on where they should be used, stating:
"The sign should be provided only where cyclists are required to use a pedestrian crossing facility that they cannot legally cycle on, at the entrance to a pedestrian area, at a location with a low headroom or width restriction
(e.g. a subway or bridge) or at places where visibility
is restricted to such an extent that cycling would be
unsafe". An odd mix of places where cycling would be an offence and where it would simply be inadvisable.Add access rights granted by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 into the mix, and things get even more complicated as many older signs are no longer valid.
Most of these signs can be safely ignored, although apparently not by high blood pressure mentalists wanting to give cyclists a hard time.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Thanks for that Snowy.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Morningsider the signs in question were originally very badly handwritten efforts a few weeks ago then replaced with official ones by the contractor probably just to protect themselves as it was they who had provided an inadequate temporary surface whilst carrying out the works.
I mean who'd have thought cyclists would've wanted to continue using a well established shared use path ehPosted 9 years ago # -
East end of the park is blocked off for works, so need to divert further round Roseburn Place and go past the play park.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Not a very sensible time of year to be blocking off more of the accesses to Murrayfield, you'd have thought
Posted 8 years ago # -
First time I've seen the images of what the finished flood prevention work is supposed to look like. As usual, a computer generated utopia.
https://www.mclh.co.uk/live-projects/water-of-leith-flood-alleviation-scheme-phase-2/
Posted 8 years ago # -
@ Stickman - oh that's sad and sterile. It's a bit of a wildlife corridor now with brambles and elder berries and hawthorn and cow parsley and bats hunting. Kids swung on trees over the river.
Posted 8 years ago # -
The first picture implies that there is a new path on the west bank, but later pictures seem to contradict that.
Also seems to show that 'upgraded' existing path is still not tarmac??
Posted 8 years ago # -
That would be a missed opportunity, if they're not putting down tarmac. Then again, Riversdale crescent is fine for cycling on so maybe not necessary?
Posted 8 years ago # -
Spotted this notice about the plight of two particularly fine trees in Roseburn Park:
I noticed yesterday that the chainsaws have already been out in force a few yards downstream.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Could the local resident not devote all his energies to saving these trees rather than trying to stop the cycle lane.?. His house is prone to flooding so maybe he wants the work done quickly and the trees chopped down but on the other hand the curious notice where the trees are talking to us seems strangely familiar?
Posted 8 years ago # -
"The first picture implies that there is a new path on the west bank, but later pictures seem to contradict that."
The later pictures do seem to show a path, albeit a narrower one than in the first pic and with a 90 degree bend to access it.
Posted 8 years ago # -
There are differing opinions on chopping down the riverside trees but it has certainly opened up a cracking view from Riversdale Crescent - really caught me by surprise at dawn this morning.
Cracking new view by HankChief, on Flickr
Posted 8 years ago # -
I'm going to put this on his thread to separate it from the Roseburn-Leith Walk one.
Here's a link to the consultation and proposals by the Friends of Roseburn Park on the future of the park.
They are also holding drop in sessions this Wednesday at the Primary School and will be presenting at the next Murrayfield Community Council.
I'm particularly interested in the consideration of a bridge across WOL by the existing buildings in the middle of the park, as my daily routine see me climbing Ormidale Terrace as it has the least traffic and the only way I can get to it is by a stretch on the A8. Such a bridge would eliminate that, as well as open up the park more easily for this who live North of the A8.
There are alos questions about whether to put in cycle speed bumps and/or an alternative route for cyclists.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Maybe the alternative route could be a segregated cycle lane along the A8 past the Roseburn shops? What an idea!
Posted 8 years ago # -
Well that would never work.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Lots of inference there that the park would be better with various attempts at restricting cycling. None about reducing the numbers of dogs off the leash.
Posted 8 years ago # -
Looking forward to civil war breaking out in the Roseburn community as one half of the anti-cycle lane brigade decide they don't want nasty BMXers in "their" park whilst the other half want the BMX track.
I expect that the Wicker Man is currently being built and that a Local Campaigner will make good kindling.
Posted 8 years ago # -
This came up at the MCC last night and we were given a presentation with the responses to the consulatation.
They seem to be taking it in a generally sensible direction.
BMX track is off the cards following feedback.
Speed bumps are out of favour due to impact on elderly and young.
They acknowledge that diverting the cycle path round the back of the building probably isn't going to work.
The new bridge to Corstorphine Road by the toilets is seen as key to opening up the park and they are looking at wether it is possible to move the Baird Drive footbridge.Still has to be funded etc, but good to see positive action to make the park work better for the community
Posted 8 years ago # -
@HankChief
Yeah, I think it looks good & credit for the amount of work put in. If I hear any whispers of possible funding I'll let them know.
What I should have asked (though it was getting late) was whether the wildlife corridor along the banks of the WoL would be allowed to grow back again.
I'll miss the bats this year...
Posted 8 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
