CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

Petition to ban pavement cycling Edinburgh

(82 posts)
  • Started 10 years ago by Radgeworks
  • Latest reply from neddie

  1. cycletrain
    Member

    Not sure what all the fuss is about. People shouldn't be cycling on footpaths/footway. I agree with that.

    Proper provision should be made for all road users during road works? I agree with that.

    Proper access should be provided on and off cycle paths and cycle ways without the ridiculous "Cyclist Dismount" sign in place? I agree with that.

    Ridiculing a pedestrian for complaining about cyclists on footways, when you spend a lot of your time complaining about every other road users? Take a look at yourself first.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  2. cb
    Member

    "Actually, I think motorcyclists only need to wear a helmet. Speedos and a helmet would be perfectly legal."

    Speedos and a turban probably legal too, maybe not to the fashion police though.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  3. bdellar
    Member

    I noticed this new bit of infrastructure yesterday:

    http://barneysbikeblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/seafield-pavement-cycling.html

    Posted 10 years ago #
  4. crowriver
    Member

    Maybe that could go in the thread dedicated to this path?

    Yeah it's a bit idiotic. Maybe only kids and very unconfident cycists would use that corner kerb fiasco. Dropped kerb also handy for wheelchair users, buggies, etc.

    For everone else on a bike, if coming from Seafield Road path, surely just cross and proceed on road up Seafield Street? Pavement runs out further up anyhow. Similarly, if coming from Seafield Street remain on road and cross onto dropped kerb area of shared use path?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  5. bdellar
    Member

    But surely even the inexperienced would find it easier just to cycle up Seafield Street? It was quite tricky getting past the signs, cafe furniture and poles, and it involved five turns - three of them on a tiny bit of pavement ouside the cafe - rather than one easy one.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  6. crowriver
    Member

    "Scheduled for cosideration at Petitions Committee on 5 September 2013"

    Really? So they managed to get 500+ signatures? Nope.

    "Total signatories 26 (business) 38 (individual)"

    So, each business signatory is the equivalent of 18 individual signatures? How on earth is that fair or democratic?

    To make matters worse, Council are considering the petition despite the fact that footway cycling is already banned!

    I will write to my councillor, who happens to Convene the Petitions Committee. Any chance Spokes can appear before the Committee to respond?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  7. crowriver
    Member

    Just noticed this comment from the petitioner herself on the EEN article:

    "Alison Adamson
    4:39 PM on 19/08/2013
    Just to let everyone know how the Petition went! I submitted the paper petition and including the online support, there were 64 signatories. As only 20 business signatories were required to force the issue to debate by the Petitions Committee, this total was exceeded. Thank-you to everyone who supported this move. Keep talking to your elected representatives in all levels of local and national Government. They are the people who can make decisions. Hopefully we will hear about this outcome by mid September."

    Interesting that she sees the EEN commentariat as her natural supporters! Sound advice too about contacting elected representatives: perhaps the CCE commentariat can follow it?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  8. gembo
    Member

    Interesting that only need twenty businesses to have the petitions committee debate this. Will be a stonker of a debate. This is already banned, why are we talking about this, why was it not rejected as an incompetent petition (confess I do not know what the original wording was). Also the petitions committee is set up to suggest the council is listening to residents and businesses, looks like they are happy to debate stuff. So no need to force anything. Unless the original petitioner was insisting on a debate of an incompetent motion? I will now try to find exact words. Also bump up a few kerbs before it gets banned, oh wait it is banned already.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  9. cb
    Member

    "confess I do not know what the original wording was"

    Rambling and incoherent.

    The first sentence is:

    "We request that tough measures are taken to prevent cyclists from cycling on pavements within the busy City Centre pavements, especially in the Tram Construction works areas, where metal fencing further restricts pavement width."

    It gets worse from there as if that were possible.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  10. Instography
    Member

    So 20 businesses = 500 punters? If I put my business face on I can be worth 25 people. I should start renting my signature for petitions.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  11. crowriver
    Member

    However rambling, incoherent, or misinformed this is, the fact of the matter is Committee have to consider it and recommend a course of action, or pass on to the relevant Committee (in this case, Transport & Environment).

    The petitioner has shown some nous in getting 26 businesses to sign up. She's also got this into the papers. However "silly" her viewpoint, it is being heard. She is effectively demonising cyclists and cycling and gaining support and an official audience for her reactionary position. I would suggest that represents a problem for cyclists and groups such as Spokes.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  12. Coxy
    Member

    20 businesses, huh?

    How many bike shops in Edinburgh?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  13. minus six
    Member

    Cyclists, eh.

    Why can't they just vanish into thin air?

    Not welcome in this town.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  14. mgj
    Member

    Not welcome on the pavements - I'm fine with that. In the same way as drivers who pass too close are not welcome on the roads in this town, or a highways department that cant fix potholes before they turn into something from Quatermass.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  15. crowriver
    Member

    Not welcome on the pavements - I'm fine with that.

    When is a pavement not a pavement? When it's not adjacent to a road (in which case it's fine to cycle on) or when it's designated as shared use.

    The problem with this petition is the signals it may ultimately send to councillors, however wrongly, that:

    1. - cyclists are dangerous scofflaws who ride on the pavement
    2. - pedestrians across the city are up in arms about this (all 38 of them)
    3. - cyclists need to be targetted for punishment
    4. - the Edinburgh business community supports such a move (well at least 26 do)
    5. - cycling on all paths/pavements is unacceptable
    6. - by extension, designating more paths/pavements as shared use is a bad idea
    7. - also by extension, paint on roads like the QBC is all cyclists deserve.

    Yes, the committee may dismiss the petition as a crackpot grumble, but I doubt it. If certain councillors take up the cudgels at the Transport committee, this could be damaging to various initiatives most cyclists would like to see, and instead a 'crackdown' on cyclsts may be seen as necessary to "balance" similar crackdowns on motorists. That's what is really behind this petition, I think: not defending the interests of pedestrians, but rather "righting the injustice" that motorists are (finally) getting fined for, say, bus lane infringements, while cyclists are not. It's even there in black and white in the petition.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  16. when is a pavement not a pavement? When it's not adjacent to a road (in which case it's fine to cycle on) or when it's designated as shared use.

    Actually, I used to think this was the interpretation of the various laws as well, until I was set straight by Morningsider. Turns out cycling on a path that's not beside a road is just as illegal as on one that is. Unless, as you say, it's shared use.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  17. You're right that it will be discussed, and there will probably be a 'suggestion' arrived at. I suspect it will be for this area only, and it will involve new signs informing cyclists they shouldn't be there, and possibly some council wardens for a while. Rees not really much else can be done, and frankly (given I don't cycle on pavements) I'm not that bothered about a crackdown on that.

    Yes, cars do more damage and our city would be better placed if it cracked down on bad driving instead, but this petition has followed the rules. A Coxy says, we should maybe look at a few petitions where we can aim for the 20 businesses support....

    Posted 10 years ago #
  18. Dave
    Member

    "Turns out cycling on a path that's not beside a road is just as illegal as on one that is. Unless, as you say, it's shared use. "

    My reading of R(S)A 1984, sect 129 is that all the 7Stanes trail centres are illegal, because they aren't legally designated as cycle tracks and it's an offence to ride on trails otherwise.

    However, this always leads back to the ultimate oddness that you have a general right of access to the countryside (LRA) that appears to end once a path has been worn into the ground (R(S)A 1984), and of course it conflicts with the much trumpeted goal of the LRA to open up the countryside to non-mechanised access.

    Perhaps they just forgot to repeal it, or there's some other deep get-out clause.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  19. Dave
    Member

    Amusingly, the routes outside Haymarket are designated as core paths, which supercedes R(S)A 1984 and, IANAL, makes it quite legal to cycle there?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  20. Nelly
    Member

    People see what they want to see - I cycle on 5 yards of pavement - slowly - every day (eltringham terrace) as the infra is poor.

    But I dont see myself as a pavement cyclist and glared at a guy bombing down a pavement on gorgie road this morning.

    Double standards by me ?!

    However anyone living on the 5 yard stretch I cycle on probably tells their friends that pavement cycling is rife in edinburgh if they see me (and more) twice a day!

    I may be wrong but there is a lot more pavement cycling this year - and not just at tram works, and not just because of bad infra. Just seems more prevalent but I might be wrong?

    I would be mighty annoyed if someone came bombing round a corner toward one of my family, so I can kind of see it both ways.

    To stop the rambling for a minute - it could be resolved by having decent segregated paths and safe cycling routes - if we had that I doubt someone would need a 'petition'.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  21. "My reading of R(S)A 1984, sect 129 is that all the 7Stanes trail centres are illegal, because they aren't legally designated as cycle tracks and it's an offence to ride on trails otherwise."

    We need Morningsider here - I'm sure he covered this point and why it's perfectly legal to cycle on those trails (I think it's essentially because they are not 'footpaths' in terms of the necessary act?).

    Interesting point about core paths though. Hmmm....

    Posted 10 years ago #
  22. crowriver
    Member

    IF it is part of the Core Path network, then according to the Scottish Outdoor Access Code:

    "2.2 Everyone, whatever their age or ability, can exercise access
    rights over most land and inland water in Scotland, at any time
    of day or night, providing they do so responsibly2. These rights
    do not extend to all places or to all activities (see paragraphs
    2.11 to 2.15). Provided you do so responsibly (see Parts 3 and
    5 of the Code), you can exercise access rights in places such
    as:
    • hills, mountains and moorland;
    • woods and forests;
    • most urban parks, country parks and other managed open
    spaces;
    • rivers, lochs, canals and reservoirs;
    • riverbanks, loch shores, beaches and the coastline;
    • land in which crops have not been sown;
    • on the margins of fields3 where crops are growing or have
    been sown;
    • grassland, including grass being grown for hay or silage
    (except when it is at such a late stage of growth that it is
    likely to be damaged);
    • fields where there are horses, cattle and other farm animals;
    • on all core paths"

    "2.4 You can exercise access rights at any time of the day or night,
    provided you do so responsibly."

    However:

    "2.11 Access rights do not apply in the following places7."

    "Land or water where public access is, by or under any other
    legislation, prohibited, excluded or restricted. This would
    normally be for safety grounds or public security reasons11.
    In some places, byelaws, management rules or other
    regulations may have been introduced by a local authority or
    other similar public body and these may affect how you can
    exercise access rights. All byelaws need to be consistent
    with the access provisions in the Land Reform (Scotland)
    Act 200312."

    I presume this covers "footways" but not "footpaths"?

    http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A309336.pdf

    Posted 10 years ago #
  23. crowriver
    Member

    Edinburgh's Core Paths

    Posted 10 years ago #
  24. Morningsider
    Member

    Technically, a "footpath" is a road where the right of passage is restricted to foot only and the road is not associated with a carriageway (road). Most footpaths do not meet this technical definition, meaning the access rights granted under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 apply - i.e. you can cycle along them.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  25. Dave
    Member

    Footway is amusingly circular though because "“footway” means a way comprised in a highway which also comprises a carriageway, being a way over which the public have a right of way on foot only"

    i.e. we're back to it being beside a road, but also if the LRA granted access to those not on foot, say due to it being a core path, the footway would cease to be a footway ("public have a right of way on foot only") and thus surely an explosion of some sort would occur.

    Or perhaps a petition.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  26. chdot
    Admin

    "Most footpaths do not meet this technical definition"

    Does that mean footpaths are 'pavements' in some places but in others need to be specially designated for peds only for bikes to be banned?

    Posted 10 years ago #
  27. SRD
    Moderator

    Andy wightman had an interesting encounter earlier in the summer: http://www.andywightman.com/?p=2872;

    see also his more recent post about parks: http://www.andywightman.com/?p=2999

    Posted 10 years ago #
  28. *my head hurts*

    @Morningsider - I was thinking we need some sort of Batman-esque signal for you. We could mount a giant floodlight with an 'M' stencil on it to shine from the Castle.

    Posted 10 years ago #
  29. Morningsider
    Member

    chdot - I'd always assume that a pavement is a "footway" i.e. it runs alongside a road (carriageway). You are right though - most footpaths would have to be adopted by the local authority as a public road before their use could be restricted to pedestrians only.

    Dave - that's not the Scottish definition of a footway, which is set out in Section 151 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 as follows:

    For the purpose of this Act, where over a road the public right of passage referred to in the definition of “road” in subsection (1) above—

    (a)is by foot only, the road is—
    (i)where it is associated with a carriageway, a “footway”;

    Now, I'm sure that's all perfectly clear...

    Posted 10 years ago #
  30. minus six
    Member

    Pavement cycling is all about bad infra.

    Every. Single. Time.

    How could it possibly be otherwise?

    Posted 10 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin