Pesky cyclists not using cycle lanes! Oh...that's Wiggo!; Colombian kid keeps up with Tom Dumoulin and Rigoberto Urán; Heavily-criticised NFT Bike Club takes "feedback"; Cav watch; Cycling MP crashes; Bad infra; Muddy misery + more on the live blog

An NFT is a digital receit, that is all. Like what you get when you go to Tesco exept made of 1s and 0s

I don't buy receipts when I go to Tesco.

MTB Refugee wrote:

An NFT is a digital receit, that is all. Like what you get when you go to Tesco exept made of 1s and 0s

It's more like you go to Tesco, meet someone outside who sells you a receipt that says that you bought a tin of beans.

And anyone can eat your tin of beans, but the important thing is that it will only ever be yours.

OldRidgeback wrote:

That's a rubbish cycle lane.

It could be kind of fun if it's not busy and you can try out your slalom skills, but I wouldn't fancy negotiating oncoming cyclists. I don't know if it's bidirectional or not.

Wasn't OldRidgeback referring to the lane in the Wiggins item - I thought their comment was there before the chicane thing appeared on the blog?

mdavidford wrote:

Wasn't OldRidgeback referring to the lane in the Wiggins item - I thought their comment was there before the chicane thing appeared on the blog?

Maybe. The Wiggins lane looks fine to me as far as magic white paint goes.

Am I the only one who thinks its not that bad?  Its obviously previously been a shopping street - though everything is now boarded up.   I see no harm in bit of a wiggle to keep speeds down whilst the chances of Pedestrian/Cyclist/Bus interactions are higher.

Obviously a fully segregated lane would be better - but I've seen a lot worse.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks its not that bad?  Its obviously previously been a shopping street - though everything is now boarded up.   I see no harm in bit of a wiggle to keep speeds down whilst the chances of Pedestrian/Cyclist/Bus interactions are higher.

Obviously a fully segregated lane would be better - but I've seen a lot worse.

I looked, I couldn't see much wrong. The folder must be very thick indeed if every example worse than this is included.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I looked, I couldn't see much wrong.

Get an eyeful of the rest of it...

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/edinburgh-trams-news-developments...

In isolation, perhaps the narrow chicane is ok, but when the rest of it seems to be an obstacle course so bad that I would just use the road, it's failed.

HoarseMann wrote:

Get an eyeful of the rest of it...

https://www.skyscrapercity.com/threads/edinburgh-trams-news-developments...

In isolation, perhaps the narrow chicane is ok, but when the rest of it seems to be an obstacle course so bad that I would just use the road, it's failed.

Indeed I agree with you.  This photo is the one that stuck out in your link 

TriTaxMan wrote:

Indeed I agree with you.  This photo is the one that stuck out in your link 

Nothing wrong with that - they've got an arrow showing where the lamp-post is

hawkinspeter wrote:

TriTaxMan wrote:

Indeed I agree with you.  This photo is the one that stuck out in your link 

Nothing wrong with that - they've got an arrow showing where the lamp-post is

What is the white line along the footway at the left of the picture, I wonder?

Are pedestrians supposed to stay to the left of that, and then cyclists stay on their shiny new (cr@p) cycle lane, so the space between the white line and the cycle lane is No Man's Land or something?

brooksby wrote:

What is the white line along the footway at the left of the picture, I wonder?

Are pedestrians supposed to stay to the left of that, and then cyclists stay on their shiny new (cr@p) cycle lane, so the space between the white line and the cycle lane is No Man's Land or something?

Pedestrians should stay behind it when cyclists are passing through, to avoid the air currents sucking them under the wheels.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Secret_squirrel wrote:

Am I the only one who thinks its not that bad?  Its obviously previously been a shopping street - though everything is now boarded up.   I see no harm in bit of a wiggle to keep speeds down whilst the chances of Pedestrian/Cyclist/Bus interactions are higher.

Obviously a fully segregated lane would be better - but I've seen a lot worse.

I looked, I couldn't see much wrong. The folder must be very thick indeed if every example worse than this is included.

I note that it's not finished yet.  So maybe some radical changes will happen.  The ridiculous parts - and they are - look pretty finished though.  Also I can't see why you'd even make temporary infra with errors this bad.

But it is possible - because they're not yet finished the tram lines bit and are still moving everyone else around the space.

What's wrong?  It's cargo cult.  No, not right, it's like they had an OK designer drafting this but every so often they left and kids came into the room and monkeyed with the design.  There are some good features and sections.  But if you actually cycle on it for more than a hundred metres you'll be thinking "did they have anyone who'd been on a bike in that team?"

It's great that they thought to bother at all, they didn't try to do it with 200 quid's worth of paint, they've got segregation.  All good.  But they're spending our money - and you can see it was a lot of money - on things which don't hang together.  Which aren't going to persuade most people that cycling's viable.

You'd be pretty outraged if a motorway budget had gone on something which had sections of motorway per spec, but then a crossroads built into it.  Or sudden curves, or bits where it just stopped and you had to drive on a farm track briefly.  Obviously wacky stuff.  You'd probably think that was a waste of cash because the bad bits stop the good bits working properly.

Here we've got a failure to draw a straight line when presented with essentially a mile long straight wide road.  Which they were completely redesigning.  We've got paths that direct you into lampposts, send you at pedestrians, which suddenly start and stop.  There's a moment of divine inspiration / madness at one point I can't explain or even describe.  Someone couldn't figure out that when you're moving at more than 5 mph what you need is a largely straight route and where there are bends they should be ... bendy, you know, curved, not instantaneous changes in direction.

I don't understand, really.  There's been plenty of consultation, they seem to have engaged with the local cycling group, they've Sustrans whispering in their ear (hmm...) they've had years of having goes at this etc.

Update - the crazy street furniture (lampposts in middle of cycle path) are apparently temporary.  When tram tracks are completed apparently lights are going to be supported using / near their power wire pylons.

Not sure about the drains, some other uneven parts or whether they'll straighten out the slaloms.  The junction treatment still looks like it's going to be "mix up the cyclists and pedestrians" though.  And I still think this is a bit interesting - inspired by Space Invaders?

I do wonder what the reasoning was?  Is the 'indented' section of road a loading bay?

I think (judging by the textured paving used) the indented section is to create a pedestrian refuge island so that peds are crossing the cycle lane to a safe place, then crossing the all vehicle lane seperatly.

We all know that peds will take the shortest straight line to thier required destination

The zebra over the cycelway and that you can just seen a dropped kerb at the back ofthe 'layby' (you can see the kerb at the far edge tapering down) means this is a pedestrian crossing point.  nothings intended to be in the 'layby'

I think I can rationalise that kinked cycle lane.  They've done it to avoid runnning a kerbline over the two MH's in the carriageway - they don't look offset enough to get a kerb upagainst the brickwork that'll be under the ground but offset from the opening under the lid. Its avoiding a costly diversion of the chambers.  It also looks like the tactile would be partially in the lid if it was at edge of carriageway.  Not all stats will allow recessed covers for block paving or tactiles.   The DYL should go round the back of 'layby' as well.

The position of the gully makes this look like a construction issue not picked up on a drawing during design thats possibly been sorted out when it gets to site (if the kerbline moved, then the gully should be put on the corner, but has probably gone in first).  You can usually just mortar in the kerb up against the brickwork, must have been prevented from moving the kerbline out a bit, maybe due to the tramlines?

Isn't the give way triangle upside down? It feels wrong. Surely they point away from the thing that has priority?

I don't think it's a give way triangle (that would be outline only, rather than solid) - it's a ramp indicator.

mdavidford wrote:

I don't think it's a give way triangle (that would be outline only, rather than solid) - it's a ramp indicator.

Nope - I've checked them, most don't have ramps that I can detect.  It's when they got creative, that's my best guess. Like the points in early South Park episodes where you'd think "and that's were the acid really started hitting".

chrisonatrike wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

I don't think it's a give way triangle (that would be outline only, rather than solid) - it's a ramp indicator.

Nope - I've checked them, most don't have ramps that I can detect.  It's when they got creative, that's my best guess. Like the points in early South Park episodes where you'd think "and that's were the acid really started hitting".

Well I didn't say there were ramps - just that they were ramp indicators. Clearly they forgot to actually put the ramps in...

mdavidford wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

mdavidford wrote:

I don't think it's a give way triangle (that would be outline only, rather than solid) - it's a ramp indicator.

Nope - I've checked them, most don't have ramps that I can detect.  It's when they got creative, that's my best guess. Like the points in early South Park episodes where you'd think "and that's were the acid really started hitting".

Well I didn't say there were ramps - just that they were ramp indicators. Clearly they forgot to actually put the ramps in...

Good point.  Edinburgh have been better at this of late.  However we all know that no UK cycle or pedestrian designer can resist putting in ramps for too long. "Driveways!  Side road crossings!" they say happily...

OldRidgeback wrote:

That's a rubbish cycle lane.

Not had a chance to go back in daylight for a bit but Leith Walk is a really wide street.  Given that they've now dug this up several times the missed opportunity to get this right ought to be shocking.  However it's par for the course.  Some bits are... not bad for the UK.  The wiggles are the usual Edinburgh mess of "can't seem to get floating bus stops quite right" plus large bins plus loading.  They also lost some space because it's needed between the tram tracks for towers to support the tram power cables.  If I recall correctly they could have done this another way (e.g. support from sides) but the first time round (when they ran out of money to complete this section) I think they bought all these supports plus didn't apply for the planning to do it another way, so tied themselves into these.

Despite having effectively shut Leith Walk down several times over several years (tram 1 fiasco, tram again) I think the idea is still that even after adding the tram cars still have to have their space.  Certainly access is required to the many businesses (rightly aggrieved by all the previous mess. There will still be buses too - lots of routes run this way and the "tram" won't replace them.  (The council always describe it as "tram" which is actually correct because the plans for several lines failed as the costs rose.  We even failed to complete the single line the first time round.)

From meetings I've been to it seems that certain council folks "get" cycling - which is great.  However there's vigorous opposition. It all results in the idea of "well if cyclists have something, everyone else has to have something" or "if you get an 'advantage' here you have to have a barrier there".