Portaloos installed for Queen Elizabeth II crowds that opened onto Edinburgh cycle route are turned around following backlash

marmotte27 wrote:

"Near P*ss of the Day"

This competition is now closed, we have a winner.

cdamian wrote:

Loo Traffic Neighbourhood

Wish I'd thought of that one

Yes but no.  As in - yes, it's a special occasion - everyone will have to accommodate changes.  But also no as in every time something happens (event, building works, need to put signs up for drivers / pedestrians, accident, people just want to park) the first space to get repurposed is any cycle space.

It's always "ooh, you're so entitled / sensitive / 'special' ".  This will probably remain true until many more people are cycling but it's all a bit chicken and egg.

Meanwhile, when we get around to actually wanting more people cycling here are some examples of doing this in practice: [1], [2], [3]...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Yes but no.  As in - yes, it's a special occasion - everyone will have to accommodate changes.  But also no as in every time something happens (event, building works, need to put signs up for drivers / pedestrians, accident, people just want to park) the first space to get repurposed is any cycle space.

Exactly, in London we have basically lost all the segregated cycle lanes through or around Green Park and St James's Park for all of this week and beyond, meaning that anyone going from East to West has a choice of riding through Piccadilly or Victoria Street/Grosvenor Place, both very heavy traffic routes frequented by HGVs. If it was just this week yes, we could say OK, once in 70 years, but we already lost them for nearly eight weeks this year for the Jubilee and will doubtless lose them again for the coronation and other events. They are always the first to be closed whilst it seems much more effort is made to minimise car and pedestrian inconvenience (for example, during the Jubilee the cycle lanes on Constitution Hill were closed but all of the 10+ footpaths across Green Park were kept pedestrian only and heavily policed to ensure no cyclist used them, it would have been very simple to re-purpose one as a temporary cycle lane at no cost to pedestrian access).

A cople good fair points, there.

Rendel Harris wrote:

If it was just this week yes, we could say OK, once in 70 years, but we already lost them for nearly eight weeks this year for the Jubilee and will doubtless lose them again for the coronation and other events. 

And don't forget the next royal funeral - the men in that family tend not to live as long as the women, and Charles is already in his seventies...

brooksby wrote:

Rendel Harris wrote:

If it was just this week yes, we could say OK, once in 70 years, but we already lost them for nearly eight weeks this year for the Jubilee and will doubtless lose them again for the coronation and other events. 

And don't forget the next royal funeral - the men in that family tend not to live as long as the women, and Charles is already in his seventies...

Charles's father lived longer than his mother. And he's already lived to an older age than his aunt.

Marrying cousins is a lottery.

Hmmm. No but yes.

It's not 'cycle facilities lost first' though, is it? I'd call that victim claiming.

In Norwich next to the cycle space photographed, the pavement will also be substantially closed, and roads are also being closed at the same timein various places.

The chap in Norwich was quite funny. If he took a picture on the phone, he could have spent 2p calling the Council to check on his phone, and informed what was happening, rather than causing a twittergasm.

Entirely with you planning for all 3 modes of transport at roadworks, of course. That's a point I occasionally make on Ashley Neale's YT channel, when appropriate.

Back to you - same again.  This one gets a pass (Queen) but in general it's not victim claiming - it's true.  There are far fewer "cycle facilities" (even counting paint) than either pavements or roads.  In the UK these are a) usually not a network - remove a section and this has much more effect than blocking one footpath or one road b) for some cyclists that road may not be an option and having to switch to the footway may simply mean they don't cycle (now you're a pedestrian with a bulky and awkward appendage).

I suspect the logic runs: "there are more people walking or driving than cycling so ensure those are working first".  But "more people travelling by car than cycling" is already questionable at a few locations in the UK.  Our current modal shares aren't set in stone, and making no change conflicts with "encouraging cycling" and all the other stated goals of our authorities (improved urban environments, "fairness" e.g. more independant mobility for young, old and disabled, "climate change" etc. etc.)

Prioritising driving space when there's a change is problematic because it has a very low capacity to move people.  I believe that's why in the NL they tend to first ensure that the cycles can still get through during e.g. road and building works.  We want to preserve some motor traffic access (emergency services, some disabled people) but how to stop it getting rapidly blocked by the volume of drivers?  Hmm...

On "victim claiming" - maybe we should gather data here?  Perhaps a thread called e.g. "cyclists dismount" with examples like david9694 has going for "cars in houses" and "residents trapped in homes"?

I'm out on the bike later, I'm sure I can find some examples (Edinburgh but not just loos)!

chrisonatrike wrote:

... the first space to get repurposed is any cycle space.

No, as in no.. Royal Mile closed to cars and buses for 4 days, all buses in the Royal Mile and George IV bridge area diverted over a 4 day period.  Given that that whole area of the city is packed with mourners at the moment, I'd have thought cyclists having to dismout and walk for 50 metres past the 50 portaloos to ensure safety instead of cycling through the crowds at full speed,  is pretty trivial compared to people trying to figure out how to get a bus to where they need to go.. 

There's the particular and the general.  You seem to be confusing them.  That's my point - there's always some reason.  (Well - I don't accept "but I'm delivering a pizza / boxed set / I've always parked here...").  I just see this happening very often.  Are there some works / need to store some stuff / there's an event happening?  Then put the materials / park the works vehicles / divert cars or people walking / dig up the road where the cycle lane is.

If you like the status quo (or even think "let's not waste any money on cycle facilities" - and in the UK it is sometimes wasted cash on paint and signs) then that's fine.  I think continuing the same way will mean it'll continue to be just us 3% (or whatever local to you) who cycle, we'll keep getting run over at the same rate etc.  On the evidence of places where people do cycle I'd suggest not blocking cycling is important in getting / keeping more people cycling.

It seems that some people here don't see it this way.  This has cropped up in previous road.cc articles. Maybe we need some more examples to show people?

chrisonatrike wrote:

There's the particular and the general.  You seem to be confusing them.  

Please don't tell me what I am confusing, indeed it is you has expanded a specific topic into a general one. I am simply responding to the topic raised, rather than as so often happens here, extrapolationg every single thread into how much the World hates cyclists. Crying wolf in a case where a city has been turned upside down at 24 hours notice, and even with their best efforts, the council got a few things wrong, merely portrays us as a group of whingers. In this instance we have a perfect piece of segregated cycle path, the sort of thing we all campaign for, which will be in unhindered use for 51 weeks this year, and for 4 days cyclists have minor inconvenience while the rest of the City's transport is severely disrupted. Sounds like a good news story to me. Sometimes in life you need to pick your battles. This isn't one of those battles, and the fact that a few cyclists have chosen to make it headline news does us more harm than good.

But you responded to me, not the article...  And as you point out I have broadened this to address the general issue.  I wouldn't be fighting the council on this specific one.  Although it's quite possible that things could have been done better in this case (I've not been to look since Friday).

I'd be interested in your take on separating "whingeing" and "crying wolf" from pointing out both specific and systematic issues.

My reason for generalising is I *do* see cycle space is being regularly repurposed for other uses and this is normally being done in preference to e.g. taking a lane from the carriageway.  It's about choices.  Each time someone gives a specific reason.  But there simply isn't much specific cycling infra so it's not just "give and take, like everyone else".  Again - if you don't think we need cycling infra or don't care that only a few % trips are made by cycle then allocating this space for other uses (and why not permanently?) makes sense - benefit the majority (non-cyclists), right?  If not, note repeatedly blocking the infra doesn't help cycling "for 8 to 80" at all though.

Brooksby, I agree 100% with your message. However in my experience of Edinburgh council abdication of responsibility is a prerequisite of getting elected/employed. And don't get me started on joined up thinking.

Capt Sisko wrote:

I'm suprised no one has said this so far, but isn't this the definative entry for the crap cycling lanes competition.

Yes; it's shit.

Beadle's dead, I'm afraid.
Where's his ghost?

Daclu Trelub wrote:

If these portaloos are like any others I've encountered on festival sites, it won't be long before they're absolutely unusable. I still have horrors...

Recently went to a small festival (Arctangent) and the loos were a bit of a crap-shoot - quite usable soon after cleaning, but then deteriorating rapidly. What occurred to me was that the doors need an extra option to show when they are blocked. The handle either shows green (available) or red (occupied), so it should have a different colour (brown?) for being out of order.