An Edinburgh pensioner has warned the city’s now-infamous Leith Walk cycle lane is a “disaster waiting to happen” after he suffered a suspected broken rib and other minor injuries after hitting a shallow kerb.
The city’s council says the lane is currently closed, with barriers and signage in place notifying the public, and will not be complete until early 2023, but John Kerr does not believe it will be any safer when officialy open and the “terrible design” could cause someone to be seriously injured.
The 69-year-old told the Edinburgh Evening News he flew over the handlebars when his front tyre clipped a shallow kerb on the side of the infrastructure that was the butt of many jokes when pictures of the “moronic” bizarre zig-zag design emerged online earlier this year.
“I landed on my head but thankfully I was wearing my helmet. I’ve got an ache in my wrist and it’s definitely weaker and I think I might have a cracked rib. I’m not seriously injured but someone might be if this keeps happening,” he said.
“It [the shallow kerb] doesn’t seem to me to have any effective purpose other than to unseat cyclists. It’s a disaster waiting to happen.”
Edinburgh’s Leith Walk. New build cycle lane on the widest street in the city. pic.twitter.com/ijZ29NpzTy
— ?????????? (@overlandertheb1) March 1, 2022
Back in April, SNP councillor Lesley Macinnes said criticism of the path, which features sharp bends and obstacles such as lampposts, is “premature” as construction is still ongoing.
And while the council says the route should not be used by cyclists currently, Mr Kerr and cycling campaign group Spokes have said the signage is inadequate.
The injured rider said using the lane seemed the “obvious thing to do because it took us away from the traffic and the tram tracks” and signage advising to the contrary was “not evident”.
He also does not think the infrastructure will be any safer when officialy opened due to the variable kerb height that Edinburgh Evening News reporter Neil Johnstone says has been designed in line with the city’s Street Design Guidance and is to clearly segregate the cycle lane from the pavement and offer clear ground level detection for visually impaired pedestrians.
A local trader who saw the incident told the local press he has witnessed similar crashes in recent months as cyclists “cannot see” the shallow kerb.
“I don’t know what boffin they have employed to design these cycle lanes but it’s not working,” he said.
“When things are up and running and cars are buzzing about the place, it’s only a matter of time that a cyclist will fall of his bike and go into the line of traffic. That is a certainty.”
“It is a real shame that people have to suffer accidents like this as a consequence of poor design,” Spokes cycling campaign group member Ian Maxwell added.
It is far from the first time the Leith Walk cycle lane has appeared on road.cc. Back in June a rider promised us “you’ll never forget your first time” using the route and provided the video below as proof, in which the shallow kerb (and other heavily criticised features) can be seen.
Almost 20 years and £1bn+ in the making, you’ll never forget your first time on the Leith Walk strategic cycle corridor. pic.twitter.com/JGq7FGsgUp
— Dave McCraw (@david_mccraw) June 18, 2022
Then in October a cyclist shared footage of them narrowly avoiding a collision when a lorry driver mounted the bike lane and parked in the much-criticised infrastructure.
48 thoughts on ““Moronic” much-ridiculed zig-zag cycle lane now blamed as cyclist injured by shallow kerb crash”
Perhaps the council are
Perhaps the council are trying to attract the likes of Red Bull for an event? The “Leithal Lanes” extreme commute challenge?
We. Told. You. So
We. Told. You. So
The cyclist said “I landed on
The cyclist said “I landed on my head but thankfully I was wearing my helmet”. Perhaps someone should tell him the good news 😉
ShutTheFrontDawes wrote:
Is that the good news that falling off is within cycle helmet design limits? Again, having infrastructure that has been approved by an adult is more important than getting people to wear helmets.
No, I was referring to the
No, I was referring to the good news that a whole host of scientific studies on the subject have been thoroughly debunked, and that actually a cyclist is better off without a helmet, even in the event of a head injury.
I’m only part way through the list of studies you linked HP, and I don’t have access to all of them anyway, so I’m afraid that someone who is more informed than I will have to send Mr Kerr the proof. From the comments on the other threads, it seems that many people here are experts in the mitigation effectiveness of cycle helmets though, so I’m sure someone more learned than I will be both willing and able to oblige.
Has anyone actually said that
Has anyone actually said that or are you just humourously misrepresenting those pointing out that a bicycle helmet doesn’t magically prevent every head injury, and that the only people who can determine the effectiveness of a specific helmet are the ones who actually test them?
It was approved by adult
It was approved by adult drivers who are very very keen to “finish what they started” with the tram. Does that count?
I’ve not been there for
I’ve not been there for several weeks now but IIRC there was a low kerb marking the boundary with the pedestrian zone. I can’t recall whether they were the 45 degree angled ones (good) or just low ones with rounded tops (not so good). I do recall some parts where there were features protruding unnecessarily which looked like you could catch something on.
Much is fixable, but not the silly slalom layout. Not helped at all by the “we only do straight lines, not curves” cycle track. Plenty here that you won’t see in NL…
The fundamental issue though is despite being “the widest street in the city” it’s another “but the street is too narrow!” It’s the familiar UK conflict by having a “place” (so lots of people walking, pausing…) which is also a “road” e.g. an important artery for through transport. Neither purpose will be served well.
The reasons behind many of the individual compromises and awkward detail can be understood. Doesn’t change the fact that if we could only decide what single main function transport infra in space was for we wouldn’t have to make them in the first place.
I haven’t been up to Embra
I haven’t been up to Embra since these were put in but my niece lives off the walk and says she avoids cycling along the new lane because it’s so crap.
The few times I’ve had to
The few times I’ve had to take that route since it was installed, I ignored the path as clearly not fit for purpose.
She’d be as well cycling
She’d be as well cycling along McDonald Rd and then using the network from there to get to Scotland St I think.
“From the article” wrote:
If construction has started, critism isn’t premature, it is overdue.
The designers should be asked
The designers should be asked “Would you design a road like that?” If the answer isn’t “yes” they should resign.
EDIT:surely someone has asked why they designed it like that? What was the answer?
Unfortunately it’s because
Unfortunately it’s because they come from a background of designing roads – and are still being given “maximise motor traffic throughput” as a goal – that we get these designs. They’ve clearly now watched some videos of NL but you can’t achieve two incompatible ends at once!
chrisonatrike wrote:
As cycle lanes have the ability to transport greater numbers of people, wouldn’t optimising for cycle traffic also benefit the motor traffic by reducing congestion?
What are you, some kind of
What are you, some kind of Communist civil engineer? You’ll ruin the economy like that…
Clearly optimising for cycle traffic is a way to lose office. It will reduce motor vehicle capacity. You’ll probably lose government funding for stuff because of some rules about traffic flow. Some of these woke types will then take you to court because everyone went and sat in a traffic jam anyway so the pollution went up. The media will be full of chat from people worried about being trapped in their homes because they’re “afraid to walk out with cyclists running amok”. Especially the old, disabled and those with children. Liberals will point out that the elite are now taking helicopters to work while the poor have to spend 4 hours a day on buses and that’s all on you.
So everyone will be mad at you. And nobody cycles right now anyway!
hawkinspeter wrote:
But cities are built for cars, not people, who cares how many people can pass through?
That was an incredible feat
That was an incredible feat of foresight when the city fathers were designing and building the likes of York, Norwich, London, Cardiff, Edinburgh (old Town), Bristol and many others. At least the main boulevards were built to allow a farmer to turn his cart with a team of oxen in one movement.
eburtthebike wrote:
I have it on good authority that the designer replied “cars go vroom, vroom” though apparently there were some crayons stuck in their mouth at the time.
It would take me a full day
It would take me a full day to put a proper response to this thread and I don’t have time for that sadly.
But in summary, the designers get told what they are designing – it won’t have been them who decided if cars or cycles were the scheme priority, there’ll have been 2 or 3 years of business case with stakeholder & client requirements that determine that. All tied to what the funding for the project is supposed to provide. Because you;ve designed roads doesn’t mean you can’t design other things (in some cases it can though
)
The designers may (usually) have been working with one hand tied behind their back as the scheme cannot afford what they may want to provide for a ‘proper’ finished product. Back on the first thread on this i said I’m convinved half of the zig zag’s are existing utility related – either the project budget couldn’t afford all the diversions (the outline business case cost is never what the actual cost is) or the site team went freestyling with change requests when existing stats etc weren’t exactly where they were suppsoed to be.
Don’t get me wrong – thats a crap cycle lane. But its not always actually down to what the designers did. Anyhting that gets complained about in the finished product will have a whole host of discussion and reasoning on how or why its there.
Moist von Lipwig wrote:
I appreciate that, but if a designer is prepared to work in such a dysfunctional job, then they should be prepared to be made fun of for being involved in such a mess. If anything it’s far worse that so many people were involved and went along with the stupidity. I can understand cost cutting, but spending money on something that’s barely any use at all is just wasting money, especially as they’ll have to spend even more money to put it ‘right’. Everyone involved is a crayon eating muppet
my point was, the designers
my point was, the designers are the only ones getting lumped on – they may be the ones totally culpable, they may not, I don’t know – but theres a whole host of people also involved who enabled this to happen who aren’t getting a mention.
As Moist puts it. Here’s
As Moist puts it. Here’s another engineer pointing out that sometimes politicians avoid what are properly political decisions by punting them off to the engineers (in the context of pedestrian crossings):
eburtthebike wrote:
As far as I can tell, the short answer is that the cycle lane appears to have been right at the very bottom of the priority list, so every zig and every zag has a different explanation. Everything else was designed in first (or pre-existing infrastructure) and then the cycle lane just squeezed into whatever space happened to be left. Need to go around a drain cover, need to go around a loading bay, need to go around a wheelie bin. In some cases, it was as simple as “we could move this buried cable but that would cost more money and is outwith our contract scope. So we’ll just go around it instead”.
Exactly. From a cyclist’s
Exactly. From a cyclist’s perspective (or potential cyclist’s, or pedestrian’s, or tax-payer’s or bus / tram user’s or even driver’s perspective) it’s a misuse of (some of the) funds. It’s the wrong kind of “compromise” or “pragmatism”. The kind where you lose something on one side but don’t get anything back on the other.
Not straight as an arrow? That’s OK as long as the diversions are not abrupt, turns are gently curved, the width is good enough for manoevering and you can keep momentum in general. Oh – not so? And the cycle path disappears at several points anyway? And junctions / side road crossings are still a mess?
Won’t the slaloms become
Won’t the slaloms become dangerous when it gets a bit icy?
Old news! Here’s a man of
Old news! Here’s a man of the cloth demonstrating how to do it on a much older facility. (EDIT – who apparently learnt on the infrastructure they had in the Netherlands. How things come around!)
It’ll be great for curling too although it will need a backstop…
It is stated “it’s designed
It is stated “it’s designed in accordance with the city’s street design guidance”.
Why does our fair city decide to make up (badly) its own guidance? Why not adopt national or indeed international standards that are proven to work?
Because for the most part,
Because for the most part, they don’t even exist at that level.
The majority of design standards that exist are not for low speed (<50kph in design terms) urban environments, the DMRB which is the UK road design bible is for trunk and principal road >50kph. There are elements of it that are adaptable for urban design, but what mainly exists for urban are guidance documents such as Manual for Streets etc that have some things you treat as standard and some things that are open to your interpretation given the project context.
Local Authorities have their own standards because they like things all the same (ie all the same road typeshave the same width, or construction, or materials etc) it removes a patchwork element if all people bulding things in their domain are working to the same rule book, rather than putting their own spin on a selction of documents. Also makes maintenance easier.
Most of the time the local guidance is just directly copied from manual for streets, guidance on the use of tactile surfaces etc. Its a nightmare when an L.A. doesn’t have one. Especially when it comes to standard construction details.
There are exceptions such as LTN1/20 that are the national ones you follow, but they are very much the exception.
Moist von Lipwig wrote:
But that is the point, the LTN1/20 standard DOES exist and should be used by ALL councils as the reference for any cycle infrastructure design, regardless of the ‘local’ preferences. Maybe there will be situations where they are forced to deviate from the preferred design due to space limitations, but at least they would be starting from a decent position.
Oh they do follow it. Despite
Oh they do follow it. Despite all appearances to the contrary, most L.A’s are quite proactive behind the scenes on that front.
And if you went and checked all the individual elements of this cycle track (dimensions and gradients and arrangements of tactiles and signage etc) I’m 99% sure you’d find it does comply with LTN 1/20. Where it doesn’t, will be down to the ‘existing constraints’ relaxation that is IN LTN1/20. Unfortunately the end result here basically manages to fail at least one of the 5 principles.
It’s notable that the road
It’s notable that the road doesn’t have a slalom turn every 10m… it’s almost like some people have an agenda against cyclists.
It’s a cycle superhypeway!
It’s a cycle superhypeway! So just like the motorways for cars, they built in some turns to keep the cyclists alert. Unfortunately their calculations showed that the average cyclist would be moving at 4.5 miles per hour – or should be, for pedestrian safety.
Snark aside I believe the truth is as OnYerBike and Moist Von Lipwig say and I’ve written before. 1) This space “has to be” both a “place” and a traffic artery for buses and now trams – so function is already compromised to start with. 2) There are lots of individual requirements, some historic, some financial / infrastructural e.g. drain access, utilities, bin space, some “necessary” parking, bus pull-ins (to be out of the way of the tram), pedestrian crossing geometries (because they have to cross several lanes and the tramlines). 3) Everything else was laid out first then the footway and cycle tracks were drawn in. Just like we always do. 4) They made sure that the individual details were in line with the LTN “guidance”.
So we adhered to the letter of the rules and missed the spirit. Here’s how to do it instead (video from this article).
Our new local Round 3
Our new local Round 3 projects have different incomprehensible slaloms where the ped section crosses the cycle track and back like a paper chain.
The only valid reasons I can see are 1 – Bus stops, and 2 – Having the footpath run by sections of parking.
Otherwise this is just unnecessary conflict / danger.
I wonder if the HSE can be engaged?
mattw wrote:
Surely in that case if the LA was hassled, they’d suddenly discover the hierarchy of hazard controls and use the most effective one – remove the hazard e.g. the cyclists!
Q on the Design Guidance.
Q on the Design Guidance.
AFAIC Edinburgh street design guidelines, which seem to have a crazy scope creep as they include specs about the amount of recycled uPVC to be included in uPVC windows (which regulation belongs somewhere else), are dated 2022 yet include no requirement for segrehated cycle track width.
Yet LTN 1/20 says 2m wide min for this route, and 1.5m absolute minimum. 2.0m could be met afaics by simply absorbing the zig-zags into a wider cycle track.
Does LTN 1/20 extend to Scotland, or is it just E&W, or E?
Is there an element of “we must show Scotland to be different” in this? Or just the Council being ‘must be invented here’ divots?
(I can’t pretend that my council – Nottinghamshire – are better, yet.)
See “existing constraints”
See “existing constraints” note from Moist below.
I’m not aware of anywhere that (any of) this is binding. Still far too much “guidance” and we all know that people already know quite enough, thank you. Especially Important People!
hammer meet nut…
hammer meet nut…
Exactly, thats why in my longer post below I had standards and guidance in italics. None of the guidance is binding. if theres a legitimate justification for not complying with it, then it’ll probably get approved by the client as being unavoidable.
LTN 1/20 states it covers
LTN 1/20 states it covers England and Northern Ireland.
I think the equivalent for Scotland would be “Cycling by Design” which does specify minimum and desirable cycle track widths (Table 3.7: https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/50323/cycling-by-design-update-2019-final-document-15-september-2021-1.pdf)
Cycling by design – yes – but
Cycling by design – yes – but still all described as “guidance” (although this may just be a style thing, but…). And it’s noted that “Unless stated by the local roads or planning authority, Cycling by Design requirements should be used as the primary reference for cycling facilities.” So we’ve “do it how you like” baked right in to the document!
There definitely is “conspiracy” – by some interests to avoid any change / reduction in motor vehicle space. However I think “cock up” or rather “best endeavours” would explain the state of affairs anyway.
For widths, I suspect that the “absolute minimums” recommended here function like the absolute
minimummaximum speed limits (sorry). So there’s an anchoring effect where at best people are going to adjust upwards from the minimum, but “mustn’t be lower than the minimum” is the key focus. End result…chrisonatrike wrote:
DMRB specifies that the “absolute minimum” width is limited to 100m sections in special circumstances. Not sure about LTN 1/20.
6m max length for footways
6m max length for footways/cycleways – absolute min width is supposed to be at pinch points only. Think theres a 20m stipulation somewhere – can’t remember off the top of my head.
I can see why they want to
I can see why they want to maximise pavement space between the laybys, I expect those boarded up shops see a lot of footfall.
wycombewheeler wrote:
They don’t board themselves up, you know
That used to be a flourishing
That used to be a flourishing Bentley showroom that did, before the cycle paths came…
The council muppets who put
The council muppets who put these plans in place should be sacked. They are clearly anti-cycling.
And in 10 years or so. They’ll be forced to spend more and rip it out for a progressive solution to overwhelming sentiment in favour of clean and healthy transport options (aka cycling). A sentiment which is already visible. But the muppets choose to look the other way. FFS!
Au contraire! From our
Au contraire! From our perspective maybe… but while there are indeed a significant – and sinister – “anti” group I think the majority are supportive and some are incredibly pro-cycling (for the UK).
However this is within a council* and a population which are at least as motor-transport-addicted as the rest of the UK. I thought we had already started “change” in Edinburgh. However the consultation responses to fairly minor covid-era tweaks (like making a route outside a school – a blessed primary school! – a no through route) were lots of people shouting “off with their heads!”
So those “doing cycling” at the council definitely seem like wild extremist cycle-nazis to a significant chunk of the population. It’s always difficult to gauge and there were allegations of “bussing in protest” but seems to be some truth that there are large numbers who’d rather make their children run across the road than apply traffic calming!
* Predict and provide, we need to build more houses so we’ll need lots more roads and a bypass upgrade, how will we balance the budget without turning off too many life supports? Oh and we splurged another x billion on more tram…
chrisonatrike wrote:
Isn’t that a bit like when people say that the when encountered individually, the citizens of <country name redacted> are really nice people but when you encounter them as a group they are <a bit foolish>.