Once again Edinburgh’s Leith Walk cycle lane is in the spotlight, this time as cyclists in the Scottish capital have pointed out the unreachable impracticality of its traffic light request buttons, more commonly associated with pedestrian crossings, which they are required to press to stop traffic and proceed.
Furthermore, the wait time for the ‘cyclists only’ green light at one junction — which allows riders to move away without having to deal with traffic turning left across the cycle lane — was timed at nine minutes by one disappointed user.
The concerns are just the latest issues with the cycle lane, which was slammed as “moronic” when it opened last year, its bizarre zig-zag design attracting ridicule online and prompting the council to last month admit it did not meet the city’s own design standards and would be changed.
> Zig-zag corners on “moronic” Edinburgh cycleway to be replaced to improve cycle safety
There have been reports of a cyclist suffering a suspected broken rib and other minor injuries after hitting a shallow kerb, while it has also suffered issues with drivers parking in the infrastructure, as well as locals questioning why one advisory section of the lane is “narrower than a pair of handlebars”.
Now, a cyclist in the city has shared videos of the traffic light request buttons, positioned too far from the road for riders to reach them, especially if riding a cargo bike.
? You can’t reach the cyclist request buttons at most of the junctions. Particularly problematic on cargo bikes. @SpokesLothian pic.twitter.com/4y2zU8886b
— Edward Tissiman (@edtiss) July 2, 2023
Having dismounted to press the button, Edward “didn’t get a single cyclist phase”, while at another junction the wait time was nine minutes for a ‘cyclist only’ green light.
Here is the worst of the stupid buttons. pic.twitter.com/qh97DIa9ew
— Edward Tissiman (@edtiss) July 2, 2023
While some replied suggesting riders could continue their journey across the Balfour Street junction when the lights are green for motor traffic, Edward pointed out this means crossing the junction as drivers of cars and HGVs turn left across the unprotected bike lane.
The wait time for cyclists at the Balfour Street junction is 9 minutes and 11 seconds. @SpokesLothian pic.twitter.com/9yeediPhZC
— Edward Tissiman (@edtiss) July 3, 2023
He told road.cc: “[It’s] not safe to proceed as you are in the blind spot of waiting HGVs; if they turn left at the same time as you are heading forward, you’re in deep trouble. Drivers aren’t expected to push a button and wait nine minutes!
“You can’t actually reach most of the buttons from the bike — you need to dismount. The request button doesn’t even have a cyclist on it. It’s got a pedestrian instead.”
After the nine-minute wait Edward noted that the lights were green for around 15 seconds, or about three per cent of the total waiting time.
Wait time at Brunswick Road is much better – 90 seconds. But the green bike is on only 3% of the time. (Loads of cyclists again this morning despite a very grim forecast). pic.twitter.com/6TFJwTaXcJ
— Edward Tissiman (@edtiss) July 4, 2023
In response to a request for comment from road.cc, councillor Scott Arthur, the transport and environment convener at the council, said “cyclists should not be waiting as long as nine minutes” and that engineers had now visited the site and “reported an intermittent fault” which will be fixed “as soon as possible”.
He told road.cc: “Cycle and pedestrian safety has been a crucial part of the Trams to Newhaven project – on Leith Walk we have introduced segregated cycle lanes, improved junctions and spaces for people to spend time, amongst other measures.
“The current layout complies with the Edinburgh Street Design Guidance (ESDG) in use at the time of the design, which recognises that flexibility is required to accommodate a variety of modes in the design of existing streets. Crossing buttons at junctions give cyclists priority and have been sited to maintain buffer zones, which provide space between the cycle lane and both road traffic and pedestrians.
“Although the tramline is now running and is being very well used, there is still work to be undertaken on some sections of the cycle lane before it is formally open to the public. We’ll be reviewing signage to make sure people are aware of this. Contractors are also working on an ongoing snagging programme which will rectify many outstanding issues.
“In addition, the Foot of the Walk junction will soon benefit from further safety improvements as part of the Leith Connections project. Cyclists should not be waiting as long as nine minutes at the Balfour Street junction – our engineers have now visited the site and have reported an intermittent fault, which the Council’s signals’ maintenance contractor will fix as soon as possible.
“If anyone has concerns about any aspect of the Trams to Newhaven project I would always advise them to notify the Council immediately.”
38 thoughts on “Cyclists unable to reach “stupid” traffic light button, plus face nine-minute wait for green light as more issues reported with much-criticised cycle lane”
The design errors in the
The design errors in the scheme border on maladministration.
Not only has the scheme apparently been designed by people that lack relevant experience / expertise, the implementation and subsequent revision of the scheme will result in significant wastage of resources (money) funded by local tax payers.
The failure is at multiple levels:
– Design stage
– Construction
– Tendering / contract management
– Remedial works / snagging
Local councillors are supposed to hold Council officers to account on behalf of the public – but if the public elect and then re-elect people to office that aren’t competent in that role they only have themselves to blame.
Ah – but “arms-length company
Ah – but “arms-length company” for the trams you see… Clearly for some things that is about as reachable as one of those cycle push-buttons.
Regarding the elected
Regarding the elected councillors, we have recently had a change of administration control. So Scott Arthur was not in post as transport convener when the scheme was initiated. But please don’t anyone ask for a public enquiry in to this fiasco. The ongoing enquiry into our trams fiasco has cost so many millions with no end in site there are now demands for an enquiry into the enquiry. My rates bill couldn’t take it.
I wonder how long the public
I wonder how long the public enquiry would take?
.
.
Even the road junctions that
Even the road junctions that have been “worked on” around here make no sense.
I am more and more convinced those planning have never been on the road in control of ANY type of vehicle themselves.
Adam Sutton wrote:
They practised drawing them, though
I don’t think you are far off
I don’t think you are far off the make there!
Don’t panic!
Don’t panic!
Currently south but no doubt
Currently south but no doubt on my return all will be fine. /snark
I also noticed the Balfour Street crossing seemed to have a long wait. Traffic was light though so I didn’t time it, I just magically became a pedestrian, scooted across on my feet and then morphed back into a cyclist again.
The junctions are definitely not what I’d call “encouraging cycling”. However if most people in the UK considered these things at all* I bet they’d feel this was at “Ferrero Rocher” level or above for cyclists!
Full thought – Leith Walk is a major road and very wide, but given the volumes of people you expect there it’s not currently a speedy route anyway, I’d say. Or rather – it’s probably faster now than ever simply because of some of the motor traffic not having returned yet.
* Most people don’t think about this because it’s irrelevant. They drive / walk / take the bus so only consider cycling when there’s a cyclist in their way / nearly killing them.
I’ve stolen this graphic !
I’ve stolen this graphic !
Obviously CoaT and the
Obviously CoaT and the Original Tweeter would probably know for sure, but are those button pressers actualy for cyclists? Only asking as they don’t mention cycling at all and don’t have a picture of a bike. Are they there for the Peds only with the cycling lights either being on sensors that don’t work or on timing.
Facing the wrong way for
Facing the wrong way for pedestrians, looks like a very expensive to get right bodge job to me…
Don’t know the details of
Don’t know the details of timing etc. and currently out of town so can’t check. Are they meant for cyclists? From the position I cannot see how they’re of use to pedestrians. Having said that they’re pretty stupidly placed for cyclists. There may be a reason these are this way but I’m scratching mine…
Judge for yourselves care of Streetview:
The first one – Balfour Street (note if you move around here Streetview jumps between quite different time periods and street designs!)
His “worst” one – on East side (outside Tescos) at junction with Brunswick Road
On the opposite side:
Haddington Place / McDonald Road
Image is Haddington Place / McDonald Road looking roughly north. Doesn’t really matter in this image – cycle path is thoughtfully blocked for you in two directions!
The end of the world? No. Yet another detail that’s really not convenient, in an overall design full of this kind of mediocrity? Which if someone does do anything about will waste yet more money to bodge semi-right, as ktache says? Yes.
I think that an inaccessible
I think that an inaccessible design is far worse than “mediocrity”.
They are asking for a whole series of legal actions under EA2010, which carry compensation of up to 10k *per incident*, and a possibility of an Injunction to fix the facility.
In these cases, discrimination law has far more teeth, though it is not without minor risk for theg complainant – need to make sure you are highly likely to win.
I am currently trying to concoct an approach via this route to deal with Puffin and Toucan crossings so tight that a mobility scooter cannot even cross the road.
(Assuming Scottish law matches UK law in these respects)
Remember what one lady did in Cambridge when she thought a number of shops did not listen enough to informal approaches about access:
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/panic-cambridges-mill-road-disabled-12674450
Sadly given they were content
Sadly given they were content to let the injury compensation claims build up for years (plus a couple of deaths) elsewhere on the tram network it (see previous road.cc articles / Spokes resources) it’s not something that seems to trouble them.
Hopefully some day the whole story of this mess will be told. It’s not unusual for massive public projects to be sketchy – but this definitely falls into that category.
I think one factor may be
I think one factor may be limitations of the contract they have tied themselves into.
Which reminds me of our problems training RAF pilots – they outsourced it at precise previous need levels, and now the world has changed they are banjaxed.
The request buttons are
The request buttons are indeed for cyclists.
So because they have used Ped
So because they have used Ped light boxes instead of Cycle request boxes, in theory it would be illegal to cycle down the path when green walking man is showing.
The request button shows a
The request button shows a pedestrian but the light it controls shows a cyclist.
It’s ‘cyclewashing’, like
It’s ‘cyclewashing’, like greenwashing.
If people using bikes are
If people using bikes are forced to dismount to use it, the facility is unlawful under the Equality Act 2010 since many people with a disability *cannot* easily dismount from their cycles.
= Breach of Discrimination Law.
We’re fighting that one in the war against discriminatory barriers.
Which Edinburgh Poliitical Personality needs a Roman Candle iinserted in their butt this time?
AFAIK, bikes aren’t
AFAIK, bikes aren’t recognised as a mobility aid, and as such the Equality Act probably doesn’t apply.
Someone with deep enough pockets though might be able to pursue as a test case.
Happy as always to be wrong.
Oldfatgit wrote:
I don’t think there’s anything in the Equality Act that says something has to be a mobility aid for it to count.
AFAIK and INAL, being
AFAIK and INAL, being disabled using a bike is not a sufficient reason to not receive a fixed penalty for riding in a prohibited area (didn’t Road.cc report about some gent in Grimsby or Stevenage, somewhere like that, which had banned cycling in certain areas).
This is because bikes aren’t recorded as excluded like other mobility aids are.
It’s something that – as a disabled cyclist – I’ve been curious to test, but lack the financial wherewithal to do so.
If this is the case, then
If this is the case, then councils may not have to apply the conditions imposed by the Equality Act and produce suitable infrastructure for bikes.
Oldfatgit wrote:
I was thinking that way round – ie the infrastructure fails to meet the council’s EA duties; rather than a disabled cyclist can ride on the pavement.
If the existing
If the existing infrastructure meets the EA requirements of a recognised mobility aid – such as a wheelchair or a mobility scooter – then the council haven’t failed to meet their obligations.
The riding on the footpath was an example of the cycle not being a mobility aid, and as such, not entitled to be considered as such.
The main blocker to cycles being accommodated under EA is that cycles are not recognised as mobility aids and as such no additional accommodation is *required* to be made for them.
Surprising that they allow
Surprising that they allow electric scooters and wheelchairs but not E-bikes or adapted bikes like a handcycle. Do they ever give a justification on why a hand cycle is not seen a a mobility device but a wheelchair is?
AlsoSomniloquism wrote:
I think a handcycle counts, doesn’t it? Didn’t the late lamented Heavy Metal Handcyclist score some great results against councils that built bike-restricting features that meant he couldn’t get through?
I was actually looking at
I was actually looking at what is counted as a mobility aid for getting motability coverage for. You can get scooters, cars, electric wheelchairs, or Wheelchair Accessible vehicles, but not e-bikes, handcycles, trikes or other vehicles of that ilk.
Personally, I think it’s
Personally, I think it’s because there is a perception that a person that can ride a bike isn’t disabled *enough*.
I can’t walk more than 300m unaided … but I rode an Imperial Century on Sunday and I’m just back from a 40 mile commute.
Both on my ebike.
I’ve had several “discussions” with people on the train as I’ve been sitting in a ‘please give up for a less able person’ seat, in long shorts and a jersey.
It’s only after I’ve pointed to the walking stick on my bike, rolled up my short leg and shown them the 2 x 250mm long scars on my knee, that I tend to get left alone.
Chapeau. Not my own story I’m
Chapeau. Not my own story I’m afraid but a mate who lives in France told me a good one of seeing a triathlete with bike barracked for sitting down on a regional service in France until he rolled back his trousers to show two metal legs, one below and one above the knee – he was a Legionnaire who’d copped an IED in Afghanistan, apparently.
Thank-you all for replies. To
Thank-you all for replies. To answer a few.
– Yes, cycles as mobility aids is a very grey line and an area that needs resolving. It is emerging as an issue in the current Transport Select Committee enquiry into Legal Rights to access Transport Systems – which include footpaths, pavements, bridleways etc of course.
I hope that recogntion of cycles as mobility aids will be happening, and that – like people with a visually impairement with assistance dogs, demands for “proof” will be unacceptable.
Clearly it is routine for Councils etc to try and ignore their EA 2010 responsibilities where path networks are concerned. It will be a huge issue (cf Sustrans and the 16,000 unacceptable barriers they identified on their network). When you add 30-40 years of populist ‘motobike’ rhetoric, it is convenient for local pols to use a conversation where discrimination is part of a ‘reasonable balance’.
Personally, my E-Bike (Boardman with invisible Gruber E-Assist) is sometimes a mobility aid, but usually not, since my blood cell sapping condition comes out of remission every few years until retreated.
– Richard Bennett the Heavy Metal Handcyclist used, much of the time, a device called a “clip-on handcycle” which attached a handcycle mechanism to his wheelchair. So that was difficult to identify as “not a mobility aid”.
Jamie Wood received compensation (before it got to court) from York Council, when he uses a tricycle, and YCC changed their practices somewhat over a number of years (ie barriers adapted).
Personally I think that a handcycle would pass the test in Court.
– I don’t see a legal case for cycle as acceptable mobility aid happening unless there is a Govt decision and a Judicial Review, or a dispute which reaches the Appeal Court. It would need Cycling UK or similar to take it on.
– The out of reach button could also be addressed by a mobility scooter user, since they are required to have <50m walking ability, or perhaps under secondary discrimination for an older scooter user due to demographics of people who use them.
This is an interesting
This is an interesting twitter thread by Kate Ball, who is one of the campaign officers for Wheels for Wellbeing, about ‘disabled blind’ staff at St Pancras.
She was riding an E-Brompton with her wheelchair strapped to it.
https://twitter.com/tandemkate/status/1668649068002697220
mattw wrote:
I can only see the first tweet, where she gets told to get off and walk and says that she can’t.
mattw wrote:
disability? how the heck are they able to ride a bike with a disability if they can’t mount or dismount a bike? I think what you are saying is an extremely remote situation that the breach of discrimination law is just another example of liberal policies that pertain to the extreme few, maybe one person a year riding that road will have to perform the task of mounting and dismounting their bikes with a disability that makes it all but impossible to that function.
froze wrote:
Don’t know the law but it sounds like it’s not on the cyclists’ side here – in that bicycles are not explicitly in the relevant categories.
However outside of strict legality his sentence “… people with a disability cannot easily dismount” (my emphasis) would seem to be pertinant. There definitely are people in this category. Trivial example – if your legs don’t really work and for more efficient travel you’ve transferred from your wheelchair to a handcycle. (As opposed to e.g. clipping on a front wheel to a wheelchair).
Plenty of other conditions where someone’s mobility may be pretty poor but much improved on a bike / trike. I’ve seen a guy with one leg who said he uses his Brompton as his main mobility aid – although he did have his crutches with him at the time.
Why can’t we make this easier? (In this case – cock up / half-assed design it would seem). I’d say in almost all circumstances making spaces accessible benefits everyone, not just those with disabilities. (Aside from “costs more”).
Are you saying “not disabled enough”? As Oldfatgit points out this is sadly a common view. Never mind “not all disabilities are visible” it’s “not all are comprehensible“, clearly.