Cyclists injured by Edinburgh station anti-terrorism barriers

I had a look at this, firstly, there is another entrance for cycles, it has only one of these rising barriers and has a clearly marked cycle way that avoids them, it's off the same road and keeps you away from the taxis

Secondly, the barriers are black and yellow where you drive over them, and have lines of yellow reflectors on the high side when raised.

Finally, to hit the raised side, you need to go through 2 red lights and then chichane round a wee gap between 2 lowered stop barriers.

The other way, you've traversed a red light to hit it rising.

This all assumes you've missed the no cyles signs and the official cycle route signs which take you into the other entrance.

Both entrances hit the edge of the middle third of the station and are about 80 yards apart.

So, I don't know how you get walloped here, unless you really just ride everywhere expecting a red carpet rolled out in front of you.

Am not familiar with Edinburgh, but it does seem that much of what is done on the basis of 'won't somebody please think of the terrorists' turns out to be nonsensical theatre that is likely to cause more damage than it will prevent.

I also think that part of the problem may be the general overuse of 'dismount' and 'no cycling' signs where there is no good reason for them, which leads to too many cyclists getting into the habit of ignoring them even where they really shouldn't.

And, yeah, as andyp says, surely, if certain posters on this site are to be believed, these bollards should be high-viz yellow or they might as well be invisible?

Ah. I've spotted the problem. According to many people on this site, if something is black, then you can't see it.

What colour are the barriers? Simple.

Actually, they might want to sort those taxis out too. How is anybody supposed to see those, etc. They should be fluorescent yellow and have comedy flashing LEDs, right?

numpties.

The biggest fail here is not the bollards but the absurd 1metre wide pedestrian foot way, barriered on both sides and chockablock as it's the obvious entrance off Princes Street.

These rising bollards may be a hazard, but they are VERY conspicuous.

These are a costly and blindly formulaic (ie stupid to the highest level of Homers (Simpson) rating) and a fine cash cow for the makers of stainless steel bollards, and not only for Network Rail stations. You are invited to offer contributions to the 'Silver Stump Watch' compiled by my friend the Fact Compiler with examples like these. (along with Pointless Signs, Railway Gardens et seq)

http://railwayeye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/silver-stump-watch-kelvinhall.html

(just outside the excellent meeting venue and cycle repair shop & cafe Simpre)

plus

http://railwayeye.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/silver-stump-watch-edinburgh-wa...

Such naive application of a formulaic diktat that every station needs to be encircled by a stockade of very expensive impact resistant bollards even when it is blindingly obvious that short of a hovercraft or jet pack assistance to fly through cycle racks and make 90 degree turns, these are a messy waste of money which makes either our security forces, or those who blindly apply these instructions* look like morons.

*Some years back a knee jerk reaction to a threat from bicycles parked on station platforms (clue it isn't likely to be the bicycle, its the bag left on the bicycle that is the problem) saw on train operator send out a contractor to cut off bikes from the bike rack (with no advance notice) and dump them in a pile in the car park - despite the local staff protestations that they could easily advise the many regulars to remove the bikes within a few days. technically this was theft, and the locks destroyed without prior and reasonable notice, criminal damage (which is why most Police forces will reimburse the cost of the lock if your bike is removed in a security alert (panic)). needless to say a few bikes were stolen, as no attempt was made to secure the pile of removed machines. (a high score in Homers that one - or maybe Clouseaus)

I've added a really glorious example from Liverpool Street, where you need to demolish cast iron bollards, go up a flight of steps and drive through around 40 filled bike racks to get at these ones, which in turn make it difficult to use the bike parking.

I'm just waiting for an emergency when the presence of these bollards in the exit routes will cause significant injury if not deaths when an agitated crowd surges through. I've had my own precognition of this when crossing Whitehall by Parliament Square. as someone with no understanding of pedestrian movement has placed a row of cast bollards directly across the place where the pedestrian crossing goes across at the traffic signals. These low, black painted and very solid items are just the perfect height to deliver an experience not far removed from castration without an anaesthetic. In any other situation a Health & Safety policy would identify them as a significant hazard and have them removed. Had I hit it any harder I might well have considered sueing.

Plenty of reasons why cyclists would use the south ramp rather than the north ramp.

Depending on which side of town you approach from then that can be the first entrance you see which looks suitable for cycling (that's why I used it). It's also the quickest way in as you can take the lane and move at the same speed as the taxis into the heart of the station. It also never used to have any barriers at all.

Conversely the now mandated cycle route is chock full of pedestrians ignoring the segregated narrow walkway and also used to contain a barrier (it may still) which left a narrow gap (one person can squeeze through) which had to cope with 2 way pedestrian traffic, suitcases/bags and the odd cyclist trying to fit through.

It was simply more convenient and quicker to use the entrance they've now filled with anti terror barriers. Force of habit may well be a reason why many cyclists have been caught out/injured by them.

Stupid bit of layout on behalf of the station managers. In the good old days, you could drive down the north ramp and up the south ramp. This allowed vehicles to flow through the station. There was always plenty of space in the main foyer and also by the train display boards for people to stand around. But this sensible bit of design was changed to allow more space for more coffee shops and so on (as if there was any shortage) and it's become harder and harder to access Waverley station. I didn't know about these anti terrorism barriers but I have to say, it just falls into line with the stupid thinking over the way the station has been run for the last 20 years or so.

I hope he's ok and makes a full recovery.

On many previous articles there is always a lot of comment about the highway code and how motorists dont follow it - i suggest cyclists read it as well so they know what all the signs mean.......

Hope the chap gets better soon. Cyclist have more right to use highways than motor vehicles.
Where's there's a route there's a cyclist. Road markings near to the bollard would be a cheap n easy thing to do.

If cyclists are allowed to bypass these anti-terrorist barriers on the north ramp how do they stop a terrorist on a bike? Just a thought!

As a complete aside, I'm left wondering what part of those barriers justifies a cost of £1 million. Are they made of platinum? Or is someone making a shitload of money off of a possibly vastly exaggerated risk of terror attacks? Nah ... can't be.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/cyclists-knocked-of...

There is a photo on that link, not quite sure if people are cycling into the big obvious bit, or are riding over them when they rise.

Either way, bikes aren't meant to use this entrance.

This is obviously happening because the barriers are not wearing hi-viz and helmets.

What exactly do these barriers look like? I mean if there is an obstacle in my way I don't need a sign to tell me to try and ride over it. Kind of feel like that is common sense???

Is this a case of Sorry Mate I Didn't See The Sign or Sorry Mate I Can't Be Arsed To Obey It?

Either way there is only one person to blame here but nevertheless I hope he makes a full recovery and has learned his lesson.

There have already been more cyclists injured here than people who were ever likely to be injured from any 'terrorist attack' that would be thwarted by these barriers.

As our American friends say, go figure.

Two points:

1.) If you need to put up signs to make cycling routes safe, then they haven't been properly designed.

2.) Regular cyclists are conditioned to ignore unnecessary "cyclists dismount" and other similar signs...

A correction to the 2nd-last paragraph: there are no signs warning cyclists not to enter via the *north* ramp - this is the mandated cycle entry route from Waverley bridge. Except that it's mostly full of pedestrians, many of whom choose not to use the narrow, fenced, footway. Possibly partly because the roadway is a popular spot to smoke (normally, while standing directly next to the "No Smoking Here" signs).

Any pictures of the barriers?

I don't know the site, but to me no cycling is usually shorthand for can't be arsed to sort the problem.

How often do you see cyclist dismount signs?

IF there is a real reason for not riding, which sounds like there might be, signs have to be very clear.

But, there has to be consideration given to desire lines, WHY are riders using this route and not the alternative?

I guess it's a question of whether th signage is good enough or not. If there is a risk of injury then it should be very prominent indeed. Not just "No Cycling" but "Danger - risk of injury to cyclists. Do not cycle over the barrier. "

And then anyone injured cycling over the barrier would be a numpty rather than a victim.

Don't expect anybody in the privatised rail industry to give a stuff about safety; it's all about profit!