Police pull over cyclist for using pavement — but did he do anything wrong?; Cyclists! Mind the pole: More cutting-edge infra; Shouldn't have gone to Specsavers; Dropper post chat; Golf club lane; Khan urges Londoners to cycle + more on the live blog

It's still there: https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/support-for-police-discretion-when-...

It's worth noting that the police vehicle was parked illegally. This was not an emergency situation and therefore the police driver was committing a traffic offence.

.

Yeh, but.

.

No but.

.

Cops, yeh.

.

Rules don't apply to them.

.

If the police see somebody jump onto the pavement to bypass a red light, they're less likely to believe this was done out of fear.

Guidance is not the same as a change in the Law.
If the Law still states that cycling on the footpath is illegal - and does not mention exclusions or exceptions - then it is illegal.
Guidance can be - and often is - taken in to account and either ignored or accepted.

A fixed penalty notice can be rejected, and then it should be sent to a magistrates' court. While it may be illegal, the fact that there is ministerial guidance on the matter can be taken into account by the court, they can accept that there is a different intent to the law than the basic wording - indeed in the higher courts they may look to Hansard and the like to divine the intent of the law makers.

In the general case (I've not viewed the video), I would expect that a cyclist dismounting to bypass the red light (totally legal) and then choosing to potter on at a gentle pace on the pavement for fear of meeting oncoming traffic failing to percieve a cyclist or of harassment from the rear, would be perfectly acceptable. The CPS should refuse to proceed, as not in the public interest, but if it went further, the court, most likely a magistrate's court, would have the option of an absolute discharge (which is still technically a conviction, but would not receive any punishment). What is genuinely reasonable does rather depend on the road layout and whether there are people around.

Do you think they look nice?  I thought they looked a bit cheap.

Bags always look really nice in product glamour shots when they're stuffed with foam to the optimum size resulting in minimal bulges or wrinkles.

I don't think it's up to standard for a one-way cycle track (2m, 1m50 absolute minimum at constraints).

If it really is two-way, it's nowhere near wide enough.

And presumably, legally, any cyclist would be expected to stop and dismount, walk their bike around that pole, and then remount.  Riding on the footway is against the law, dontcha know?  <shakes head sadly>

I'm assuming the white line marks the edge of the cycle lane, so there is a curb and different surfaces on the cycle lane? Makes it wide enough, but an accident waiting to happen all the same

The white line actually pre-dates the cycle lane section- there were temporary lanes all the way up Leith Walk since the start of the pandemic.

Mind you, given how oblivious the pedestrians can be, I tend to feel much safer cycling along the road than I do any of these "divided pavement" sections...

Thats what I assumed too.  Looks like roughly 2m to that white line.  Not entirely sure why different surfaces - thats asking for confusion.

I live on the road, there is one cycle path each side of the road going in the direction of traffic. My worry is the lack of separation between pedestrians and cyclists.

Dylanb wrote:

I live on the road, there is one cycle path each side of the road going in the direction of traffic. My worry is the lack of separation between pedestrians and cyclists.

They've (mostly) designed it per how they do Over There e.g. it's really obvious what's meant to be a cycle path and what's not.  Different colours, different levels, occasional cycle markings, signs, there's a (forgiving) kerb to nudge cyclists back if they drift off.  There are actually plenty of interruptions in the path to - presumably - signal to pedestians / partially sighted people that this is their space to cross.  I appreciate it's a very busy street in parts but mostly there's still plenty of pedestrian space.  Yes, they could have taken more from the tram / bus / car part.  Cyclists will build up speed going north downhill too (see my concerns about wiggles later).  Maybe that's why they envisige this as one-way?

My beef is that a) we've still allocated lots of space for motor vehicles b) the cycle path is really wiggly for little discernable reason c) side road crossings (e.g. at McDonald Road / Pilrig Street and even Balfour Road) - I'm not 100% clear on how they're doing these as they're not finished yet some look like they will be at best inconvenient for cyclists and also have conflict with pedestrians built-in to some (e.g. Pilrig Street) d) because it's a PITA to cross to the other side now and if anything that will get worse people will inevitably ride "the wrong way" on the paths.  I'm unconvinced that "we didn't have the space" to make these a little wider (if not "officially" 2-way) e) The connections at the South end around Picardy place look a real dog's dinner - although again this isn't finished yet.  This is a space big enough for a football pitch but somehow we've got to dedicate it to traffic.  f) On the "other" side (east) the same issues are there currently e.g. "cargo-cult" versions of "continous footway" / side road crossings, conflict around bus stop bypasses.

People will take a generation to "adapt" to the idea of bikes having their own space.  What's happened here is a version of the usual "compromise and fudge".  Given that they've done it at all - and spent lots of our money on it - they could have been bold and said "if it's worth doing, it's worth doing properly - we'll just deal with objections".  After all, that's what they did with having the tram in the first place.  They were damn well going to have it regardless. Instead the council just get to say to all parties "stop complaining - no-one else is happy either".

Not 100% on this but I believe this is one-way and there is (currently) a cycle path currently on the other side.  That's "mostly" and also with quite a few silly wiggles and a couple of currently ridiculous parts to the south of Picardy place where you suddenly get dumped in with pedestrians at crossings and then the cycling provision evaporates.  (I'd be one of the last ones to praise Edinburgh's infra - although they are one of the better places in terms of "understanding" cycling and walking for what that's worth).

From the little I understand a) they're going to move these lights to the supports for the tram power cables when those are built - but obviously that'll take some time to get completed. b) Despite Leith Walk being really wide for pretty much its whole length and the council showing they're prepared to repeatedly give the finger to businesses and local residents, somehow we've ended up with narrow and bizarrely wiggly cycle paths.  Some of this is because of historic screw-ups / lack of foresight e.g. we lose some space at the centre of the road between tram tracks.  (Councils don't do "change" or "that didn't work, let's not do the same thing again"...) If they'd actually been realistic about the trams they'd have spotted that these would in no way replace all the buses up and down Leith Walk so they'd still have to have trams AND buses.  So they feel they can't get rid of one direction of traffic.

I'm no expert or civil engineer / road designer. I appreciate that we've done better than how we might in the 80s in many ways here.  However looking at the design both overall and in the details (like the "forgiving kerbs" - great - which then are dangerous on corners / around drainage) it still seems like they've got people designing bike infra who've never ridden a bike.  They've clearly looked at some modern cycle infra but don't seem to understand the "why".  Where are these people getting their ideas from?  They don't even need to go to The Netherlands, they could just spend an afternoon on the internet in the company of e.g. BicycleDutch, David Hembrow, NotJustBikes - or (because it has to be "invented here" again apparently) Robert Weetman, the Ranty Highwayman etc.

This was all summed up for me years back when I was at a Spokes meeting with the council's tram consultant.  The chap was challenged about whether he'd taken on board any learning from European cities (plenty trams) and took offense, replying that he'd worked in Dublin, thank you very much...