The uncertainty principle

My last post was about how problematic uncertainty is in cycle infrastructure.  It's since occurred to me that the problem isn't uncertainty itself, but uncertainty for the more vulnerable.

Good cycle infra, as seen in Holland, Denmark, etc reduces uncertainty - cyclists have their own safe spaces, as do pedestrians and cars.  But even the Dutch have some spaces where uncertainty is permitted - such as the bike streets that identify cars as visitors, and make it clear that the space is intended for cyclists and pedestrians.  Likewise, streets with no centre line and bike lanes on either side - a UK can be seen here and a study by TfL here .   But crucially here, the uncertainty is on the part of the car drivers, as the least vulnerable users. 

Edinburgh is trialling this system on a road on the outskirts of the city.  It's not perfect - the road speed is too high, and the bike lanes are not going to be colored. But it does introduce uncertainty for the car driver, rather than the cyclist. 

By contrast, the paths leading to North Meadow Walk have given the uncertainty to the pedestrians, as discussed in my last blogpost, and as @fountainbridge shows in this mockup:  

https://www.flickr.com/photos/130059894@N04/16865206971/

Cyclists have lots of signs telling them what to do and how to behave, but pedestrians have nothing.  Anyone who knows about Scottish law will know that pedestrians have full rights to use both the paths marked in green and in pink, but the signals being sent to them say differently.  So uncertainty is created.  

This is the exact opposite of the basic principles discussed above -- the heavier, more dangerous form of transport should be made to feel like a 'guest', not the most vulnerable. 

Until we put this principle at the heart of our infrastructure, we're getting it wrong.  We'll continue to foster resentment and hostility between cyclists and pedestrians, and discourage the take-up of active travel that our policies claim to promote. 

What's the point of 'infrastructure'?

I'd like to think that the point of infrastructure was to decrease conflict and increase safety of all road users, but especially the most vulnerable.  So, roads should be designed to enable pedestrians to cross safely and easily.  Too often this isn't the case and unnecessary barriers are put in their way  (as shown here and here).  

Sadly, this is too often the effect of cycle infrastructure too.  And this is frustrating because pedestrians' subjective safety matters too.  The two most common examples  are chicanes  and shared use pavements.  But Edinburgh seems to have invented some new and particularly baffling versions.  

'Normal' shared use has a pavement with some blue signs in the air, that most people don't see or understand.  But since shared use should only be used on wide pavements with relatively low footfall, its rarely a huge cause of problems (except misunderstandings, of which there are many). 

But the video above is from North Meadow Walk in Edinburgh - a much used commuter, jogging, dog-walking and leisure route. This is an intensively used path, where markings have been painted in such a way to suggest to pedestrians coming from the east that cyclists should be on the right hand side of the path and to pedestrians coming from the west that they should be on the left. Maybe.  It's not clear.  

Similar paint is used on the short cut-through path on the other side of the toucan crossing.  It's been raised many times as confusing. But instead of improving it, the Council has seen fit to replicate it.  On an even shorter length of path. 

What's the point to putting in 'infrastructure' (if we can call paint that), when it confuses users and creates conflict?  

Do we need an anti-pedestrian lobby?

So the anti-20mph march on Saturday was pretty much a damp squib. It was a lovely crisp sunny morning and about 40 people turned up. 

I'm ever so slightly disappointed. 

I can't help thinking that it might be helpful to have an organised residents group that actually opposed policies that aim to make our streets more attractive to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport.

Currently the SNP, Labour and the Greens all support the 20mph roll out, and the Conservatives have mostly sensible things to say about transport.  

So, one of the reasons for the 'massive backlash' against the 20mph campaign is that when it was being planned and consulted on, no one lobbied against it or wrote to the newspapers in dismay, so most people just ignored it. 

Edinburgh's 20mph is just one part of a longstanding bundle of policies, wrapped up in the Local Transport Strategy, Active Travel Plan etc that's been chuntering through the system for years.  Councillors from all parties have been involved, and many users have been consulted, and that's why there is a fairly strong cross-party consensus. 

But while there are lobby groups pushing for more support to active travel, there are relatively few that will actively oppose it.  So we never really debate these issues - we just get opposing soundbites in the local paper.  

If we had a group willing to say that they didn't care about air pollution, or KSI rates, and actively wanted to reduce the number of cyclists on the roads, then we could actually have a robust debate about why we think more cyclists, less pollution and lower KSI rates is better.  

A hugely frustrating aspect of the current debate is that the anti-20mph folk just keep repeating the same opinions, with their fingers in their ears.  So they keep demanding 'facts'  and refusing to look at them. If there was actually a lobby against these things, they'd have to go to all the same meetings that we do, read all the reports, and respond to all the consultations.   I'm not saying they'd change their minds, but it would blow a huge hole in their 'we weren't asked' and 'nobody consulted me or my mum' repertoire. 

They'd have to answer tough questions from reporters when asthma  rates went up, childhood obesity increased further or respond to the grief of parents and loved ones widowed too soon.  They'd have to face the reality of their policies.

I'd like to see that.

5 years for two yellow lines?

In March 2013 I blogged about a dropped kerb that had finally been installed, 3 years after I'd first raised with the council - and others had already flagged it to them at that point.  We celebrated its arrive with bubbly, and gave a small libation to the ancestors as well.  It was a tiny change to our 'streets cape' but one that we notice and enjoy every time we use it.

Isn't it lovely? photo by chdot 

Except often we can't actually use it, because there are cars parked over it.  Now, two years on, we finally have double yellows not just on this dropped kerb, but - I hope - on all the entrances to the park and canal path.  You can still see the vestiges of a parking place on the picture above, but hopefully the yellow lines will discourage most from blocking it.

So, five years for a drop kerb, on a route that sees hundreds of cyclists everyday.

A victory?

Maybe.   If only anti-cyclist infrastructure didn't get installed on a whim, and usually badly.  Why is that a dropped kerb takes 5 years, while chicanes can be put up in weeks after a single complaint?  The dropped kerb itself may be minor, but it captures the inequities of urban governance regarding active travel as does  the city's repeated inability to install chicanes properly.

Coincidentally, it was pointed out to me earlier today that the Active Travel Action plan includes this action:

Set up a process for reporting missing dropped kerbs/identifying priority new dropped kerbs by the end of 2011, and then implement the highest priority ones.

Going about this in an ad-hoc way is clearly a waste of campaigners and council time, as well as inequitable to areas with less shouty campaigners.  

Do you have some kerbs you'd like dropped in less than 5 years?  Let's make a list. 

Act now to save our bus (and bike) lanes

The hottest issue to hit Edinburgh cycle campaigning is...bus lanes.  Yup.  Bus lanes.  Not removing obstacle on paths, designing better infrastructure or even tram tracks.  Nope. The thing that has got even the mild-mannered folks at Spokes up in arms this week is the council's proposal to reduce the time that bus lanes are restricted to buses (and bikes, obviously).  A detailed objection from Spokes, Living Streets and Greener Leith is here. 

Now, there are people out there who secretly believe that Spokes writes the council's agenda.  In the deeper realms of the internet I'm sure there are people who believe that Dave du Feu has a stash of 'indiscreet' pictures of Lesley Hinds that he threatens to release...the reality is that Spokes goes out of its way to be constructive and to temper the criticism with a healthy dose of flattery. But this time, they're angry.

It's taken me a while to get my head around this one.  I think bus lanes are great, but they are bus infrastructure, so surely the people who ought to be seeing red are public transport campaigners?  I'm all for encouraging public transport. The worst cities I've lived in - with the most congested  and dangerous roads - have been those where only 'the poor' use public transport.  One of the things that makes Edinburgh liveable is its excellent public transport network.  

But I've struggled to understand why cycle campaigners are so worked up about it.  As far as I can see bus lanes are too often used as an excuse for not building proper cycle infrastructure.  First we're told that the need for bus lanes means there 'isn't room' for cycle lanes, and then we're told that bus lanes give us protected space.  This was explicit when it came to the north end of Leith Walk, where the council refused to build protected cycle lanes inside the parked cars, but told us we didn't need them anyway, because we had a bus lane.  Now they're proposing to reduce the time that those lanes are active, and allow all vehicles to use them during the day.

Which made me think a bit. I think bus lanes are crap because all the ones I regularly use are already part-time. Because they're not on my commute, I never see buses in them.  Take George IV Bridge - when did you last see a bus in the bus lane?  If you're like me, you'll have seen buses cruising down the central lanes, and dipping in and out of the bus lanes.  That's because the 'bus lane' is full of taxis and white vans loading, unloading, painting, decorating and god knows what else.  So, the off-peak bus lanes are useless - unless you're a 9-5 commuter.  And what the council wants to do is make all our bus lanes equally useless.

If you don't want that to happen  let them know. The consultation ends on Wednesday the 18th.  Otherwise all of our bus lanes will become de facto loading zones.  

I still don't think bus lanes come anywhere close to being good cycle infra. The closest I have come to being smushed on the roads of Edinburgh was by a bus in a bus lane on the Dalkeith Rd.  A bus had pulled in to the stop by the Commie Pool, I carried on straight.  Driver saw there were no passengers and pulled back into 'his' lane without looking in his mirror (I wasn't in a blind spot, I could see where he was looking, and it was at the kerb).  Proper infrastructure would have a cycle lane behind the bus stop.

I'm hoping we can start campaigning for that soon.  As soon as I find out where DdF's stashed *those* pictures....

A businessman's view of 20mph

This was actually a comment on my last blogpost, but it's so good I thought it deserved its own post: 


As a business owner and commercial rate payer I would say that the 20mph zone in Marchmont has been a qualified success. 

We opened before this was set up and have seen more families walking and cycling to school with much fewer drivers ignoring the limit. A few still do of course (hence the use of qualified) but generally people understand that this is an area where people like to walk (or cycle) between local businesses. There are no marked crossings on this street and the advent of 20mph zones means that a minor adjustment of speed can allow the young and old to get across safely. From a driving point of view the absence of light controlled crossings will actually make driving less frustrating. Also will save money. 

We run a bike shop so readers may think that we are immune to any laws that pertain to cars. In fact the 20mph zone also helps with parking as when a street is marked at 30mph it means that finding that elusive parking space can annoy fellow car users. When the local retail environment is slowed slightly people have time to see spaces and work with each other. 

You wouldn't expect to drive round a shopping centre car park at 30mph. What's good enough for the large supermarkets is good enough for the business and council tax payers who actually live and work on these streets. 

The city streets are not just there for people 'passing through' and a more pleasant outdoor environment results in more time spent at local shops, cafes and pubs. 

David Gardiner

Laid Back Bikes

Marchmont Crescent

www.laid-back-bikes.scot

Why the Evening News is wrong...

Edinburgh Road casualties 2000-2010 Click here to see the map in better resolution.

One of the less barmy claims by some anti-20 campaigners, which has featured in the local paper, is that we're targeting the wrong streets...because other streets have higher rates of accidents.  On the face of it, this seems a huge blow to the council and 20splenty supporters. 

But let's think about this a little.  Firstly, the story is discussing all accidents, not pedestrian accidents, and it is pedestrians, especially child pedestrians, as this article from the BMJ shows who really stand to benefit. While there are gains for everyone will benefit : "The introduction of the 20 mph zones was associated with a reduction in casualties and collisions of around 40%" there are particular benefits for child pedestrians:  The observed reductions were largest for the youngest children (0-5 and 6-11). "

In looking for our 'most dangerous roads', the EEN is missing half the logic of 20mph zones - to make our streets feel safer as well as be safer. 

The council's focus  on streets that have dense housing, such as tenements , or shopping areas is exactly the same logic that currently justifies our 20mph zones around schools and in quiet residential streets.  

It's not that there are more accidents in bungalowland, or around schools, but they are areas that we want to make feel safe, as well as being safe. 

If we want to keep Edinburgh a living, breathing city, we need to keep mixed populations living in and around the centre of the city -- families, older people, professionals and students.  They will only do this if the city continues to be a welcoming and enjoyable place to live - for all, including those with pushchairs, wheelchairs and zimmer-frames. 

By all means, let's also look at ways of making our most dangerous streets safer, but ignoring the streets that we live on is not the way forward. 

The 5 wackiest claims about 20mph so far...

In case you've missed these, apparently:

1. It’s too difficult to drive at 20mph 

"It will not help with road safety at all, people don't even go 30mph, so makes you think we can stick to 20mph? It is very hard to drive that slow, we have been taught to drive at 30mph, so it's almost natural, do you know what I mean by that?"  (from a taxi driver).

2. 20mph will be more dangerous

A 20mph limit in Edinburgh will caused more accidents and incidents from road rage";  "I agree that motorists will get upset at cyclists roaring past them, so revenge is foreseeable as will be "accidents";  20mph signs "will have the complete opposite impact on safety around schools to what the clowncil are trying to do. I feel that most people will ignore these new limits and it may cause them to be less aware of their speed around schools etc as all they will see is another 20mph sign"

3. Cyclists will be too scared to cycle if traffic moving at 20mph  "My self a driver, cyclist & pedestrian in Edinburgh i have been chatting to allot of people who are in the same boat and i have asked their opinion on 20 mph limits on Main Busy roads whilst cycling, and around 85% are saying they will now think twice about cycling as they will feel more put at riskdrivers will be frustrated with going slow, stuck in traffic and cyclists getting more ahead." 

4. Enforce a no Jaywalking law, because that's much easier than enforcing 20mph zones

"Jaywalking is a perfectly reasonable safety measure and much cheaper to implement than making Edinburgh a 20 mph city"  [despite the fact that it goes against the Highway code]

5. We should be putting the speed limit up not down. "Due to the fact that when the speed limits where made car brakes weren't that gd. But now brakes are far more advance and can stop in more than half the stated distance of cars from the days when the laws where passed. Plus all these car have been run of the road by the scrapage scheme. we all have new cars now so theres no reason why the limits shouldn't go up"


I've spared you the personal attacks, threats and generally ill-informed nonsense. 

10 reasons 20mph's plenty for Edinburgh

A 20mph limit's not going to transform Edinburgh drivers into sweetness and light, nor is it going to get rid of tram-related traffic snarlups, or over-heated busses, but it's still got a lot going for it.  

Here's my top ten reasons why 20's plenty:

1. Safety: there's no two ways about it, the biggest argument for 20mph is the increased safety for anyone out shopping, walking the dog,  on their way to school, or even just getting out of a car. I dare you to read this and not think, yeah that could so easily have been me, and that kid could have been my kid.  Every day five children and 20 adults are killed or seriously injured while walking or cycling on UK roads (Department for Transport, 2013).  Lower speed limits reduce the severity of accidents. Whatever data you choose to look at, there is study after study showing that survival rates increase dramatically when speeds drop from 30mph.
2. Reaction time:  Stopping distances at 20mph are half that at 30mph, which means that you're more likely to be able to avoid hitting someone at 20mph, even if a child runs out, or a pedestrian slips and falls while crossing a road. 
3. Time: We're all busy people. Can we really afford to take it slow? Most city journeys on 20mph roads will only take a few seconds or minutes more. Living Streets research suggests that an urban journey of three miles, which would take 30 minutes in a 30 mph limit,  only increased to 33 minutes in a 20 mph setting. That's a tiny price to pay for safer roads.
4. Congestion:  Slower speeds actually reduce congestion by smoothing out the bunching that occurs at higher speeds, so we should see some reduction in congestion.
5. Pollution: 20mph should also reduce most forms of air pollution in our cities  30 km/h zones reduce CO2 emissions by 15%, NOX emissions by 40% and CO emissions by 45%. Only hydrocarbons will increase, by 4%.  And bonus - cars should also be more fuel efficient. 
6. Noise: Reducing traffic speeds by  10 km/h, a noise reduction of 2-3 dB is achieved.
7. Good for business: All of those things mean that 20mph zones are also good for business, making shopping, chatting, and socialising more pleasant and more common. 
8. Fairness: At present there are 20mph zones in lots of residential areas - especially our leafier suburbs - but this would make streets that are densely populated by families, students and the elderly safer.  
9. Happier mornings: In 20mph zones, more parents are happy to let their kids walk or cycle to school, which means fewer cars on the school run, which has got to make life saner for all of us.
10. Demand: Surveys (scientifically conducted ones) repeatedly show high levels of support for 20mph.  The  2011 British Attitudes Survey showed that well over two-thirds of us, including motorists, would like a 20mph speed limit in the streets where we live. As I've already reported, 60% of the people surveyed in the Edinburgh People's Survey in 2012 supported further extension of 20mph in the city centre and busy streets, and only 5% opposed it.    

Reading material: 

I've not footnoted everything. I do enough of that at work.  The stats I have cited - and more - are to be found here.  Happy reading: 

http://www.brake.org.uk/component/content/article/18-top-level/campaigns/1196-go20coalition%20

http://www.livingstreets.co.uk/make-a-change/take-action-with-us/20mph/20-mph-myth-buster

http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/briefings.htm

http://www.copenhagenize.com/2015/01/is-copenhagen-finally-up-to-speed-on.html

http://pedalonparliament.org/world-day-of-remembrance-for-road-traffic-victims/

Can do better?

So, according to a media report on a report prepared for TFL, there are 11 conditions that are needed for 'world class' cycling cities.  So, I thought I'd rate Edinburgh. I've written these fairly quickly - more for debate than trying to be definitive:

1. There is strong, clear political and technical  pro-cycling leadership which is supported through all parts of the lead organisation.  7/10  There is some political and technical leadership, but it's not yet fully mainstreamed. 

2. Cycling is considered an entirely legitimate, desirable, everyday, ‘grown up’ mode of transport, worthy of investment, even if current cycling levels are comparatively low.  8/10 The Council's decision to commit 5% of its transport budget to cycling and to increase that by 1% each year, is laudable, and very much signals that cycling is 'legitimate'.  It helps that when I approach my elected reps, they take me seriously, since all three of them (Labour, SNP and Greens) cycle daily as well. 

3. Increasing cycle mode share is part of an integrated approach to decreasing car mode share. There is no intended overall abstraction from walking and public transport; and improving cycle safety and convenience is not intended to diminish pedestrian safety and convenience. 6/10 The Local Transport Strategy and Active Travel Action plan are steps in the right direction, but there's a long way to go. 

4. Loss of traffic capacity or parking to create better cycling facilities, while often a considerable challenge, is not a veto on such action.  4/10  There are very few examples of Edinburgh being willing to remove or limit parking - Leith walk comes to mind.  In some cases, parking is 'traded-off' or moved, on others it has been reinstated. 

5. There is dedicated, fit-for-purpose space for cycling, generally free of intrusion by heavy and fast motor vehicle traffic. In cities where the aim is to grow cycling rapidly, simple, cheap and effective means of securing this space have been used as first steps, with more permanent solutions following in due course.  5/10 It feels like we're on the cusp on this one, with a three short areas of segregation in planning/implementation stages, and the George Street 'experiment'.  But these are just baby-steps.

6. There is clarity about the overall cycling network (including planned future development), with connectedness, continuity, directness and legibility all being key attributes.  8/10 yes, this, I think is well in hand, but the current plans do not have capacity for growth beyond 10% modal share. Some routes are already crowded. 

7. There is no differential cycle route branding, simply three principal types of cycle facility that make up well-planned and designed cycle networks. The current 'family network' approach fails pretty spectacularly here, but I've graded these three separate aspects individually:

a. Paths/tracks/lanes on busier streets which provide a degree of separation from motor vehicles that is appropriate to motor traffic flows/speeds and the demand for cycling.  1/10  Nope. Not yet, but presently...

b. Quiet streets/’bicycle streets’ with 30kph/20mph or lower speed limits and often restrictions on motor vehicle access, particularly for through movements. 5/10 the recent decision to make 80% of Edinburgh's streets 20mph goes some way to achieving this. We also have some examples of permeable infrastructure, but not near enough. 

c. Cycleways/‘greenways’ away from the main highway (e.g. bicycle-only streets, paths in parks and along old railway lines and canals), but still well connected to the rest of the network at frequent intervals.  10/10  I'm being absurdly generous here - there are a number of improvements that could still be made - but this is surely one of Edinburgh's great successes, and the council's commitment to gritting much of it in winter makes it really functional.

8. There is clear, widely-accepted and routinely-used guidance on the design of cycling infrastructure.   6/10 there's guidance, but too often its been ignored or poorly followed, and council has to revisit and replace. 

9. The frequency of occasions when cyclists need to give way or stop is minimised. This means that people cycling are able to make steady progress at a comfortable speed.  6/10 Can we all say chicanes? 

10. At least subjectively, where the cycle mode share is greater, the driving culture (and indeed city culture generally) is more respectful of the needs of cyclists. Local traffic laws often play a part in this.  6/10 This remains to be seen, but the move to 20mph may contribute to a better environment. 

11. Making better provision for cycling, even in the most well-cycled cities, is an ongoing challenge; with growth in cycling, and of city populations as a whole, requiring clear forward planning.  7/10 Edinburgh's pretty good at the planning, but not so hot on the 'doing'.  And I'm pretty convinced that their current planning is only good for a modal share of 7-9%. It's not even remotely prepared for 15 or 20% modal shares. 

I make that out to be a mean and a mode of 6.  Translates as 'could do better' in my marking scheme.