Brighton Place - safety

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 16 Feb 2009, 12:53

Admin: This thread has been split off from the "Cycling on the Promenade" thread.

I know cyclists on the pavement can be irritating at times and dangerous at others, but if you take a look at the state of Brighton Place, for example, with uneven, slippy setts, it is positively dangerous for cyclists! I don't blame cyclists (especially kids) for opting for the pavements in those circumstances.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 16 Feb 2009, 13:34

I take it that Council aren't willing to do anything about the road surface, Marya? It sounds appalling. But then, they've probably used all the budget on the new roundabout (only 6 months late at the present!)

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 16 Feb 2009, 15:35

Brighton place is a nightmare surface for cars never mind bikes. The cobbles are also really slippy when wet and I am always frightened of skidding off!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 17 Feb 2009, 21:59

seashell wrote:If a cyclist really feels they cannot use the road - then they should wheel their bike along the pavement!

And a considerate cyclist will do just that when the situation requires it. However, if we were to take the pavement at Brighton Place as an example then most of the time there are no pedestrians and a cyclist is much safer cycling on the pavement than negotiating the poorly laid setts. It just needs a bit of common sense and courtesy and the same goes for the Promenade.

Bazza, yes I've had motorists who have tried to drive me off the road as well. As any cyclist knows, it is often quicker to complete a journey in town by bike than by car but it offends the fragile egos of the petrol heads to have a cyclist overtake them as they sit in traffic jams and it can become quite personal.

Peter Bradley · Post by **Peter Bradley** » 22 Feb 2009, 21:49

wotcha folks, its been a while since my last .......................
anyway, I have started cycling to work and whilst many of the roads are bad Brighton Place is a death trap.Its not just the slippy cobbles its the tyre width gap between them and the cars doing over 40mph, 1ft from the pavement "cos they like the sound it makes"
Think I might start a campaign - what do you think the chance would be of getting the road fixed and/or the cars slowed down?

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 22 Feb 2009, 21:56

Peter Bradley wrote:wotcha folks, its been a while since my last .......................
anyway, I have started cycling to work and whilst many of the roads are bad Brighton Place is a death trap.Its not just the slippy cobbles its the tyre width gap between them and the cars doing over 40mph, 1ft from the pavement "cos they like the sound it makes"
Think I might start a campaign - what do you think the chance would be of getting the road fixed and/or the cars slowed down?

Straying from the content of the posting, back home when I was at high school a Linda Bradley was one of my teachers (home economics) and she stayed in Porty/Joppa I seem to recall. Wonder if its a relation of this Bradley chap.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 22 Feb 2009, 23:05

Peter Bradley wrote:Think I might start a campaign - what do you think the chance would be of getting the road fixed and/or the cars slowed down?

In my experience, it usually takes something pretty horrific, like a child getting run over before anything is done about installing traffic-calming measures.
Brighton Place must be one of the few cobbled street left.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 23 Feb 2009, 00:11

There's a memorial flagstone on Brighton Place to a child killed a few years ago.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 23 Feb 2009, 08:02

Peter Bradley wrote:Think I might start a campaign - what do you think the chance would be of getting the road fixed and/or the cars slowed down?

seashell wrote:In my experience, it usually takes something pretty horrific, like a child getting run over before anything is done about installing traffic-calming measures.

seanie wrote:There's a memorial flagstone on Brighton Place to a child killed a few years ago.

That throws SeaShells theory out the window then.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Feb 2009, 09:10

Peter Bradley wrote:wotcha folks, its been a while since my last .......................
anyway, I have started cycling to work and whilst many of the roads are bad Brighton Place is a death trap.Its not just the slippy cobbles its the tyre width gap between them and the cars doing over 40mph, 1ft from the pavement "cos they like the sound it makes"
Think I might start a campaign - what do you think the chance would be of getting the road fixed and/or the cars slowed down?

I know that some people would like to see the setts (which I believe is the correct term for this type of paving) removed completely but I think this would meet a fair amount of opposition on conservation and aesthetic grounds.

The setts were re-laid just a few years ago. It took several months and even then they didn't do a very good job but nevertheless they are undeniably attractive and contribute greatly to the handsome character of Brighton Place.

On the other hand, I understand your safety concerns and I know that other residents have complained about traffic noise. How would you propose to slow cars down?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Feb 2009, 09:12

seanie wrote:There's a memorial flagstone on Brighton Place to a child killed a few years ago.

I may be wrong, but from recollection this was a tragic accident that occurred on the pavement and did not involve a motor vehicle.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 23 Feb 2009, 19:32

seanie wrote:There's a memorial flagstone on Brighton Place to a child killed a few years ago.

That's really sad. I know it took two fatalities near the Grammar School in Musselburgh before pedestrian crossings were erected at the Roman Bridge.
Kill your speed - or kill a child. It's a chilling slogan - but it is true. I saw a fatal accident involving a child in the 1980s - and the horror has never left me.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Feb 2009, 20:14

It's incredibly sad but it didn't involve a motor vehicle.

Peter Bradley · Post by **Peter Bradley** » 23 Feb 2009, 20:16

I'm no expert but what about reducing the speed to 20 and sticking up a speed cam.That way it doesnt effect emergency vehicles but does catch the dangerous drivers.As the road goes past the park there must be a case for child safety.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 23 Feb 2009, 20:16

Bob Jefferson wrote:
seanie wrote:There's a memorial flagstone on Brighton Place to a child killed a few years ago.
I may be wrong, but from recollection this was a tragic accident that occurred on the pavement and did not involve a motor vehicle.

What happened Bob Jefferson?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Feb 2009, 20:46

20 mph zones have been established in the vicinity of schools and in some housing estates but I think it might be difficult to find grounds for reducing the speed on one of the main routes into Portobello. I'm not saying it's not a good idea but I can't see any moves afoot at present to introduce such measures.

Speed cameras can only be installed at sites that meet certain criteria. There are two factors - speed and KSI (killed and seriously injured). A speed survey would establish whether there is indeed a speeding problem. Often, the perception of speed (particularly on a noisy surface) is not borne out by analysis. If there isn't a demonstrable speeding problem then a speed camera won't help. And if the KSI figures don't support the need for speed reduction or enforcement (and I'm guessing they don't) then you aren't going to get what you want.

You may be more successful with other speed control measures, such as 'speed bumps' but again they have to be supported by facts and figures or existing policy, so I can't see any easy answers.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Feb 2009, 20:50

BeachBum wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:
seanie wrote:There's a memorial flagstone on Brighton Place to a child killed a few years ago.
I may be wrong, but from recollection this was a tragic accident that occurred on the pavement and did not involve a motor vehicle.
What happened Bob Jefferson?

To be honest, I'm not sure that it's a suitable topic for conversation given that it involves a family who, to my knowledge, still live in Portobello. I just wanted to make the point that the child wasn't struck by a car. It was just a freak accident that could not have been foreseen or legislated for.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 23 Feb 2009, 21:28

Bob Jefferson wrote:20 mph zones have been established in the vicinity of schools .

Brighton Place is in the vicinity of schools and is a main route to and from both schools to the High Street with huge volumes of kids using it for a large part of the day. I am truly astonished that nobody has been killed or injured whilst walking down this street because I have witnessed horrendous speeding on this road - mainly, it has to be said, by youngsters driving souped up cars who like the noise they make going under the bridge

. Any driver with a bit of sense wouldn't do more than about 20mph going down there due to all the hazards anyway (buses, cobbles, parked cars, bollards, pedestrians - mainly kids and silly teenagers). The person who crashed into Marya's wall must have been doing well in excess of 20mph.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Feb 2009, 21:55

I'm not against the idea of reducing the speed limit. I'm just pointing out the difficulties that would involve. You might take some hope from this:

20mph zone list to be updated

but again priorities are

based on road traffic accident data

You might also try putting your case to the Council:

email enquiries@edinburgh20zones.co.uk

or write to:

20mph Zones In Residential Areas
FREEPOST NAT 18501
Edinburgh
EH1 1BR

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Feb 2009, 11:01

The state of the road surface and the speed of the traffic on Brighton Place has bugged many over the years, Peter, (it was the lead article in the Portobello Reporter once), but it is difficult to get the problem resolved.

Speed limits are only any use if they are enforced. For example,there's a speed limit on Princes Street (when it's open, that is!), but I doubt if very many vehicles adhere to it.

Speed bumps can also cause other problems. Speed bumps on setts are dangerous for motor cyclists and I have been told that similar residential areas, which had them installed, complained that people just speeded up between bumps causing increased noise and fume pollution. Additionally, there was added traffic vibration experienced in nearby houses as vehicles drove over the bumps. Not something you'd welcome I'm sure!

Narrowing the road at points would cause problems in traffic flow and would be ruled out because of the fact that it is seen as a major arterial route. My neighbour and I tried a bit of what we believed was a perfectly legal traffic calming measure of our own once, by strategically parking on either side of the road. It certainly slowed traffic, but the police who came to the door weren't very impressed with our ingenuity.

I know that the roads dept would be happy to tarmac the surface, but I think the only support you'd get for that would be from those who live on Brighton Place and have to endure the current level of traffic vibration. The fact that it is a grade A listed area would also be a problem.

The setts were relaid back in the summer of 2002 (resulting in the closure of the road and outrage from local traders) when water pipes had to be replaced, but, unfortunately, within months, the old problems started to show again. I'm no engineer, but part of the problem seems to be that the material used between the setts can't absorb any vibration ; it simply cracks. Add in the fact that this type of road surface, whilst looking pretty, was never intended to cope with modern traffic levels and frequent use by heavy vehicles such as double decker buses and you start to have real problems.

The road is assessed every year by the council, but has failed in recent years to score enough points to be allocated a share of the budget. As others have said, there aren't enough serious accidents involving pedestrians to make it a priority.

The one major improvement in the time I've stayed here has been to the pavements. The nice high kerb offers some sort of protection against the traffic. Previously, the kerb was practically non-existent and buses and other large vehicles would frequently mount the pavement. I was twice, while on the pavement, struck by the wing mirror of such a vehicle, so I'm sure many others were as well!

I ought to add it isn't the noise level that bothers me. I accept that is part of living on a busy city street, however, it is worth mentioning that because the houses are listed you can't install double glazing, which is the solution most house owners would adopt.

PS

Apologies for the length of this post and thanks to anyone who has managed to read this far!

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 24 Feb 2009, 12:28

I think the solution is to ensure a proper traffic management scheme throughout the whole city, as well as a campaign encouraging better and more courteous driving practices.

Essentially if the average speed through the city (probably about 5MPH just now) was increased then drivers wouldn't feel so frustrated and speed whenever they are not stuck in traffic.
If people journey times to any point in the city was less than 30mins (which is should be for a city that's only about 10 miles across) then I would think there would be far less cases of reckless driving.

Also I've noticed that a lot of drivers seem to have forgotten the highway code.
Lots of random lane changes without indicating, undertaking, sticking in the passing lane when not passing, again this merely leads to the frustration of other motorists.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Feb 2009, 12:36

There's certainly a sense of folk using Brighton Place as a rat run (to avoid the temp lights at King's Road roundabout/junction), which again seems to cause folk to speed.

Improving traffic flow, Grunk, might calm frayed nerves, but it is not a solution to the roller coaster ride that is Brighton Place.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 24 Feb 2009, 13:56

Improving the traffic flow along the High Street might improve things but there will always be people who want to " get ahead"
We witness cars using Straiton Place trying to beat the traffic in the High St , quite a few do not obey the 20mph signs.
The same happens in Seafiled Road with cars cutting down at the cat and dog home and racing along the industrail estate to try and cut in that wee bit futher along

On another note the wee boy whose memorial is in Brighton Place tragically died as a result of head injuries when he fell off his bike when cycling to school, on the pavement.
No cars were invovled
I know this for fact as I was there that very sad morning.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 24 Feb 2009, 16:23

SoupDragon wrote:Improving the traffic flow along the High Street might improve things but there will always be people who want to " get ahead"
We witness cars using Straiton Place trying to beat the traffic in the High St , quite a few do not obey the 20mph signs.
The same happens in Seafiled Road with cars cutting down at the cat and dog home and racing along the industrail estate to try and cut in that wee bit futher along

This should all be accounted for in the transport plan.

Essentially there should be a number or arterial routes through the city which are prioritised for traffic flow. Then it should always be faster to use these routes that trying to use a rat run. This should also be relatively easy to achieve given the state of modern technology and mathematics.

But then you would need people who had a real education to plan and implement these traffic arrangements.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 24 Feb 2009, 16:32

Grunk wrote:
But then you would need people who had a real education to plan and implement these traffic arrangements.

And on the current evidence - this doesn't apply to any of those in charge of Edinburghs numerous roadworks.
Then again, maybe we are going about this wrong. Why not classify the King's Road Roundabout, the tram works et al as works of art - performance pieces. Surely they would be in with a good shot at winning the Turner Prize? After all, they have to be good for something, don't they?

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 24 Feb 2009, 16:41

I wonder if we can posthumously apply for listed status for the kings road roundabout?

Maybe it would be a good idea to list all remaining roundabouts in Edinburgh as they are pretty scarce these days.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 24 Feb 2009, 23:10

The roundabout was horrible and dangerous until they cut down the xhrubs when it became a bit easier to see what was coming around.It was still horrible and dangerous but clearer

I came down Brighton Place today , in the car, having come down Duddingston Rd with its speed calming pyramids. it was hard to tell the diffrence between the "traffic management " bumps and the sets.

I have had to travel both the roads with passengers with arthitis and once with a very ill person ( heading to the Infirmary ) The bumps are torture for anyone with infirmities.
I can't see how Duddingston Road improves safety in anyway
I observe the 20mph limit, Have been "flashed" at and overtaken for that, all the while trying to dodge cars swerving to avoid the "traffic calming" measures

Skeely · Post by **Skeely** » 26 Feb 2009, 19:04

Grunk wrote:Essentially if the average speed through the city (probably about 5MPH just now) was increased then drivers wouldn't feel so frustrated and speed whenever they are not stuck in traffic.

Improving the flow of traffic just increases the amount of traffic on the roads. I'm enjoying the reduced traffic on the High Street at the moment, although I'm sure there are local traders who aren't. I'm an occasional car driver myself, but as far as I'm concerned, anything that slows down (and therefore reduces) traffic in town is a good thing.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 26 Feb 2009, 21:47

Maybe there's some way of managing traffic volume to reduce vehicle numbers and improve flow at the same time.

Maybe some sort of payment system for driving in particular areas at particular times.

Some sort of charge that would reduce congestion.

If only I could think of a name for such I thing....

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Feb 2009, 00:38

I voted for the congestion charge. I'm still annoyed at the labour partyls decision to hold a referendum, which was driven by fear of being voted out of power- they were. IMHO they would have done us all a favour by just biting the bullet and going for it.

Post by **wangi** » 27 Feb 2009, 00:50

http://www.road-to-nowhere.co.uk/roadep ... _zone.html -- another approach to "traffic calming" that doesn't require vehicle damage and pollution...

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 27 Feb 2009, 12:12

Now there's a good idea. Think I've perambled on a few home schemes without realising what they are, easier on the eye and safer too.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 27 Feb 2009, 14:45

Porty wrote:I voted for the congestion charge. I'm still annoyed at the labour partyls decision to hold a referendum, which was driven by fear of being voted out of power- they were. IMHO they would have done us all a favour by just biting the bullet and going for it.

I voted against it because (in my oppinion) it was unfair to the people who lived in Edinburgh, given the fact that the bypass is inadequate, and only goes around the south of the city, meaning that many folk have to travel through the city. As well as the fact that public transport is slow, poorly implemented and for the majority goes to the city centre, which may not be where everyone wants to go.

If they had offered up a real alternative in terms of public transport, then I would have voted yes.

I would also vote yes if it was a commuter charge for people traveling to Edinburgh from outside where there are ample park and ride schemes etc. But if the charge was waived for the folk who have to travel through the city to get to their place of work.

Essentially you would want to make it cheaper to use the public transport available for commuting than to drive (excepting car share) but without penalising the citizens for whom there is no viable public transport option.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 27 Feb 2009, 15:29

Grunk wrote: Essentially you would want to make it cheaper to use the public transport available for commuting than to drive (excepting car share) but without penalising the citizens for whom there is no viable public transport option.

That's it in a nutshell. Exactly what such a scheme should aim for.
And, of course, providing adequate public transport.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 27 Feb 2009, 15:37

Perhaps I should apply for a transport planning job.

I guess my biggest selling point is that I don't have any of the qualifications that they usually look for.