Read on Twitter
Seeing this comment, and variations of it, a lot since the latest sad death on Porty's roads. "The junction needs redesigned, cyclists should dismount or use an alternative route until it is."
I can understand the sentiment, but it is, again, indicative of an unconscious (and in many cases it IS unconscious) bias. No-one would dream of saying, "... drivers should be stopped going through until it is." Which would have the same effect.
Drivers get the direct routes, cyclists are consigned to the diversions, and shuffles, and having to press a button for permission to cross. It's been a little over 18 months since the last death there, and STILL the redesign that was promised then hasn't been delivered.
So, "... until it is" has a very indefinite feel. Anyone saying that the last time around is undoubtedly saying it again now, unaware that that would mean 18 months of cyclists being forced, for safety, to take a big detour, or have to dismount and walk.
Of course the junction is awful for pedestrians as well, and there's not a crossing on the Sir H L side, so heading into town you have to ask to cross to Porty High St, ask to cross King's Rd, ask to cross Seafield Rd East (in 2 stages), ask to cross Portobello Rd (in 2 stages).
So SIX road crossings on foot. Understandably the reasoning will be "But it's safer". It is. It's an inconvenience, but it's safer. And that's what cyclists (and pedestrians to an extent) are taught to do. Put up with inconvenience for safety.
Indefinitely. While a consultation determines that, actually, we might as well add some parking spaces at the same time (not an exaggeration, when the Quality Bike Corridor was put in, on-road parking spaces increased in number).
It's difficult to argue against (and I'm not), because I genuinely think most of the 'cyclists should dismount' comments are genuinely from a place of concern (some aren't obviously), but it shows how much we've decided that those in cars shouldn't be inconvenienced.
And I've come to the conclusion that the best way to combat that is proper, useable, connected, safe, infrastructure. More people using that, people who want to just now, but can't. The more it looks like a legitimate option.
A groundswell of people using alternatives, and suddenly people start thinking 'well surely these alternatives should be prioritised, drivers should just take an alternative route'.
It's a long process. A tiring process. But one in which EVERYONE wins. Yes, even those driving, because the alternative 'longer' routes are quieter of other people driving, because those who don't need to have used an alternative.
So the longer route is the same time, or possibly quicker. The longer route on the bike is rarely, if ever, the same or quicker, simply because queues of traffic aren't a concern, so there's nothing gained.
It's like parking on the pavement. Inconvenience pedestrians for a 'perceived' not inconveniencing other drivers. We need that rebalancing of who comes first (pedestrians) to improve everything for everyone. End of PSA....
