Replacement of HLR / Seafield / Portobello Rd Roundabout

Discussion and debate on the issues affecting Portobello
Post Reply
Grunk
Posts: 244
Joined: 04 Jun 2008, 17:40

Post by Grunk » 12 Feb 2009, 09:33

I wonder if we'll ever see the accident statistics of the new traffic light implementation. I'm sure this incident isn't the first one.

I have a feeling that these incidents don't count though as the traffics lights have not been fully commisioned yet.

Probably little comfort to the cyclist in the hospital now, that the new junction may be safer once it is eventually finished.

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 12 Feb 2009, 09:39

Grunk wrote:I wonder if we'll ever see the accident statistics of the new traffic light implementation. I'm sure this incident isn't the first one.
If people have reported the incidents to the Police or the Council, or indeed if someone called 999 asking for an ambulance, then there would be a written record of the accident held by one of the statutory organisations. Following that line of thinking, if the stats were not published im sure they would be made available if a suitable FOI request was processed (asking for the states obv).

Although, for the unreported incidents then there would be no official record kept so it would be unknown.


Grunk
Posts: 244
Joined: 04 Jun 2008, 17:40

Post by Grunk » 12 Feb 2009, 11:50

BeachBum wrote: If the stats were not published im sure they would be made available if a suitable FOI request was processed (asking for the states obv).
This is kind of my point...

The council seem happy to roll out the stats when they support whatever plan it is they want to undertake. I doubt they are so keen on publicising the ones that show their ineptitude or poor strategy.

You've got to remember that the only statistics you can really trust are the ones you've made up yourself.

BTW, how does one go about filing an FOI request?

User avatar
Epykat
Posts: 3915
Joined: 04 Dec 2003, 22:35
Location: Portobello, Edinburgh
Contact:

Post by Epykat » 12 Feb 2009, 12:13

wangi wrote: There are two obvious situations (as a cyclist and driver) that I can think of at the junction of HLR and BR heading north that could easily cause this with no fault of the cyclist.
Someone we know was at the scene more or less as it happened and he thought the driver was possibly blinded by the sun.
Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 12 Feb 2009, 12:32

Note: Im not trying to go off topic, this answer is in direct relation to someone asking how they go about getting information on the number of accidents/incidents at the former roundabout site.
Grunk wrote: BTW, how does one go about filing an FOI request?
In would suggest visiting the website of the body you wish to place the request with.

Here are the direct links for the bodies which I gave mention to.

Lothian and Borders Police - FOI information

City of Edinburgh Council - FOI information

Scottish Ambulance Service - FOI info

Its fairly obvious that to find the number of reported incidents you are going to need to submit requests to some different bodies to get a complete answer. Remember to be very specific in your request so you get the best possible answers back.

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Post by Porty » 12 Feb 2009, 12:35

Grunk wrote:BTW, how does one go about filing an FOI request?
http://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/internet/co ... nformation

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 12 Feb 2009, 17:26

I see signs have been put up saying bus lane not in use.

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Post by Porty » 12 Feb 2009, 19:06

Thing is- what are you going to do with the information once you have set it free? Let's say there's been 15 accidents linked to the krr roadworks . you have collated the data,factored in an additional percentage of unreported incidents, now what?

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 12 Feb 2009, 19:08

Porty wrote:Thing is- what are you going to do with the information once you have set it free? Let's say there's been 15 accidents linked to the krr roadworks . you have collated the data,factored in an additional percentage of unreported incidents, now what?
Perhaps Grunk just wants to know out of curiosity.

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Post by Porty » 13 Feb 2009, 00:23

Maybe so which is fine by me, I'm just being curious about the purpose of the freed information.

I notice now that grunk has been asked for information he's just clammed up. Can one make an foi request from an individual who refuses to cough?

Grunk
Posts: 244
Joined: 04 Jun 2008, 17:40

Post by Grunk » 13 Feb 2009, 10:47

The information is mainly for my curiosity, I want to see if the traffic light system really does prove to be safer, as this was the main reason for the change.

It will also go in my reservoir of information, that I quote in my various communications with the transport authorities. I have written to TIE, Sestrans and the Council a few times already, asking for information and justification for the various traffic measures that have been implemented.

I have yet to receive a reply from any of them.

I'm sorry I didn't post this reply earlier, but I was busy doing other stuff and not looking at this forum. But at least you've gotten a response, in considerably less time than you would get one from any of the authorities.

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 19 Feb 2009, 19:03

BeachBum wrote:I see they have started puting in the CCTV for the new junction at the former roundabout.
I was getting a refresher course today in regards to the Councils CCTV policies & procedures and a quick refresher in working practice & the law.

One of the chaps from the CMF were saying that the camera at the former roundabout is either already removed or about to be. It was decided that it was badly placed.

I actually think that is one of the street cameras part funded by Lothian Buses (to be partially used for traffic monitoring).

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 19 Feb 2009, 19:08

Oh, and at the course some folk were saying about there apparently being a lot of loose stones covering the road as you travel over the top of the former roundabout. A few people getting stones hitting of thier windscreens as they drive along.

westbank
Posts: 12
Joined: 03 Jun 2007, 22:10

Porty Roundabout

Post by westbank » 22 Feb 2009, 13:35

Get tomorrows Evening News and catch up on the latest shambles regarding the roundabout !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Re: Porty Roundabout

Post by BeachBum » 22 Feb 2009, 20:09

westbank wrote:Get tomorrows Evening News and catch up on the latest shambles regarding the roundabout !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just what is the latest shambles like?

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Post by Bob Jefferson » 23 Feb 2009, 09:31

I fully agree with those who feel that the roadworks have compromised pedestrian safety and convenience to an unacceptable level, but I also believe that the new junction will ultimately prove to be safer. Here, as a reminder, are the shocking stats over the last 5 years:
There have been 18 accidents at the King’s Road roundabout over the last five years, involving 20 casualties. Of these, four were cyclists, three were motorcyclists and two were pedestrians. There was one fatality involving a cyclist in 2003, and three serious injuries to cyclists or motorcyclists.

Grunk
Posts: 244
Joined: 04 Jun 2008, 17:40

Post by Grunk » 23 Feb 2009, 18:10

I don't think anyone has a problem with replacing/renovating a junction to establish a safer and more efficient transport infrastructure.

I think it's more that the implementation of the changes could have been accomplished better by a dozen untrained monkeys. It should really have been completed on time, on budget, without adversely affecting local businesses or compromising the safety of the public during the disruption.

seashell
Posts: 491
Joined: 01 Feb 2005, 20:41

Post by seashell » 23 Feb 2009, 19:27

Grunk wrote:I don't think anyone has a problem with replacing/renovating a junction to establish a safer and more efficient transport infrastructure.

I think it's more that the implementation of the changes could have been accomplished better by a dozen untrained monkeys. It should really have been completed on time, on budget, without adversely affecting local businesses or compromising the safety of the public during the disruption.
hear hear!

The whole fiasco has been a shocking example of the ineptness of the Council to plan and implement change. Is it any wonder that the tram scheme is going so badly wrong????

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Re: Porty Roundabout

Post by BeachBum » 23 Feb 2009, 19:59

westbank wrote:Get tomorrows Evening News and catch up on the latest shambles regarding the roundabout !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are you on about this?

Evening News 23/2/09 - Rogue road sign declaring highway closed proves a bar to pub's profits.

The owner of the Forth View complaining about a sign put up by Council contractors. I wonder why he felt the need to have it featured in the evening news? I wonder if he made contact with the Council first and gave them the opportunity to discuss the matter with the contractor before going to the evening news for a bit of Council bashing.

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Re: Porty Roundabout

Post by BeachBum » 24 Feb 2009, 18:16

Cllr Child, mail shot 24/2/09 wrote:We Need Safer Temporary Pedestrian FacilitiesI asked the Council’s head of transport why there is not a pedestrian phase fitted to temporary traffic lights, like we have on most of the crossings at the Kings Road/Seafield Road works. He said he is going to take it up with his professional colleagues, nationwide, to progress this with manufacturers.

Roadworks Bound to Finish by 3 April
In addition to his apology for the mistakes made with the Kings Road/Seafield Road junction roadworks, Marshall Poulton told me at Committee he was ‘very confident’ that the work would finish by 3 April. I pressed him at Committee for compensation for those who had been affected, as commuters and local businesses, as a consequence of the Council’s mistakes. He said he would work closely with colleagues in corporate communications and economic development to put in a package of measures to help trade pick up after the works were finished which would boost local shops.

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 25 Feb 2009, 09:46

As you come along the sir harry lauder road towards the former roundabout there is a slight change in alignment this morning, to allow them resurface the last remaining lane which hasnt been done.

tom nimmo
Posts: 146
Joined: 13 Jan 2004, 15:13
Location: Duddingston
Contact:

Post by tom nimmo » 27 Feb 2009, 13:55

Beach Bum, I would guess that the answer to your question asking if the Forthview bar contacted the council to talk about the sign would probably be no. Given that the Forthview blatantly flaunts the smoking ban by allowing people to smoke in the conservatory attached to the bar then the last thing the owner wants is a visit from the council. I like the quieter High Street that the roadworks have brought but it is a bit of a horror trying to negotiate the turn into HLR when on a bike. The finished part from Kings Road to Kwik Fit looks wonderful and it will be a shame when all the cars and busses spoil it.
Prom cycling for all.

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 03 Mar 2009, 19:51

There are big red & white signs saying bus land not in use, but yet buses are continuing to use the bus lane.

Whats the reason for this?

Drivers are deliberatly choosing to ignore the signs?

The signs are there in error?

User avatar
Epykat
Posts: 3915
Joined: 04 Dec 2003, 22:35
Location: Portobello, Edinburgh
Contact:

Post by Epykat » 03 Mar 2009, 20:59

It's a pain in the neck! Cars are queued halfway up to Piershill, the buses are overtaking them in the bus lane and then cutting in when they get to the lights! This means only one or two cars are getting through the lights at a time. I was stuck in this nonsense for 20 minutes the other night!
Enough of your nonsense - get back to the Play Pen!

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 03 Mar 2009, 21:01

Epykat wrote:It's a pain in the neck! Cars are queued halfway up to Piershill, the buses are overtaking them in the bus lane and then cutting in when they get to the lights! This means only one or two cars are getting through the lights at a time. I was stuck in this nonsense for 20 minutes the other night!
Which lights? The ones at the site of the former roundabout?

User avatar
Pal of Porty
Posts: 2136
Joined: 30 Sep 2004, 13:41
Location: Old Folks Home
Contact:

Post by Pal of Porty » 04 Mar 2009, 10:05

Epykat wrote:It's a pain in the neck! Cars are queued halfway up to Piershill, the buses are overtaking them in the bus lane and then cutting in when they get to the lights! This means only one or two cars are getting through the lights at a time. I was stuck in this nonsense for 20 minutes the other night!
That's the Council's main point of the scheme! 8)
Justice delayed is justice denied.

Grunk
Posts: 244
Joined: 04 Jun 2008, 17:40

Post by Grunk » 04 Mar 2009, 12:02

Seems like the bus priority is already working (fair enough public transport should have priority).

I wonder how well the scheme will work when the traffic lights are controlling 5 full flows as opposed to the 2.5 on offer just now.

Shame the public transport routes aren't very useful for the majority of Edinburgh's commuters.

User avatar
wangi
[admin]
Posts: 3442
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37
Contact:

Post by wangi » 04 Mar 2009, 12:21

Grunk wrote:Shame the public transport routes aren't very useful for the majority of Edinburgh's commuters.
Hunch or fact?

Grunk
Posts: 244
Joined: 04 Jun 2008, 17:40

Post by Grunk » 04 Mar 2009, 12:58

Actually I had a look at the last census results, which makes the Halcrow report seem rather dubious.

Generally the Transport (bus) routes take a slow path to the city centre. Meaning that anyone who doesn't work in the city centre (about 30%) of the population has to go in then out again, or drive, which until recently was much faster.

So on a busy day, it could be 45mins-1hr to the city centre. 10 20 mins waiting for another bus then 45 mins out again.

It seems like public transport is only being improved relative to car travel (i.e. by making car travel worse).

Also it should be noted that around 20% of all routes go to Leith using (again until recently) The most appropriate road for bus/car co-existence due to it's width (leith walk).

Also one of the major reasons for not taking the south sub any further was that you would just move commuters from the buses to the trains. But this argument doesn't appear to hold true for moving commuters from buses to trams.

Bazza
Posts: 126
Joined: 03 Aug 2007, 16:41

Post by Bazza » 04 Mar 2009, 13:39

Don't forget us cyclists :-)

Porty to Leith in 20 mins.

seashell
Posts: 491
Joined: 01 Feb 2005, 20:41

Post by seashell » 04 Mar 2009, 14:15

Grunk wrote:Seems like the bus priority is already working (fair enough public transport should have priority).

I wonder how well the scheme will work when the traffic lights are controlling 5 full flows as opposed to the 2.5 on offer just now.

Shame the public transport routes aren't very useful for the majority of Edinburgh's commuters.
over the last 25 years I've noticed that people are moving farther and farther away from their place of work. Not so long ago, it was commonplace to have people driving in from Fife - now we see people driving in from Perth everyday.

And most of these people drive to work - adding to the congestion on city roads. ASk them to consider not driving and you'll be told that while they agree with the idea - it's just not practical for them.

Bus routes within the city are substantially unchanged from teh 70s when there were a lot people driving to work.

The main reason people drive to work is because it is convenient for them and they can't be btoehred to make the change to public transport! I have a 15 minute walk to the nearest bus stop giving access to the city - but I don't view that as an obstacle to using public transport. Walking is a cheap and effective way of keeping fit, after all.

User avatar
wangi
[admin]
Posts: 3442
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37
Contact:

Post by wangi » 08 Mar 2009, 13:32

wangi wrote: This happened today:
Lothian & Borders Police wrote:46-year-old cyclist seriously injured in collision

A cyclist is in a critical condition in hospital following a serious road collision that happened in Edinburgh earlier today (Wednesday).

The incident happened at around 10am, on Sir Harry Lauder Road, at the junction with Baileyfield Road.

The 46-year-old cyclist was travelling westwards on Sir Harry Lauder Road when he was in collision with a blue and grey Ford Escort Van.
...
Sadly the cyclist has died from his injuries. Police are still appealing for witnesses:
Lothian & Borders Police wrote:FATAL ROAD COLLISION, EDINBURGH - MAN NAMED.
Victim of road collision on Sir Harry Lauder Road from Portobello area

A 46-year-old man who was seriously injured in a road collision that happened in Edinburgh last month has died as a result of his injuries.

Thomas McKay, from Inchview Terrace in the Portobello area of the Capital, passed away at the Western General Hospital on Wednesday (March 4).

He had been receiving treatment for head injuries sustained in the collision on Harry Lauder Road on Wednesday, February 11.

The incident happened at around 10am, at the junction with Baileyfield Road. Mr McKay was riding his bicycle when he was in a collision with a blue and grey Ford Escort Van.

He was taken immediately to the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary before being transferred to the Western General.

Police are reiterating their appeal for anyone who witnessed the incident who hasn't yet got in touch to come forward.

Anyone with any information should contact Lothian and Borders Police on 0131 311 3131, or Crimestoppers in confidence and complete anonymity on 0800 555 111.
L/

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 08 Mar 2009, 14:01

If I recall that was the accident involving Lothian Buses. Wasnt it one of their service vehicles. Branded in the colours of the airport service bus.

BeachBum
Posts: 749
Joined: 06 Apr 2007, 16:19

Post by BeachBum » 30 Mar 2009, 18:06

From the email newsletter of Cllr Child.
Cllr Child, email shot 30-3-09 wrote:
Roadworks Will Not be Finished by April 3 – but April 13….
The latest on the road works is that they will NOT be finished by April 3, despite the head of transport’s previous confidence that it would. I have an email response from Marshall Poulton on Friday 27 March in which he says: “I can give you an absolute assurance that this junction will be opened up to traffic with the new signal control in operation by week commencing 13 April. The civils (sic) work for the new junction will be complete by Good Friday. Following that there will be testing and commissioning of the signals over the Easter weekend and I have issued firm instructions to ensure that this timetable is met.”

Post Reply