In the last ten years there have been three separate pedestrian-injury crashes reported in Rose Street, with seven persons injured in total, several seriously, all due to drivers of motor vehicles. There have been even more pedestrian injuries at the intersections of Rose Street with north-south streets such as Hanover Street.
Meanwhile, despite east to west cycling having been legal for many years, there were no Rose Street pedestrian injuries involving cyclists. Yet members of the Council’s notorious TRO Subcommittee decided (on a casting vote) that the comprehensive safety audit already undertaken to allow two-way cycle use was insufficient to pass the necessary Order without “further investigation.”
Whilst the debate was only on the cycling Order, one would hope that councillors (and objectors) concerned with pedestrian safety would have taken the opportunity to suggest that the Transport Committee looks into the real dangers evidenced by 7 injured pedestrians. Yet only one councillor, Cllr Staniforth, raised this disparity of concern.
Now hard-pressed council officers, rather than investigating real dangers, will have to spend more hours on another Rose Street report, to further reassure councillors on concerns such as the dangers arising when walkers and cyclists have to pass cafe chairs and tables, or street narrowings when roadworks etc are underway. Astonishingly, pedestrians and cyclists currently do somehow manage to cope with these fearsome hazards when travelling east to west!
At the Committee, officers repeatedly reassured councillors that a 2-stage comprehensive safety audit into allowing 2-way cycling had been undertaken, would be followed by a further audit soon after implemention, as per normal procedure, and that there would even be a fourth audit if problems were encountered at a later date. Repeatedly, officers had to remind councillors that east to west cycling had been in place for many years without reported incidents. And that in any case few cyclists would use this as a through route given its inconvenience – but it is valuable for access to shops and premises, and indeed bike parking is provided by the council and outside some shops.
Spokes agrees. Any cyclist wishing a through route between the west end and east end would use George Street or Princes Street. Rose Street is often busy; to reach and leave it you have to divert, sometimes with right-turns across traffic; and it is intersected by several north-south roads. But it is an important destination of local shops, restaurants and other businesses.
It was also notable that public comments in support of the Order were not referred to by councillors. Although the committee is there specifically to consider objections, the failure even to acknowledge support is hardly an encouragement to the public to participate in council decision-making.
We do note that the Committee was split, with 2-way cycling supported by 4 councillors and opposed by 4, and rejected (pending “further investigation”) only on the Convener’s casting vote.
Cllr Lang (with who we do not always agree!) summarised the debate very well, saying that given the low cycle use, no reported adverse incidents, and the safety audit, he could see no reason to oppose the officers’ recommendation to approve the Order. It appeared to him that the opponents were really not arguing about 2-way cycling but whether cycling should be allowed at all.
The Order in fact covered a batch of seven one-way streets where 2-way cycling is to be permitted, as the first phase of the Council’s policy to enable 2-way cycling in all one-way streets where it is safe to do so, or where measures can be installed to make it safe. The remaining streets were ok’d with no discussion, but Rose Street rejected meantime for (as we understand it) further investigation and a future report.
Whilst councillors on the subcommittee have a job to do in assessing objections, the deliberations and outcome on this Order leave a great deal to be desired. Similarly, the inordinate delays by the subcommittee over the Travelling Safely orders earlier this year again resulted in huge amounts of wasted officer time, and were close to scrapping the entire scheme by letting the Experimental Order expire. We thus have great sympathy with the (unsuccessful) Green attempt, at Full Council, to revamp the subcommittee.
As far as we are aware, Edinburgh is the only Scottish councils to use this approach to taking final decisions on traffic orders – a committee comprising councillors who in the main are not involved in transport, and not fully cognisant with the background of policy and development of the Orders, which all happens through the Transport Committee until this very final stage.
Why this article?
Enabling two-way cycling in Rose Street is not a major issue in the grand scheme of things. Indeed probably most people aren’t aware that cycling is legal only in one direction – or that this has been the position for, literally, decades.
But we are inspired to write for two reasons. One, the gross disparity yet again revealed in the levels of concern by some councillors about dangers posed by bicycles as compared to apparently lesser concern over the far greater dangers posed by motor traffic. Second, the continuing TRO subcommittee performance, its appalling waste of precious officer time in having to prepare further reports when there is little new to be said, and its divergence from the Transport and Environment Committee who are much more cognisant with the Orders, their rationale and their place in council policy.
What you can do
All we can suggest here is to keep reminding your councillors of the issues raised in this article – the role of the TRO subcommittee, and the need to take more seriously the dangers posed by motor traffic to pedestrians – and, indeed, to cyclists.
Resources
- Spokes bluesky thread of the subcommittee meeting
- Video of the subcommittee on 16 December
- The officers’ report
- Committee preview by Edi.Bike commenting in detail on the objection by Living Streets
- Blackford Safe Routes cycled to Tiso’s encountering several motor vehicles in Rose Street
- Crashmap.co.uk – shows injury crashes and vehicles involved
- September 2021 crash with five pedestrian injuries, some serious
- September 2020 crash with one serious pedestrian injury
- The table below shows UK figures for pedestrian casualties by traffic mode, extracted by Edi.Bike from official statistics. Whilst not minimising the anguish of any single death, it is notable that for every pedestrian death where a bike is involved (roughly 3 per year across the entire GB) there are well over 100 deaths involving cars – and (see full report) nearly 50 more involving larger vehicles.
