New Town<\/a>, and the busy street usually bustles with pedestrian activity.\u00a0<\/p>\nThis is why Edinburgh Living Streets, the New Town and Broughton Community Council (NTBCC), and the Edinburgh Access Panel claims that the plans for increased cycling traffic would represent a danger to pedestrians on the busy street.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The council, however, wants to remove restrictions to make cycling a more attractive proposition to Edinburgh residents.\u00a0<\/p>\n
If approved at the meeting of the council\u2019s TRO sub-committee tomorrow, two-way movement will be introduced on Cassel\u2019s Street, Circus Lane, Drummond Street, Richmond Lane, Roe Street, Simpson Loan, Thistle Street, and Wishaw Terrace.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Objections were also raised by the NTBCC and six other individuals to the proposals on Thistle Street, while a general objection was raised by the Edinburgh Access Panel to two-way cycle provision without dedicated segregation between pedestrians and cyclists.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In a report into the potential lifting of restrictions, the council officers said they hope to \u201cimprove the connectivity of the cycling network by creating more active travel links, improve road safety on one-way streets and associated junctions, facilitate growth in cycling by making it safer and more attractive, and reduce illegal behaviour by cyclists\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Responding to the specific complaints, officers said: \u201cCyclists are already legally permitted to travel along all of these streets in the same direction as vehicular traffic.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe proposals do not introduce cycling into any street where this does not already occur.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe risk of conflict on these streets between cyclists and pedestrians is considered to be low as cyclists are likely to be travelling at low speeds, for a variety of reasons, and advanced visibility is generally good.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cA stage two road safety audit (RSA) has been undertaken for the designs for all streets.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cA stage three RSA will be undertaken post-implementation.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe risk of any areas of poor surfacing distracting a cyclist are considered to be low as cyclists are likely to be travelling at low speeds and advanced visibility is generally good.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
On Rose Street specifically, they added: \u201cCyclists are already legally permitted to travel along Rose Street in the same direction as vehicular traffic.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile outdoor seating areas and street furniture do narrow the space at some locations, the RSA did not highlight this as a problem.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe risk of conflict is considered to be low as cyclists are likely to be travelling at low speeds, and advanced visibility is generally good.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
While the report and entailed actions still have to be agreed upon by councillors at tomorrow\u2019s meeting, the TRO has been recommended for approval.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In an open letter, the NTBCC, Living Streets, and the Edinburgh Access Panel said: \u201cRose Street is the closest thing that Edinburgh has to a pedestrianised street.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cCycling through the street, as opposed to accessing the shops and restaurants on it by bike, should be strongly discouraged.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cEncouraging cycling on this unique street would invite conflict with pedestrians, as has been widely acknowledged and especially create a more hostile space for older, disabled and blind people.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe risk of conflict and injury would be exacerbated by the likely proliferation of e-bikes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cSpace on this street is already restricted due the need to service the businesses operating on this street and due to the number of tables and chairs permits that have been granted.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cEven in the Netherlands and Copenhagen\u2019s famous Str\u00f8get, cycling on pedestrian shopping streets is discouraged \u2013 or prohibited entirely.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
Edi.bike, a newsletter discussing cycling news in Edinburgh, penned a response to Living Streets\u2019 and the NTBCC\u2019s complaints.<\/p>\n
It read: \u201cNaturally, rather than taking the opportunity to champion the rights of those travelling actively and noise up the council for less vehicular intrusion on Rose Street, Living Streets Edinburgh have penned an objection to the proposed introduction of two-way cycling on Rose Street, ignoring the many examples from across Europe where pedestrians and cyclists manage to coexist in the same space.<\/p>\n
\u201cSuch spaces include, but are not limited to, the very street they\u2019re claiming shouldn\u2019t have two-way cycling access, on which cycling is already permitted.<\/p>\n
Edi.bike went on to argue that Rose Street is a quiet \u201cnon-entity\u201d when it comes to cycling traffic, and that simply adding another direction for travel on the road won\u2019t make it a convenient or popular route for cycling.<\/p>\n
It concludes: \u201cThis won\u2019t be surprising to our readers, but at times of high footfall, it is generally easier and safer for all involved if the rider dismounts (for those who are able to).<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s also possible to cycle at a slower than walking space, to pause and wait for gaps or to give way, and generally co-exist. All of this happens already on Rose Street.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere is a real \u2018those others over there\u2019 vibe to a lot of this written objection \u2013 out there in the real world, user conflicts in public space are largely mitigated through our own humanity and compassion rather than requiring handwringing, policy-led mediation.<\/p>\n
\u201cNobody is looking to use Rose Street as their new commuting go-to.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe changes being proposed are consistent with elsewhere in the city, will enable certain cycling journeys more direct access to their destination, and otherwise are a tiny sliver of the active travel story in Edinburgh.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s exhausting to see so much hand-waving from folks over something with so little impact.\u201d<\/p>\n
The open letter from Living Streets, et al added a point about the RSA, noting that the audit has not yet been made public, and may not contain what it purports to contain: \u201cWe note that the report states that a stage two RSA has been performed and has not raised any concerns about the proposed implementation of these cycling exemptions including on Rose Street.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cThe results of the RSA are not included in the report to the sub-committee nor are these available on the council\u2019s website.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIt is therefore impossible for the public to assess whether the RSA has properly considered the risks to all users of this space including pedestrians.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
In the event of the exemptions\u2019 implementation, however, the council has pledged to install mitigation measures such as \u201cshare with care\u201d signs should there be reports of conflict between cyclists and pedestrians.<\/p>\n
\n\tRelated<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"PLANS to remove restrictions on cycling on Edinburgh\u2019s busy, pedestrian-heavy Rose Street have met local opposition.\u00a0 The local…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":635746,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8816],"tags":[748,4230,31018,1102,37802,146513,4884,196170,175229,196171,196172,712,196173,196174,16,15],"class_list":{"0":"post-635745","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-edinburgh","8":"tag-britain","9":"tag-cycling","10":"tag-cyclists","11":"tag-edinburgh","12":"tag-edinburgh-council","13":"tag-edinburgh-cyclists","14":"tag-great-britain","15":"tag-road-safety-audit","16":"tag-rose-street","17":"tag-rose-street-changes","18":"tag-rsa","19":"tag-scotland","20":"tag-traffic-regulation-order","21":"tag-tro","22":"tag-uk","23":"tag-united-kingdom"},"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@uk\/115728517946992600","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/635745","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=635745"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/635745\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/635746"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=635745"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=635745"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=635745"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"While](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/ROSE_STREET_CYCLING_DN01.jpg\"\/)
<\/a>While Rose Street can often seem like an entirely pedestrianised street, it is in fact not. Cars and cycles are permitted to travel down the street westbound (away from St David Street towards Hanover Street) at specific times (C) Google<\/p>\n