CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

ped/cycle crashes do happen

(192 posts)

  1. DdF
    Member

    [and some people do cycle too fast for the conditions]

    Of course, there are often also design issues, which is a separate though related point.

    Spokes has just received the following very politely-phrased email...

    Hello

    I wonder if you can help me on this.

    On Friday evening I was hit by a cyclist on the new cycle path linking Barnton Avenue East and Barnton Avenue West in Edinburgh.

    About half way down I heard the whoosh of a bike behind me, turned round and it was only about 5 metres away, going fast, about to be a direct hit!
    I thought “this is going to hurt”, and just had time to shift out of a head on collision and turn my hip towards the bike.
    It hit me hard and the cyclist came off hard too. He ended up with his legs in the frame and the front wheel twisted.
    He thought he had broken his leg, but it turned out to be OK.
    Bizzarely I managed to stay on my feet, it was a kind of heavy glancing blow, but my hip and neck are very sore.
    I was very lucky. I think I got off very lightly. If he’d caught me full on I daren’t think what would have happened.

    I had deliberately been on the very edge of the path actually on the line of the lights to ensure I kept the full way clear for bikes.

    I noticed he only had a wee flashing front light, which emitted virtually no beam.
    He then admitted he had been “going too fast”.
    I suspect as he had no beam he was tracking the lights of the path to guide him fast downhill and not looking up to see where he was going or what was in front of him.
    He said he had never seen anyone on the path at that time (5pm?)

    I’m telling you this because is that I believe there is an inherent design fault in the recent “improvement” works that have been carried out on that path.
    The “runway lighting” whilst very pretty definitely tempts cyclists to go fast. It looks like a race track.
    I think there should be 2 further chicanes down the path, similar to the one at the top so as to ensure cyclists are unable to build up any dangerous level of speed.
    Consideration should also be given to higher levels of raised lighting so pedestrians can be seen in the dark.
    The uplighters provide virtually zero visibility of pedestrians to cyclists.
    The red “speed bump” halfway down is completely insignificant and does not slow people down at all.
    The path is not segregated to cyclists/pedestrians like in The Meadows for example.

    A very valid point I would also like to make is that Royal High School pupils also use the path a lot. My eldest does.
    At this time of year it can be dark when they are returning home and their uniforms are black.
    So potentially they are invisible to cyclists.

    I would be surprised if my incident has been the first of its kind.

    My view is that the new design of the path with wide smooth tarmac and “runway” or “catwalk” lighting tempting speed down hill is a serious (or fatal) accident waiting to happen.

    I am not sure who to contact about this to have the matter reviewed?

    Can you please advise me what is the best way of having this matter reviewed as soon as possible?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  2. DdF
    Member

    I forgot to add - re all the talk of chicanes recently - the guy who was hit is suggesting more of them. Emails like this from members of the public are one of the reasons why councils install them. I don't agree with that solution, but this incident typifies why the council feels under pressure from both sides of the argument, and if there were to be a couple more similar incidents here I could see the council deciding to put more in.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  3. Morningsider
    Member

    How odd - I have never felt the need to write to the AA or RAC on seeing a traffic collision.

    I am also intrigued by the suggestion that a collision which may have been partly caused by poor lighting would be solved by chicanes, rather than improved lighting.

    Not excusing the cyclist here though - they are clearly at fault for having poor lighting and going too fast. That is the main cause of the collision (from the description above).

    Posted 9 years ago #
  4. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    If the 'uplighters' are anything like the canal towpath solar LEDs they may have made matters worse than they needed to be.

    Those lights seem to have encouraged unlit pedestrians and high speed cyclists, both convinced that they are safe when they are anything but.

    The answer is lit, segregated routes just like cars get.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  5. Lizzie
    Member

    when drivers don;t see cyclists I don;t notice them putting chicanes on the road to slow them down. If its not an appropriate solution there, its not here either.
    The guy on the bike was obviously going too fast, and he is not the only one doing that.
    But the thing about the lights is difficult. Loads of pedestrians (and cyclists) on the NEN complain about being blinded by over bright lights.
    Really cyclists should do what we ask drivers to do: slow down and respect the rights of other users to be there.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  6. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I think there should be 2 further chicanes down the path, similar to the one at the top so as to ensure cyclists are unable to build up any dangerous level of speed.

    While I sympathise with anyone who got hit by an errant cyclist, installing chicanes on a badly lit downhill is not the answer, unless the council wants claims from people with weak bike lights who slammed into a big hunk of metal...

    I'd also note that "people like us" have been pointing out that the Barnton "improvements" have quite a number of flaws/faults for some time, yet opinions offered to the council on the matter seem to offer little weight in getting such things sorted. Maybe a few deliberate (or staged) crashes into badly positioned / lit chicanes should get things sorted?

    Lighting "to be see by" rather than to guide the path route would be welcome on any secluded bit of path (for collision safety as well as generic crime prevention purposes). However I note even on well lit bits of path, darkly clad pedestrians and/or dark coloured dogs can be extremely hard to discern at night, often because of the lighting, not in spite of it. Cycling to the conditions should always be undertaken.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  7. DaveC
    Member

    Are you going to refer the pedestrian to the Council? as it is them who are responsible for this infrastructure?

    I would refer the pedestrian to Rule 3 of the Highway Code, and he should perhaps report the collision to the police. If they do an info stop for a couple of days on the entrances to the path, perhaps at 'rush hour morning and evening, this might educate a few dim cyclists.... err I mean Dimly lit cycles.

    But cosidering this is THE main thorough fare for cyclists commuting to and from North West Edinburgh, the council should reconsider the objections from locals about prohibiting street lighting on the link path. They can't have it both ways, no Street lights, and expect to walk along a busy unlit path, not wearing reflective clothing, at rush hour with out some consequences. Look at Cyclists now, almost all have some form of Flo/reflective cothing when its dark.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  8. fimm
    Member

    What would the Dutch do?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  9. sallyhinch
    Member

    The Dutch would have separate paths for cyclists and pedestrians, and wide enough for everyone.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    "re all the talk of chicanes recently"

    Most of it was about the that the ones at the bottom of the hill were forcing cyclists and peds together, when there's plenty room to do something a bit more sensible.

    I think 'we' also concluded that 'the interests of car owners in the last house' were also a factor/constraint.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  11. fimm
    Member

    @sallyhinch you and I know that... given that the gap between the houses at the far end is narrow and always going to remain narrow, at what point do the council have to accept that there's always going to be a problem here, even if you widened the rest of the path?

    When do we get the real solution of a cycle path that is wide enough for everyone all the way along its length?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  12. crowriver
    Member

    "The Dutch would..."

    The corollary is of course, what would the Brits do?

    Cave in to polite letters from residents who have been victims in collisions, and whack a few giant chicanes in there.

    Which is doubtless what will occur, if letters asking for them land on the Ttransport Convener's desk...

    Sigh.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  13. panyagua
    Member

    Given that we're only going to see a 'low cost' solution, I'd rather they removed the path lights than stick chicanes in. Then the situation would be as it was before: cyclists would need adequate lights to see by (or go *really* slow), and pedestrians would need a torch to see where they are going. The 'runway' lights *seemed* a good idea (and I don't think anyone foresaw this), but their unintended consequences should give pause for thought. Now of course, if they delineated a *segregated* path, with a pedestrian-only path to the side... <dreams>

    Posted 9 years ago #
  14. Lizzie
    Member

    seemingly the accident happened about 'half way along' the path. Its more than wide enough at that point for pedestrians and cyclists to pass one another in comfort.
    The writer did not say the cyclist should have brighter lights, more that the path should be better lit (which is a good point- a lot of the NEN is lit) and this in itself does away with the need for overly bright bike lights on shared use (or even segregated)paths which are blinding for all but the user.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  15. ih
    Member

    I'm asking this in a very neutral way; is there any evidence that this accident happened? It seems the person who was hit had some time to discuss details with the cyclist. Did they get a name; could they describe the cyclist or his bike? If I had been hit badly, I would be mad as hell, and I wouldn't take it any more, at least not with just a polite letter to Spokes. Is there any way of investigating this further?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  16. Instography
    Member

    That'll be it - made up. It's a conspiracy. I'm mocking this in a neutral way.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  17. ih
    Member

    At the risk of straying a little from neutrality, it is a distinct possibility that the situation was embellished. When it seems to be the case that all it needs is one complaint and cycle friendly infrastructure gets changed, often to the detriment of those whom the complainant is concerned about, I don't think this should be accepted unquestioningly. Where's the Evening News when we need a bit of investigative journalism?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  18. Snowy
    Member

    Where's the Evening News when we need a bit of investigative journalism?

    Indeed, I do wonder.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  19. Instography
    Member

    Just guessing but I'd imagine that if you were an enemy of cycling and wanted to raise a stink based on a non-story the Evening News would be your first port of call. You'd hardly need to embellish anything - they'd do that for you. Happily. A near miss would be more than enough. You'd get the front page what with infirm pensioners and school children being at risk from cyclists careering down a hill without a thought for anyone else.

    Instead, we have a polite email to Spokes. What would you speculate is the motivation for lying to Spokes?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  20. stredin
    Member

    While of course it is possible that the account may be fabricated, partially or otherwise, I see no reason to doubt it - it rings true to me, having experience of this stretch most mornings and evenings. I think it's perfectly reasonable that the person didn't get details after - after being shaken up by an incident like this you're not necessarily going to do everything that seems sensible in the cold light of day.

    Anyway, IMHO the obvious solution to the clashes on this stretch (and indeed further in through Barnton and Drylaw) is a properly segregated cycle route along the A90, where there's plenty road space and a more direct route for commuters. That would leave the current (very pleasant) route to walkers and leisure cyclists. Will be waiting a while I know . . .

    Posted 9 years ago #
  21. PS
    Member

    The answer is clearly a segregated facility along the A90, in line with the council's very own (draft) street design guidance:

    Recommended = Mandatory lanes or Separated Lanes where appropriate/feasible (Particular at Higher Traffic Volumes/ Speeds)
    Pages 64 and 70, perhaps?

    Posted 9 years ago #
  22. Kenny
    Member

    it seems to be the case that all it needs is one complaint and cycle friendly infrastructure gets changed

    Although some people may believe this, it doesn't make it true. Does anyone have evidence that this happens? Getting the council to do anything costing significant funds based on one complaint doesn't seem likely.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  23. ih
    Member

    I think you missed my irony on the Evening News Insto.

    It might be true that this was a case of careless cycling, but in all my cycling on the north Edinburgh paths, I have never seen a cyclist putting pedestrians at risk. I've only cycled the Barnton path a couple of times and then it was practically deserted. I can think of several reasons that someone might want to degrade the cycling aspect of this shared path. With so much dislike of cyclists it might be they just don't want cyclists on what was previously a quiet footpath; they might be frightened for their eldest at the Royal High (have there been any accidents with schoolkids?) People seem to be intimidated by bikes even though the stats show a very low level of pedestrian/cyclist crashes. I take as read that this forum wouldn't want any review that introduces more chicanes - one is enough - or any other changes that would simply slow cyclists for a few yards and put them in more conflict with pedestrians? So cyclists need a way of dealing with issues like this and engaging with pedestrians so that we can share paths safely. Surely the answer to these problems isn't segregation always, because that isn't going to happen for some time. There's too much them and us.

    A thought from the letter. If this pedestrian was walking at the edge by the lights, is it likely that the cyclist was cycling near the lights as well. I would be in a more central position, and the path is quite wide there. However, I approve of strict liability, so if this happened as stated the cyclist was automatically at fault for not riding defensively enough.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  24. "when drivers don;t see cyclists I don;t notice them putting chicanes on the road to slow them down. If its not an appropriate solution there, its not here either."

    So the 20mph zones, speed bumps, road narrowings, speed cameras... Okay, none are actually 'chicanes', but all are measures intended to try to slow down drivers.

    "If I had been hit badly, I would be mad as hell, and I wouldn't take it any more, at least not with just a polite letter to Spokes."

    I got hit by a car. I got nothing. Not a single detail. Mind you, I also didn't get mad, I was just kind of 'confused' as to what had happened when I was in plain sight. But definitely got nothing (so just as well my cursory check over of the bike was right in determining nothing had been damaged otherwise I had no comeback).

    I'm with Insto and stredin on this one.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  25. ih
    Member

    Sorry to hear you were hit by a car WC.

    So when you say you're with Insto and stredin, do you mean you believe it happened as stated, or are you with them on a particular approach to the problem? It might have happened exactly as told, but what's the answer? One response would be to emphasise over and over, how few incidents between cyclists and pedestrians there are compared with vehicle/pedestrian, or vehicle/cyclist. And then infrastructure improvements; better lighting definitely (the letter mentions this), but chicanes, counter-productive.

    Cyclists and pedestrians have many common interests, and it ought to be possible to build on them, not antagonise each other.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  26. SRD
    Moderator

    I've heard many people make claims about how they were hit by cyclists, many of which I think were exaggerated. This letter does not sound like that.

    There is also the post on another thread asking if anyone knew about it (I suppose this could be so done who heard via spokes).

    Doesn't read like a made up story to me. Surprised even to see it suggested tbh.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  27. I'm tired, I've had whisky, I've just deleted a long post. It's for the best, trust me.

    All I'll say just now is that you're right, there's a bit too much 'them and us' - but perhaps an immediate assumption that someone complaining about a cyclist must have an alternative agenda, or that it's fabricated, is just as much as symptom of that 'them and us' situation as if there was such a tale fabricated.

    (I'm with Insto and stredin on believing this to be genuine, and like SRD, there's just something about this that seems utterly genuine - it's more 'concern about a situation' than 'frothing hatred').

    Posted 9 years ago #
  28. Instography
    Member

    I think when he's with me, he means he interprets the scenario as I do and rejects your neutral insinuation that the letter writer is cooking up a story to fit up cyclists.

    No, the response isn't to say how infrequent pedestrian / cyclist collisions are. That's how you come across as excusing the inadequately lit speeding clown who crashed into a pedestrian on an unlit path. You come across as refusing to acknowledge the obvious problem of cyclists bombing down a hill that people have been complaining about for ages. Just the same as the response to speeding isn't to say how infrequently people are killed (relative to the proportion of drivers who speed) by speeding drivers. Or the answer to cyclists being killed by lorries isn't to emphasise how many cyclists aren't killed by lorries.

    Chicanes may well be counter-productive (although that very much depends on your view of what "productive" looks like) but this is where these clowns are taking us. I feel no need to stick up for them. I have no solidarity with these guys. These are who make us all look like clowns. Personally, I don't mind chicanes. I'm in no hurry to get anywhere. I have no Strava times to beat and no illusions of glory in a fictional maillot jaune.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  29. gembo
    Member

    The original letter writer certainly more measured than this thread has become. assuming anything is real. Can we take a deep breathe and step away from the vehicle. Come on CHdot fermer Le marmite.

    Posted 9 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    'We' have 'developed' a 'policy' of not speculation on the cause of road crashes (particularly involving cyclists).

    Perhaps that should apply here.

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin