I'm with Insto et al too, having speculated as to the cause on the other thread (before this thread was started) and being proved right. There is undoubtedly a temptation to go too fast down there now there are lights on the path to guide the way, and the cyclist at fault has succumbed to that temptation. It's all too easy to see how it happened, with the benefit of hindsight, and the letter rings true to me. In this case, the cyclist is clearly at fault, and 'we' can only hope that both the letter writer and the council don't lump 'us' all together with the numpty - they wouldn't if it were a car driver at fault, so they shouldn't when it's a cyclist. </preaching to the converted>
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
ped/cycle crashes do happen
(192 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
Sometimes this forum is so agonisingly middle class :-)
I'm going to stick my neck out here as someone who *has* been brutally smashed into the undergrowth by a speeding cyclist and has the video to prove it.
There's very little evidence of anything here, except that the protagonist writes a good letter, sensibly avoiding the kind of phrasing that would mark it out as a troll to the target audience.
A media outlet with a different agenda could spin this completely the other way. A pedestrian scofflaw who doesn't care to follow the Highway Code and make themselves visible to other users of said highway is hit by someone with a perfectly legal lighting system, possibly to their lasting injury, and then spins up a tale that the accident they caused was actually due to the other party travelling too fast, rather than their own failure to comply.
I find it impossible to pass up the observation that the cyclist was travelling so fast that it was possible for the protagonist to hear them approaching, turn around, see them, and partly (although sadly, unsuccessfully) move aside.
It doesn't sound like they were going any faster (probably significantly slower) than every member of this forum that I've had the pleasure of observing on the paths.
It's hard to completely defend the cyclist as they really ought to be able to stop in the distance they can see to be clear, but at the same time I find myself wondering if the present company would be so quick to fall over ourselves defending someone who was hit walking on an unlit road, rather than an unlit path. Probably, if the second party was an evil driver and we could rally around to lash them with our righteous disapproval?
I've come around to chicanes (providing they are disability compliant) since I've realised that getting through them at speed makes my commute a whole lot more interesting. The one at Westburn is a work of art that still defeats me sometimes.
However, just because we can put up with them doesn't mean they aren't a massive failure of provision for people travelling around. I used to do almost all my shopping by bike trailer, but despite having paths that connect our "new" house with a giant Tesco and a giant Sainsbury's (in different directions), poor path provision in the form of chicanes and barriers means that we drive for all our shopping.
I'm rambling on so I'll stop. The obvious thing to take from this letter is that the path should either be lit, or unlit, and not provided with "follow me and you'll be OK" studs which just encourage pedestrians and cyclists to travel without respectable illumination.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Insto - what's Strava got to do with anything here? Fast stupid cyclists will cycle stupid and fast with or without strava.
Posted 9 years ago # -
... although I will just add that I think only two more chicanes is lacking in ambition. Spokes could take the initiative here and call for the council to do one of two things:
- turn the path into a fish-ladder of continuous chicanes
- have a bylaw passed to make it illegal to cycle on the path.I'm not sure which I prefer. Frankly I think a fish ladder of hundreds of chicanes might turn it into a tourist attraction (not necessarily a good thing), but a bylaw to prohibit cycling offers more potential, since we could then lie in wait to catch members of this forum flouting the ban?
Either way, it would be idyllic for law-abiding and god-fearing peds and cyclists. Why should we mind five or ten minutes walking in the morning, unless we're on a hell-raising, Strava-fuelled (and probably class A drug fuelled) mission of danger?
Apropos of Strava maniacs, I pulled up the numbers and the average chap to speed downhill on this stretch of cycle path yesterday was doing a vicious 14.3mph - someone should be calling the police on these guys!
Posted 9 years ago # -
Dave - all by-laws need to be compliant with Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 access rights. You can't ban cyclists from using paths through by-laws.
Is it really so bad (or "middle class")that most people here have taken the letter at face value? I have no idea whether the event described ever took place. I can certainly imagine that it did. This isn't the first time that concerns about this path have been raised.
I don't think chicanes are the answer, better lighting might help. Ultimately, it is up to every cyclist to cycle to the conditions and within their abilities.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@chdot
Your post suggesting we shouldn't speculate appeared while I was composing my post in which I admitted to speculating on another thread, so I offer my apologies for doing so on this forum.
Having said that, I'd like to believe that most people on this forum who ride that section would have an adequate front light to see by, and would limit their speed such that they could stop if necessary, within the distance that they illuminate. The onus is on the cyclist to be able to see where they are going and avoid obstacles (living or otherwise).
To turn this around a bit: If a cyclist were hit by a driver who 'couldn't see' the cyclist (perhaps because they were 'blinded by the sun'), and the cyclist wasn't wearing hi-viz and a helmet, we'd cry 'victim blaming' if the media/courts decided the cyclist was at fault. After all, it's not illegal to walk along an unlit path with dark clothing, even if it is unwise.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Kenny
The chicane at Balgreen tram stop was erected after the complaints/whims of a few 'concerned locals'. See http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=13275
@Rest of the world
The original letter seems a little inconsistent:
First they describe what sounds like a serious crash - 'nearly' a broken leg, buckled front wheel, sore neck/hips.
Then they go on to state (my bold):
tempting speed down hill is a serious (or fatal) accident waiting to happen
So they consider this to only be a minor incident?
The fact is, that with only one side of the story and no account from the other person involved nor any witnesses, it is impossible to know exactly what happened.
For example (and I'm not implying this is what happened) it is entirely possible the cyclist was nudged/pushed.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I suppose could be part of a legal defence just in case. The man knocks the cyclist off then writes a letter to spokes so that he can latter use in court
Just in in case.Posted 9 years ago # -
@ panyagua
Don't worry.
I was just (sort of) responding to Gembo.
I'm just fascinated by the conspiracy theorising...
Posted 9 years ago # -
The style of the original letter (gramatically correct but overblown, mundane but tediously embellished) leads me to the conclusion that the complainant is JK Rowling.
Posted 9 years ago # -
here's a completely different theory - it is all a social experiment, carefully planned after observing our various discussions to see how we all react.
I'm with panaguaya - blaming the pedestrian for apparently not wearing hiviz and 'walking on the lights' is victim-blaming of the worst sort, and unworthy of us all.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I love the idea that this could form part of someone's research. It would be better than yet another questionnaire that's so badly designed even laymen start complaining about it! :D
If we really don't want to speculate, then I think we need to wait for the other side of the story so that there is some balance. If the cyclist is as literate as our original protagonist then it will surely make a fascinating debate - what if they reveal a GPS trace showing they were only going at walking speed, for instance?
(The irony of the last paragraph is a joy)
Posted 9 years ago # -
Good grief, you leave a thread for a night and suddenly there's a sniper behind the grassy knoll.
Not sure there's much point in continuing this particular debate.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Not sure there's much point in continuing this particular debate."
Posted 9 years ago # -
The cyclist is at fault as they ran into the back of someone else the reasons for it may be wide and varied but regardless of the reasons you shouldn't smack into the back of someone else.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I await the EEN article (as we all know they read this forum) in which a ped was nearly killed by a cyclist. The commenters will have a field day. Sigh.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Earthowned asked me what Strava's got to do with it. The specific case: nothing as far as I know. More generally, I was using it as a signifier for people who batter around paths indifferent to the effect of their zooming through small gaps or tucked in descending. Although I use Strava all the time, I was using it to distinguish between ordinary cyclists and people who ride on shared paths like they're chasing KOMs.
Strava gives us useful data though. On the Strava segment RHS to dip the top 300 on the 'leaderboard' all average over 20mph for the whole segment. On individual rides, in the section through the golf courses the speed seems to be around 30mph at the bottom of the dip (even since the installation of the chicane. You can see the speed drop to 5-6mph at the chicane and rapidly increase).
So, we shouldn't be surprised to find that even people not chasing KOMs will be travelling at around 30mph by the time they reach the red lights and speed bumps, especially on the smooth, wide version we have now. I don't find it surprising that someone literally flying blind into that dip at that speed hit someone.
I really am struggling to see what is achingly middle class about not sympathising with someone who rides unlit along an unlit path into a pedestrian. Instead of demanding incontrovertible evidence I'll presume when that kind of thing happens that the liability lies with the cyclist who seems to be doing everything wrong here.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I'm filled with the urge to actually go there tonight and step out in front of people dressed all in black, but unfortunately my kit is all reflective so there's no real prospect it would educate anyone.
Can it really not be made walking-only due to the LRA? They could presumably just block it up to everyone though?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Not sure if this has been suggested already, but is there a possibility it might just have been an accident and neither are at fault?! It does happen and no infrastructure or legislation can prevent any or all incidents. I use that path most days, even with my strong light the visibility is not great. It's an unlit path with overhanging trees and unless we enforce high vis for peds we will come across them unexpectedly. I'd also add that the leaf mulch does prevent you from gaining any significant speed down there just now.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Sorry mate, I didn't see you. That sort of 'accident'?
Posted 9 years ago # -
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" - I'm not speculating on what happened or apportioning blame. So please dont try to turn my opinion into a wider argument on SMIDYS with cars/cyclists.
Posted 9 years ago # -
" I'd also add that the leaf mulch does prevent you from gaining any significant speed down there just now."
Can we get some of that sort of leafmulch on the rest of the NEPN? The stretch parallel to Ferry Road only has the other kind, which people can still go far too fast on.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Yesterday's experimentation on the way home with a good, solid beam bike light on both lit and unlit sections of path is that it's still nearly always very difficult to spot the pedestrians, even those who don't sport the near universal fashion at this time of year of long, dark coats.
As a cyclist I think if your field of visibility is restricted to 5 or 10m you should be riding at a speed which allows you to pull to a stop in the available space.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@wingpig - I was suggesting that it slows you down on the basis traction and lateral grip are far less than a clear path. That is all.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@deckard112 I was implying that the presence of slidey leafmulch does nothing to slow down people who do not care to be slowed down by the mere lack of a grippy surface.
Posted 9 years ago # -
There's a nice unlit section on the Dalmeny path that TractorFactory and I were bimbling along yesterday with our lit street lights on and it wasn't until I fired up my 1200 lumens that we saw the two women in their beige overcoats a short distance ahead.
Unlit, unsegregated (not just line separated) paths are dangerous places to mix pedestrians and cyclists. Make all the excuses you like but until someone starts lighting and segregating, to me, the onus is on the faster object to control themselves.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Reminds me of the recent case of a driver who was "blinded by sun", didn't see a cyclist and hit him at a great enough speed to kill him. He didn't drive to the conditions and was rightfully given a kicking (on cycling forums if not the courts).
If we expect drivers to look out for those more vulnerable than them, then we as cyclists should look out for those who are more vulnerable than us. It may mean slowing down to walking pace, but c'est la vie.
On the other hand, the wearing of hi-vis clothing for peds seems to be advocated by some cyclists (not necessarily in this parish), who are willing to describe as victim-blaming any mention of "less-visible" cyclists involved in incidents with cars.
Posted 9 years ago # -
If we expect drivers to look out for those more vulnerable than them, then we as cyclists should look out for those who are more vulnerable than us. It may mean slowing down to walking pace, but c'est la vie.
On the other hand, the wearing of hi-vis clothing for peds seems to be advocated by some cyclists (not necessarily in this parish), who are willing to describe as victim-blaming any mention of "less-visible" cyclists involved in incidents with cars.
This is a fair point, but as you say many are sadly hypocritical in the way they apply the principal.
Personally I demand that people don't crash into me (however I'm travelling) but I don't think it's unreasonable to take some basic steps on my own behalf.
Away from streetlights, I don't feel I would have any recourse against a driver who hit me at night if I didn't have lights, or, if I was on foot, at least some reflectives. It would be ludicrous to hold cyclists to a higher standard than drivers when the risk they pose is so much lower, so I think at most the same applies when they are the second party.
The sun in the eyes example is a poor one, because to proceed when you know you can't see due to the sun is quite different to proceeding when your legally-required complement of lighting isn't picking anything out for you to worry about.
Even in the honeyed promised land of presumed liability, I think it's quite likely that being completely unlit on an unlit thoroughfare and getting hit by traffic is going to play out with a result that the driver/cyclist will find quite agreeable.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@dave
"Personally I demand that people don't crash into me (however I'm travelling) but I don't think it's unreasonable to take some basic steps on my own behalf."
sums it up for me...
Posted 9 years ago # -
The sun in the eyes example is a poor one, because to proceed when you know you can't see due to the sun is quite different to proceeding when your legally-required complement of lighting isn't picking anything out for you to worry about."
Unless you know that despite being legally compliant your bean only goes 5 - 10 yards in front? Does this not fall into riding to the conditions, which is what we expect drivers to do, otherwise you're basically suggesting that cyclists only have to comply with the legal minimum and if they do that they have no other responsibilities...
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
