CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure

ped/cycle crashes do happen

(192 posts)

1…345…7

  1. Dave
    Member

    If I was responsible for paying out personally for the costs of injuries incurred on the path, I wouldn't bother with chicanes but would remove the lights.

    I think at the moment with coal-black peds using the studs to feel their way along the path, forcing everyone to cross paths repeatedly would present a high risk for collisions as riders would be focused on not crashing into the metalwork and even less likely to spot a black cat in a coal cellar.

    Based on sitting watching the path last night, almost no riders were going significantly faster than they'd be going to negotiate chicanes anyway. I could easily imagine numerous collisions though - not a single rider was going slowly enough to avoid me if I'd stood in their path, (probably including everyone on CCE who commutes on this path - although I wasn't there for all of rush hour I suppose :-)

    Removing the studs would force pedestrians (and cyclists) to use lights that enabled them to see by, and therefore eliminate the possibility of the collision in the OP.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  2. Roibeard
    Member

    @sally Of course a really reckless cyclist might just treat it as a jump

    I have to confess to "enjoying" the speedbumps around the Inch... Bromptons can fly!

    Except on the Bullitt, as it seems to be just the wrong wheelbase to take them smoothly.

    Naturally, all within the statutory speed limit pertaining at these points...

    Robert

    Posted 9 years ago #

  3. Ed1
    Member

    How much of a problem are these type crashes. Even if this letter is straightforward as the incident happened maybe it’s a 1 in a million or is or is it a 1 in 10 chance.

    Even with the best infrastructure there may be some crashes.

    In theory if had the best infrastructure and there was a crash and changed infrastructure may result in more crashes so in theory if had the best infrastructure, the safest , if was a crash best thing to do would be nothing.

    Although of course this may not be best and may be the lights played a role would there be more crashes with no lights different types of crashes.

    I don’t know this part of the cycle network but when cycled canal last night with the runway lights did wonder how many people have avoided falling in the canal as a result of the lights.

    Although the run way lights may play some role in some types or crashes, with no runway lights could there be more crashes etc?

    The runway lights may do more good than harm, how many crashes of different types have been avoided becuase of the lights.

    Poltically and to much less extentlegally could be considered "Trolley problem". If the council make improvments even if do more good than harm people consider an accident caused through action, the council faults, the people that dont crash as the improvment dont know they would have etc.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  4. SRD
    Moderator

    love the logic dave. shall we ask CEC to remove all our streetlights, and equip all pedestrians with headlamps? am sure it would be very popular with the EEN.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  5. PS
    Member

    Well, it would save money.

    Lights out for darker skies.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "Well, it would save money"

    Are they not solar ones like on the canal?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  7. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    What are we going to do if there's another Blitz? Go round and beat all the solar LEDs to death with a hammer?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  8. PS
    Member

    I meant the streetlights. I should probably have added a ;-) as well.

    ;-)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  9. chdot
    Admin

    Ah...

    "Lights out for darker skies."

    When Sue Tritton was a councillor she did quite a lot to make sure that new CEC streetlights had 'shades' to reduce upward light polution.

    She worked at the Observatory.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  10. SRD
    Moderator

    @iwrats did you not read http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=2696#post-28700 ?

    (Decoy landing lights on canal? Hun bombers sighted!")

    Posted 9 years ago #

  11. Dave
    Member

    Although the run way lights may play some role in some types or crashes, with no runway lights could there be more crashes etc?

    The runway lights may do more good than harm, how many crashes of different types have been avoided becuase of the lights.

    The "problem" (a good problem I suppose) is that there are basically no crashes serious enough to report, so no way of comparing before and after.

    The protagonist in the OP claims that things are worse than before (when the path had no lights) though, and I can imagine arguments either way, so pulling them out would get my vote.

    Maybe an e-petition? The council have a petitions site, I think - I could start one up asking for the path to be returned to previous condition?

    Posted 9 years ago #

  12. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @SRD

    Ah yes, possible subconscious reference there.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  13. gembo
    Member

    So, does any of this discussion help Dave De Feu draft a response to the injured pedestrian who was walloped by a cyclist who is reported to have said "he was going too fast"?

    Note I have applied Occam's razor to the more convulted discussion and returned to the actual point (Ok, alright already, I know it is not like me but one should always expect the unexpected, that is why I imagine this thread will be finished some time in 2015)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  14. jdanielp
    Member

    There is more use of the sections of the canal towpath that have been 'upgraded' with LED lighting at night than I remember there being when it was dark. I would say that the majority of 'new' pedestrians make little to no effort to wear reflective clothing and/or carry lights. It is quite possible that the majority of the 'new' cyclists are contributing to the overly bright light issue, although that is more difficult to gauge. In any case, the lights seem to give people misguided confidence in the ability to navigate the path safely.

    Despite the fact that I upgraded my lights last year, although I intentionally operate them in a compromised way such that I gain the maximum benefit while causing minimum disruption to others, I generally find myself having to cycle slower after dark now in an attempt to avoid potential collisions, whether that be a result of too little or too much light. In any case, I have experienced enough near misses that I feel that it is increasingly becoming a case of hoping for the best...

    Better lighting, for example to the level found at the section at Wester Hailes where no LED lights were even installed, would drastically improve the issue, but it would also seem somewhat over the top, especially for the sections of the towpath that are set away from any buildings. Removing the LED lights, on the other hand, would be a massive waste of resources given that most of them have only just been installed in the last year.

    In summary, there is a definite issue but I'm not sure what the reaction, if any, should be. If everyone wore reflectives and used sensible lights it would be fine.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  15. stiltskin
    Member

    So, does any of this discussion help Dave De Feu draft a response to the injured pedestrian who was walloped by a cyclist who is reported to have said "he was going too fast"?
    "It appears this individual was going too fast for the lighting conditions & is responsible for the collision. It is impossible to engineer every single road or cycle path to physically prevent inconsiderate/dangerous road use by those who use them. If you are worried about the situation you might like to consider carrying a torch on an unlit shared use path, although of couse you are not obliged to do so and not carrying one does not excuse this particular cyclist's behaviour."

    Posted 9 years ago #

  16. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @gembo

    The reply is simple enough;

    Dear Ms Rowling,

    I cannot help you on this.

    Yours & Co.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  17. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    That's not bad stiltskin (better than [Jimmy Nail] You're lyin' [\JN].

    I suspect the writer will still consider that there should be chicanes, but carrying atorch is a beat, cheap, easy solution.

    @gembo, I'm playing nice, you'd have hated the stuff I wrote and deleted... ;)

    Posted 9 years ago #

  18. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @gembo

    The reply is simple enough;

    Dear Ms Rowling,

    I cannot help you on this.

    Yours & Co.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  19. algo
    Member

    It would be nice to impose a total order on vehicles through which assertions could be expected to behave monotonically -- cars > bikes > pedestrians. Thus cars should give space and slow down for bikes, and bikes should give space and slow down for pedestrians. In this way it's clearly the fault of the cyclist.

    The problem is that we do impose the assertion that a cyclist should be seen by cars at night, but we don't impose the assertion that a pedestrian be seen by a cyclist a night. Thus this is isn't quite equivalent to a classic SMIDSY. We all complain about ninja cyclists on roads - but not about unlit pedestrians on shared use paths. Of course it would be unreasonable and victim blaming to impose lighting on pedestrians - I'm just pointing out that certain analogies don't quite work.

    While I see this as the cyclist's fault, I genuinely wonder if even when cycling slowly I might hit an unlit pedestrian on this section in the dark. I'd like to think not, but from what Dave says I suspect I wouldn't be going slowly enough - I reckon I'm pretty average.

    As you can tell I don't have any suggestions - just confusion. I like stiltskin's reply to JK Rowling - I fear the brevity of @IWRATS is politically motivated.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  20. Greenroofer
    Member

    @algo, but isn't the point here that it's up to us as careful, thoughtful and considerate cyclists to travel at a speed that means we can stop in the distance we can see to be safe. If even when cycling 'slowly' I think I might hit an unlit pedestrian/dog/duck/log/rope ned-stretched across the path then I am going too fast.

    I do stand by my earlier point that 'stop' does include 'emergency stop' in its definition. The sole success criterion for me is that the obstacle is not hit...

    I like @stiltskin's reply too, although I might be tempted to tweak it slightly to include something like "In the situation you describe" at that start and end to allow for the possibility (unlikely, and already done to death here) that the situation was not in fact exactly as described.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  21. algo
    Member

    @Greenroofer - absolutely you're right and I'm sure we all attempt to cycle responsibly like that. I think I'm trying to admit that even when going as slowly as I think is required to be able to stop, I may still get it wrong…. if they aren't exactly in my beam and appear from the side for example.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  22. paddyirish
    Member

    I think the emergency stop scenario is a good one. But if we apply it to the letter, is cycling at much faster than walking pace in the dark actually practical? Take the case of someone jumping out right in front of a cyclist as Dave mentioned mischievously. What if it actually happened? Is there a line? Where is it? Would anyone want to be a test case?

    ***bad taste alert - look away if squeamish***

    Take this to an extreme of an express train driver driving through a non-stopping station....

    Posted 9 years ago #

  23. Greenroofer
    Member

    @algo. Yup, completely agree. I think we can excuse ourselves, though, if someone leaps out in front of us. If some higher power injects something (deer, grand piano, meteorite) into our safe stopping zone, then there's sometimes going to be nothing we can do.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  24. Greenroofer
    Member

    ...and to @paddyirish's point, ultimately we just have to accept that if we are ever going to travel at reasonable speed anywhere.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  25. gembo
    Member

    ok, ok IWRATS - your JK conclusion a mile and a half back up stream was funny. I should have said so.

    On the stiltskin response, DDF should add

    Please note Carrying a torch or wearing bright lights will of course not stop some of these speeding cyclists from smacking in to you. Sorry, they are just like the speeding drivers we like to complain about but we decline to apply the same logic to ourselves.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  26. wingpig
    Member

    Dear crashed-into person,

    First, allow us to express our distress at the unpleasantness wrought upon you. We unfortunately cannot apologise on the behalf of (nor accept responsibility for) the oaf who ran into you, but please be assured that courteous cyclists do exist and despair at such whooshing stupidity.

    The best point of contact would be the council department responsible for planning/consulting on works such as these. Unfortunately [insert cycling campaign name here] cannot publicly admit that it has access to a hotline to the special department in the council which is instructed to respond immediately to the every whim of the all-powerful Cycling Lobby, despite the contrary assertions of the less-balanced contributors to the comment boards on the Evening News.

    It is possible that the more 'unobtrusive' or less 'visible' and 'effective' lighting solution chosen for this section of the path was selected after griping from golfers and their clubs' spokespeople, who might have claimed that bright streetlights on that section of that path would have interfered with their important golf-playing, with negative (if not disastrous) consequences for the economy of the entire world and the concomitant well-being of its citizens. Then again, maybe it was wildlifey people worried that hedgehogs, badgers and foxes would be unwilling to cross the path if it was too brightly-lit, leading to builds-up of such primarily-nocturnal species against the fences at either side. Maybe it was just that the council didn't trust Crummock to install streetlighting without screwing it up in some way and so modified the tender requirements before publishing them, working on the assumption that it would be Crummock's bid that would be accepted, as usual.

    If this should happen again please ensure you record the name of the perpetrator.

    Mind how you go now.

    [insert cycling campaign name here].

    Posted 9 years ago #

  27. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    @gembo

    That's better. Thank you.

    @algo

    Ah, no. I welcomed JK's intervention in our affair. Reasoned case, she lives here, much right as me etc. I did want to see her out knocking doors in faintly urine-scented closes, but that's a long standing fantasy.

    @wingpig

    I like.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  28. Dave
    Member

    I think the emergency stop scenario is a good one. But if we apply it to the letter, is cycling at much faster than walking pace in the dark actually practical? Take the case of someone jumping out right in front of a cyclist as Dave mentioned mischievously. What if it actually happened? Is there a line? Where is it? Would anyone want to be a test case?

    I think the general view aired here is that we don't want drivers to get off if someone steps out from between parked cars. Applying the same standard, it would seem fair that someone should be able to step out from behind a tree (or towpath bridge, whatever) without being maimed.

    Nobody I watched yesterday was travelling slowly enough to avoid a collision. Even the people riding uphill would have been easy pickings for a presumed-liability staged collision on my part.

    I have been musing about the "be able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear" thing. It seems to be a get-out for all kinds of stuff. A motorist pulls out in front of me - tells me I should have been able to stop in the distance that was clear. How is this not the same as saying a motorist driving past parked cars has to be going slowly enough to avoid someone stepping out from between them?

    As for replying to the OP, I'm sure Spokes must have form letters for all the "yours in outrage, Friends of Something" letters that get sent in.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  29. stiltskin
    Member

    Sorry Dave, but I think you are just wilfully misunderstanding the situation: But if you aren't then here is the explanation:
    You are confusing two issues: You need to drive or ride such that you can stop in the distance you can see. If you can see 50 yards, and something appears in your way inside that distance, then it isn't your fault if you hit it. The exception to this is if you could reasonably expect something to appear. So if you are driving down a residential street, it is not unreasonable for a child to run out from behind a parked car. It is an event which is sufficiently expected that a prudent driver/rider should allow for it. People jumping out from behind trees onto a cycle path is however unusual and sufficiently so that you cannot blame anyone other than the person doing the jumping. If this wasn't the case then travelling anywhere above walking speed would be impossible. You couldn't drive down a country road in the middle of nowhere at 30mph in case someone decided to pole vault over the hedge.
    Riding down an otherwise empty, straight cyclepath at a pace which allows you to avoid running in to people walking on it is reasonable. Expecting to ride at a pace to avoid people jumping into the path isn't. In you 'presumed liability' case the cyclist would be held not liable.

    Posted 9 years ago #

  30. Dave
    Member

    But the onus is on the cyclist to prove they could see the pedestrian wasn't there, I think? Probably rather difficult.

    I am being a bit naughty with the suggestion of stepping out from behind a tree, but stepping onto the path after using the poop scoop is surely something we must expect?

    Posted 9 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1…345…7

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin