Dangerous says 'hardly any cyclists westbound".
Pity we don't have data on how many have changed routes/ stopped cycling that way.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
"Tram fall cyclists to sue ‘negligent’ council"
(247 posts)-
Posted 9 years ago #
-
@Dangerous
Are you a lawyer, solicitor, judge or in any way involved in the legal profession?
If not, why do you take such an interest in this particular issue/section of road? (Even down to doing your own 'site analysis' it seems)
Posted 9 years ago # -
@srd. Hardly quantifiable evidence, but I've stopped cycling to town because of the Haymarket tram works; partly because of danger, partly because of traffic lights.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Dangerous
Not sure how you came up with 'hardly any cyclists westbound'. Since Haymarket is west-ish of the centre and accidents are mostly westbound isn't it likely that most of them happen when going home, ie. evening? Mine certainly did.Posted 9 years ago # -
@PeteJohnston
By observation. I saw 4 westbound cyclists.
There are usually far more. Maybe I just started too late today.
Where exactly did you fall ? Entrance to the jug handle ?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Bikeability Edinburgh
Thanks for sharing your method
Where do you cross the westbound tram track ?
Before the pedestrian crossing ?Do you then cross the eastbound track at the jug handle exit ?
Posted 9 years ago # -
I cross the westbound track *just* before the traffic island. This is the tricky part as I have to take the left hand side of the lane to cross at a decent angle. That takes me almost on to the island.
So long as cars hold back, its OK, but I have to slow right down to do this, make as much eye contact with the driver behind and occasionally use unorthodox hand signals to get traffic to stay back. After that, crossing the eastbound track is fairly straightforward TBH. I can take those rails at a reasonable speed,and I am not using the full width of my lane to make the manoeuvre so much less risk of being overtaken. Still have to be aware of potential undertaking though.
Thankfully, I am yet to take a spill at Haymarket (I use it 2/3 times a week, and my only really hairy moments have been when on the inside, or exiting the Jug.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@eddie_h
@Instography has already asked the same question and I have replied.
"I am a cyclist and Edinburgh council tax payer.
I have no professional interest / involvement in the case."
I asked if that was sufficent. It wasn't. He even questioned my username and claimed to have reviewed all of my posts.
Maybe I should be paranoid. This forum has enough information about me.
So why am I interested ?
The issue affects me and people I know.
In my club* I personally know 2 people who have come off westbound. I have personally seen a female cyclist being put in an ambulance outside Ryries.
* Non cycling club. Less than 100 members who live in Edinburgh not all of whom cycle.
I estimate that >90% of my Edinburgh cycling journeys involve tram tracks at Haymarket.
There appear to be two incident concentrations involving Edinburgh trams.
Trams and Buses collide near Manor place. I am aware of three incidents. Since I don't own or drive a bus or tram. I don't really care.
The second MASSIVE concentration of incidents involve westbound cyclists at Haymarket. I find that very interesting and worth analysing to establish why that is the case. In analysing this accident hot spot we can hopefully reduce the frequency of incidents.
I watch Air Crash Investigation. Clearly this is a different situation but it is useful to have an open mind and keep asking questions in order to learn. I'll post more later....
Posted 9 years ago # -
Dangerous, me old China, it's bleedin' obvious why that section of road is hazardous. The reasons why have been rehearsed several times on this forum alone & I would suggest that anyone cycling through it could tell what the problems are without much difficulty. This is why the council is being sued.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Dangerous
You do not deny that you are a lawyer, solicitor, judge or in some other way involved in the legal profession, then?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Dangerous - I'm assuming this isn't a wind up. A road accident investigator looks at three factors in determining the cause of an accident.
The road user
The vehicle
The road (design, maintenance and traffic conditions)It seems that many of the people who have fallen at Haymarket were experienced, competent cyclists travelling on a route they know well, at a regular time of day and were in decent health. I think we can rule out the road user as being the cause of the vast majority of falls.
I haven't heard anyone say that the bikes that were involved in these falls were mechanically unsound - so that's the vehicle ruled out.
The road - all resurfaced in the last 18 months - so maintenance isn't the problem. Falls have happened at all times of day, so traffic conditions can be ruled out. That leaves road design. The steel tram rails, very slippy when wet, have grooves that can swallow most bike wheels. There is an acknowledged safe method of crossing these. However, it isn't possible to use this method at Haymarket due to the road layout.
This leads me to conclude that the cause of these falls is an unsafe road layout.
Posted 9 years ago # -
@eddie_h
Errr If I was a lawyer, solicitor, judge or in some other way involved in the legal procession. Would that not mean I would have a professional interest or involvement in the case ?
I really did not expect this level of paranoia.
I am not (and never have been) a lawyer, solicitor, judge or in some other way involved in the legal profession.
PS I am not involved in Politics either.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Falls have happened at all times of day, so traffic conditions can be ruled out.
This leads to a thought experiment: would there be a similar rate of cycle falls at Haymarket over the months if all westbound motor traffic was removed, save for the trams themselves?
I'm also wondering what might be the actions taken by CEC were it to win the case. Might cycles be banned from all on-road installations of the tram route? We already have precedent westbound on West Maitland Street.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Might cycles be banned from all on-road installations of the tram route? We already have precedent westbound on West Maitland Street.
Which is actually safer for cyclists to use than going round Torphicen St. From this banned route I can cross rails with only the occasional bus or slow moving tram behind me (glaring). Of course many cyclists have no choice but to approach after going down Morrison St. By this time they will be at over 15mph with cars in pursuit. This is a manufactured conflict in my view with only escape route to pull into taxi rank and allow the wave of vehicles to go by. Understandably many cyclists don't see why they should be held in this 'sin bin' so ignore it.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I have to say regardless of the views @Dangerous holds and whether you agree with them or not, as a forum member I'm very uncomfortable with the posts directed at him personally regarding his motivation and occupation.
A healthy debate should stick to the specifics of the topic.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"as a forum member I'm very uncomfortable with the posts directed at him personally"
I think that is "fair comment".
As notional 'moderator', I'm continuing to assume people here are reasonably reasonable and mostly adult.
Of course I may be wrong.
Posted 9 years ago # -
"A healthy debate should stick to the specifics of the topic."
That would help.
Though CCE 'loves' tangents...
Posted 9 years ago # -
@deckard112 & @chdot
Thanks a lot for the support.
I have learned an awful lot from this thread far far removed from the subject matter.
PS still curious regarding "feel free"
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Arellcat & @Laidback
Questions and inquiring minds, thank you ?
I had already wondered whether it makes a difference whether you approach from West Maitland Street or from Morrison Street. I think there is a difference and IMHO the approach from Morrison Street is riskier than from WMS. I have a few ideas but it is worth thinking about.
If true this would be ironic given cycling down WMS has been banned.
;-) Can you fall off a recumbent ? Do you just ignore the tram tracks ?
Posted 9 years ago # -
@Dangerous
I apologize for asking a direct personal question about your profession.
@Everyone
I think it's worth reminding everyone that this is a public forum. Lawyers most probably are watching/listening and talking to their other lawyer friends.
Bear in mind what you say on here could jeopardise the class legal action that is being taken (particularly details about falls).
<edd1e_h now runs away before being shot down in flames and being accused of paranoia/conspiracy theorising...>
Posted 9 years ago # -
@eddie_h
Thanks for the apology.
My profession I think is irrelevant to this thread.
I have shared my motivation and interest.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Dangerous If true this would be ironic given cycling down WMS has been banned.
The 'no cycling sign' on WMS is just to give the tram a bit of road to itself I reckon. Cycling safety is rarely a factor in such signage. We have cycle routes marked which have steps on them in several places in the city. Of course cyclists 'know' to use the ramps around the side - or they learn.;-) Can you fall off a recumbent ? Do you just ignore the tram tracks ?
Yes of course - people will expect it though! Tram tracks are no worse - in fact having a mirror means you can check behind and ahead at same time. Plus drivers hang back more. Many of these bikes run tyres wider than 28mm too.Posted 9 years ago # -
Eddie, I suspect it's 'not' paranoia (for the record, I 'am' a solicitor, but not connected in any way with this case - not even a litigation solicitor). However, I doubt it would be in any way admissible evidence - it's essentially 'stories off the internet', and to have any weight at all I believe they'd have to approach the posters to get proper statements. Even then they've got a lot of people involved in the claim who will make statements, so I doubt it would be adding much.
But in case they 'are' reading, foreseeable that there would be this carnage? Well when the tracks were laid on Princes Street only, right at the start, and people started falling, I was interviewed on BBC Scotland News (along with Dave I think - I was the 'respectable face in my suit ;) ) and pointed out that the Council was not doing enough either to warn of dangers, or take cycling into account in terms of layouts.
As for my fall, it's not directly relevant as it wasn't at this particular hotspot, and was years before the trams were running. But echoing concerns over things that may be read and interpreted in different ways it's probably best to leave it at that (I gave my submission to the Council when they were looking at the initial issues).
(and I think Dave's post above about devil's advocate positioning explains succinctly why I can't be bothered indulging in that debate, which I prefer to see as rational discussion that may lead to a shift in views, or at least an understanding of each position, rather than an impossible situation of trying to counter a position than is, and can only be, a direct opposite as by its very nature it is a purely hypothetical belief).
Posted 9 years ago # -
The junction does not allow cyclist to progress westbound without a significant adjustment to both their speed and road position - adjustments they would not have to make were it not for the rails.
Following traffic puts undue pressure on even experienced and confident cyclists to get those adjustments right, first time, and with as little impediment to the traffic flow as possible.
Its a horrible situation that was warned of, and should never have been created.
I tend to obey traffic signs etc, so haven't approached from WMS. I suspect it would be a bit easier and a bit less stressful than my usual approach from MS.
Having said that, I have been waiting at the ASL from MS when a cyclist has followed a tram or a bus through from WMS. Once on the junction the confusion on their faces is quite worrying, as if they no longer know where to go! I've even witnessed a cyclist get off there bike and walk it over to Ryries having cycled through from WMS!
I'm pretty sure weather and traffic play their part, but I suspect the real problem the most significant problem, is the road layout itself.
Posted 9 years ago # -
I wonder what the outcome would be if all of a sudden car tyres were getting stuck in these tracks and causing vehicle collisions?
Would drivers be instructed to make vulnerable manoeuvres to ensure they approach the tracks at a "safer" angle? Would we hear/read comments about inexperience being a factor?
I sure as heck think my insurance company would be on the blower to CEC tout de suite! (As opposed to the nth cyclist who finally takes them on).
Posted 9 years ago # -
What are the actual options to resolving the issue, aside from changing the entire layout of the road and tram tracks? For example, are there any alternative tram tracks which the trams could run on, but bike wheels don't slip on/through? Or is extraordinarily expensive road changes the only option?
I'm even wondering whether there could be some kind of cycle path that wouldn't follow the road or tram tracks at all, but allows bikes to either avoid having to cross the tracks at all, or actually forces bikes to cross them @ 90°?
Posted 9 years ago # -
Option(s)/discussion here -
http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=11324&page=23#post-176984
Posted 9 years ago # -
Does the Spokes suggestion mean that bikes would be on the wrong side of the road when heading west? I suspect I'm confused.
Posted 9 years ago # -
Yes, that's my reading of it - a two-way cycle lane on the north side of Haymarket Terrace. And perhaps also going the 'wrong' way up Morrison Street. I guess they'd need to take some space away from cars and maybe even pedestrians. Unless we just tell the cyclists that it's their own fault and they need to man up and learn how to cycle properly.
Posted 9 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
