CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

H******s and T****s - a perfect debate storm?

(20 posts)

  1. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Cyclist may sue tram firm after rails cause injury after fall

    Timely considering the video clip chdot posted t'uther day.

    It only took 42 minutes to #7 comment to get to;

    BTW I haven't heard too many motorcyclists demanding signs and training courses for the rails, tram lines to them are just yet more slippy metal in the road to dodge, and at greater speeds. Is it because you need a qualification to ride a motorbike? Time for cycling licenses? =)

    Someone needs a lecture on tyre widths methinks.

    And then #8;

    All other road users pay for the privilege

    I'm still waiting for last year's "cyclists income & council tax rebate for not having to pay to use the roads" cheque from the Revenue. Must be lost int he post.

    And on to #14;
    How many of those cyclists who have had accidents as a results of the tram tracks have been riding bikes with narrow tyresp

    Actually, I'd rather fall in on a 23c tyre than the 32c of the tourer as the latter would be more likely to jam in the gap.

    I'm not going to read down any further. As if any more evidence were needed on the mountain of ingrained (inbred?) prejudice that there is to be climbed!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  2. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I'm with you, it's just not worth the heartburn anymore.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  3. chdot
    Admin

    "I'm with you, it's just not worth the heartburn anymore."

    Anth leaves ENews posters alone Shock Horror.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  4. Wilmington's Cow
    Member

    I'm afraid so, I've retired from trying to change their minds one at a time...

    Posted 13 years ago #

  5. wee folding bike
    Member

    No mudguards.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  6. chdot
    Admin

    "No mudguards."

    Is that an accidental non-sequitor or am I failing to notice an adventurous ploy?

    Posted 13 years ago #

  7. gembo
    Member

    One reading of the Foldster's non-sequitur is from my close textual analysis of the original article (always nice to have my prejudices confirmed about EEN - although it would seem they dislike the trams more than they dislike cyclists?)

    One of the commentators (a cross section of humanity indeed) suggests the fault is in narrow tyres.

    Thus, in similar vein, anyone who has not troubled to attach mudguards to their bicycle is fair game.

    Of course, this may make no sense. Mudguards however, are indispensable.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  8. chdot
    Admin

    "Mudguards however, are indispensable."

    Your definition of "indispensable" is clearly a non-sequitor.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  9. wee folding bike
    Member

    A commuting bike in Scotland really should have mudguards.

    I don't think I'd go as far as to claim "fair game" but she has been doing this for 6 years so you'd think she would have noticed that there is a way to reduce the muck you pick up from the road.

    Two of my Bromptons have fairly skinny tyres, Stelvios and Kojaks, but they still have mudguards.

    Of course it's always possible her mudguards were damaged in the fall.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  10. chdot
    Admin

    AHA

    I failed to spot the crucial detail.

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-may-sue-tram-firm.6567768.jp

    Posted 13 years ago #

  11. chdot
    Admin

    '6 years nothing happened'

    The next sentences are the key -

    "I've always been careful, but there was nothing I could do. There was a taxi beside me, I moved out of its way and fell."

    I assume the sub-text is that the taxi caused her to change her line.

    Therefore TIE/CEC really needs to look at whether it is safe for cyclists to be in specific parts of Princes Street (e.g. around the Gallery) without clear signage/markings/instruction/training for other road users.

    "A TIE spokesman said: "Signage was erected for three months following the reopening of Princes Street in order to raise awareness of the tram tracks for cyclists. In addition to this, Edinburgh Trams teamed up with the Bike Station to conduct a training session which illustrated the safest way to negotiate the tracks."

    SO training for cyclists but...

    http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Cyclist-may-sue-tram-firm.6567768.jp

    Posted 13 years ago #

  12. wee folding bike
    Member

    An engineer of my acquaintance said that the tracks should have been set in concrete and not in contact with the tarmac.

    It is possible to fit metal springs inside the track but that's expensive. Trams are heavy enough to push them down, bikes aren't. Rubber inserts can do it too but they don't last as long.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  13. chdot
    Admin

    "the tracks should have been set in concrete and not in contact with the tarmac."

    I think they have been - the gap sealant keeps coming out.

    Meanwhile in Nottingham -

    "Alternative cycle paths running parallel but away from NET Line One have been developed, and road markings at certain points along the line will help to guide cyclists across the tracks at a safe angle"

    "Motorists

    Make allowances for bikes and motorbikes making different manoeuvres

    Where possible, avoid driving directly on the track, especially in wet or icy conditions"

    http://www.thetram.net/howto/safety.asp

    http://www.thetram.net/howto/cyclists.asp

    Posted 13 years ago #

  14. kaputnik
    Moderator

    Lots of snide comments on the EEN article about "didn't she realise there's tracks on Princes St. now, duh".

    I'd wager she did realise that the tracks are there, but when another vehicle forces you out, there's very little to do.

    Another danger that exists while the route is incomplete is that the tracks just suddenly start and you can find yourself inbetween the rails if you aren't expecting them. This is particularly easy to do (even when you know they are there) if you're stuck in amongst the usual convoy of double decker buses that obscure all forward and leftside vision. I've been caught out a couple of times when I've been behind a bus and unable to move out left to avoid the start of the rails thanks to a vehicle next to me sitting too wide. If you've got another bus bringing up the rear there's little you can do but keep going.

    What concerns me is what is going to happen where the rails cross the carriageway at a shallow angle - e.g. at Haymarket to get into the "interchange" and then the off-road section down to Saughton. At bits like that how can you but avoid crossing at an unsuitable angle? There's photos I've seen online of sections on other city tramways where the metal / rubber inserts as described by WFB have been installed where bikes are likely to have to cross at such an angle. Now I cannae find them.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  15. chdot
    Admin

    "Now I cannae find them."

    Me too!

    Posted 13 years ago #

  16. chdot
    Admin

    There's this http://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/noise/pdt/pdt4.html

    Not intended for long sections, but(?)

    Posted 13 years ago #

  17. gembo
    Member

    perhaps it was the taxi's fault? not the trams nor the cyclist? Whose idea was it to have princes st fro bus/tram. george street for peds/bike/rickshaws and Qn St for motors - I liked that one. Obviously, when we rule the world we can cycle where we like but until then..

    Posted 13 years ago #

  18. Kim
    Member

    Ach gembo, that is far too sensible it will never happen, this is Edinburgh after all.

    I did the Bike Station training and I still fell off (right in front of an EN Journo). A major part of the problem is that you can get squeezed and are forced to change lanes. In other places where trams and cyclist mix successfully, there is space for both and where the cyclist do have to cross the tracks the layout allows them to do so safely.

    Posted 13 years ago #

  19. chdot
    Admin

    And this topic is in today's

    http://paper.li/Edinbuzz/edinbuzzers

    Posted 13 years ago #

  20. Dave
    Member

    The problem isn't really that the lines are there - after all, Edinburgh is full of manhole covers, drain covers, slippery painted lines and all the rest.

    Even my own high-profile crash didn't demonstrate anything inherently bad about having tramlines there - only that you cannot start them mid-street without some form of warning, because they then emerge from under the car in front at 25mph and take you down!

    No, what *is* a problem is the behaviour of traffic around you. We've already seen a serious incident when a woman was passing a stationary bus which pulled out without looking - would have been fine except that, of course, she was pushed over the lines at a shallow angle and was knocked to the ground.

    I'm also extremely dubious about the line immediately to the east of the Mound. There's not room for a bike (especially a bike with child trailer) to go alongside a tram where the kerb is closest. Legally, it's probably the responsibility of the tram driver not to start overtaking when their vehicle will move over and crush someone, but given the length of the trams and the relatively low speed differential (because Princes St is flat so many cyclists are going at higher speed)...

    I'm far from confident that tram drivers passing the Walter Scott monument are really going to hold back behind someone all the way past the mound.

    Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin