CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

"Edinburgh faces £1m tram payout to injured cyclists"

(92 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. chdot
    Admin

  2. chdot
    Admin

    I've read the ENews comments, so you don't need to bother.

    In short - not much sympathy there then!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  3. gkgk
    Member

    I quite enjoyed this article - it was long and fairly in-depth, with words from Cyclist Defence Fund and talk of John Franklin. I suppose any print version will turn into 500 words under a big heading of "Call To Ban Danger Cyclists From City Centre" but so long as you stop before the comments the online one is fine.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  4. The comments are basically split into "Cyclists don't pay road tax" and "The tram lines are obvious and have been in place for a while so cyclists are stupid if they fall on them"

    Posted 11 years ago #
  5. fimm
    Member

    When I'm in Innsbruck over Christmas (with my boyfriend, visiting his family) I will try and look at how the cyclists and tram tracks interact...

    To be honest, I'm sorry that the woman in the article hurt herself but she didn't "have to" overtake the bus and I don't think the tram tracks appeared between her pulling out and pulling back in.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  6. LaidBack
    Member

    The paper edition did have a bit more.... along with the pic of forlorn forumers in the midddle of the tracks at west end.

    More importantly it had a legal opinion that suggested that more claims will be made - so far estimated at £1m which by tram standards is neither here not there (except if it was allocated to actually build something for cyclists).

    The lack of foresight on Princes St is related to all other areas in the city of course. Most city centres have at least one major pedestrianised street and in a normal world Princes St would be Edinburgh's one. You'd also expect by now that the High St would be closed ot through traffic by now - a move supported by most businesses and residents.

    Instead we have all streets with a bit of everything allocated piecemeal. Bike lane, parking space, bus stop etc. It's a compromise which pits all users against each other. Despite my view that bikes are vehicles our natural allies are people on foot. We need a few key streets calmed down to make people want to walk and cycle - so a human environment and not one where bikes are pitted against cars, parked vehicles and pedestrians are fenced off.

    • So take all traffic off Princes St or reduce to buses and trams only and a two way cycleway on gardens side÷ result might be quite nice and increase cycle use?

    The obvious (and wrong) thing to do is just to ban cycling on Princes St!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  7. chdot
    Admin

    "The obvious (and wrong) thing to do is just to ban cycling on Princes St!"

    Well that was the plan - until it was pointed out that there was no chance of LBP being willing to enforce it.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  8. kaputnik
    Moderator

    I wholeheartedly support these claims - be they perceived as ambulance chasing or not. As far as I'm concerned, the council and their tram project is obliged to make sure Princes Street is safe to use for cyclists. It's very difficult to avoid it (or the tram line) if you're trying to go north/south across the City Centre. The layout at the foot of the Mound is unacceptable, and falls far outside the Council's / Tram's own guidelines for what is a safe crossing. Trying to make a right turn off of westbound Princes Street is bl**dy difficult at best. In the rain, with a taxi up my rear today, it was nearly me on the tarmac (and yes I could see the lanes and I did try to take them close to 90 degrees, but that's almost impossible to do from the right hand lane). I'll put a good bet on the layout at Haymarket being utterly dreadful when its unveiled - with traffic obliged to cross the lines at something like a 20 degrees angle.

    The council / Tram could have put in decent crossings and proper, safe integration, but they couldn't be bothered. They would have spent a lot less than £1 million doing it. The only way to make them learn for "next time" is to hit them in the pocket. Even though the council / Tram doesn't understand money and how it works, they know it looks pad to Joe Counciltaxpayer and might try and do it a bit differently next time.

    A couple of good, successful lawsuits against the council should make them think when their cycling insurance claims budget is in excess of their actual investment.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  9. chdot
    Admin

    Posted 11 years ago #
  10. gembo
    Member

    Bad stuff. I continue to avoid cycling on princes street. I would get off at foot of mound and push across with the green man. I am a scaredy cat on Most right turns and that one is a nightmare.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  11. Dave
    Member

    I thought I was against this sort of thing (on the basis that, ultimately, if you want to overtake stationary buses and there are tramlines, you'll just need to learn to do it safely, in the same way that you learn not to ride next to the kerb even though it is technically all 'road').

    However, kaputnik's post has won me around. There's very little that can be done to force the council to, for instance, build in crossings at >X degrees (they violate it at the foot of the mound for instance), but perhaps if they end up having to pay compensation to the point that it's cheaper to make safe infrastructure it /will/ cause proper provision to be made...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. gembo
    Member

    I don't think that is how it works? The authority will employ a legal team to fight the challenges, appeal decisions etc. it will drag on for years the money for this will have to come from somewhere, maybe the budget for cycling?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. crowriver
    Member

    Oh well the lawyers will make money at least.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. Min
    Member

    I am not sure. If they are faced with a whole barrage they may just cave in, like they do with parking tickets. Gembo may well be right but I can't help feeling that I would like to see the council getting its pants sued off for its dangerous incompetence.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  15. I always find these situations funny.

    The Council builds infrastructure that is not only poorly thought-out, but actually dangerous. Cyclists injure themselves on that infrastructure and want to be able to get compensation for any injuries or damage caused by that poor infrastructure.

    Yet somehow it's cast as some grand conspiracy by lawyers to make money... Presumably there's the same annoyance at surgeons making money out of the potential broken bones?

    Posted 11 years ago #
  16. Instography
    Member

    When they talk about an average payout of £8,000 in compensation you get a hint that the claims will be pitched around the level that the Council's legal advisers will tell them to cough up rather than even bother spending the time defending it. The lawyers will trouser 30% on a no win, no fee basis. They have no desire to go to court. More profitable this way.

    So, I'm inclined to think, regardless of the legitimacy of individual claims, it is a bit of a racket and the whole point of the 'research' and releasing it to the press is actually to drum up more cases. Fallen off your bike near a tram line? Contact us. £8,000 (minus 30%) coming your way.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  17. crowriver
    Member

    @Insto, exactly.

    @WC, there are lawyers, and there are lawyers. Not all the same...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  18. "@WC, there are lawyers, and there are lawyers. Not all the same..."

    So why tar all with the same brush?

    "Oh well the lawyers will make money at least."

    After all we know the cyclists all run red lights and ride on pavements.

    (and the successful claimants will make money as well, even if it's less 30%)

    But yes, Thompsons are No Win, No Fee experts.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  19. steveo
    Member

    Yet somehow it's cast as some grand conspiracy by lawyers to make money...

    You lawyers and your double talk, always trying out out smart us. You only want to look like a conspiracy, its a double bluff! :D

    @Instography: The ambulance chasers get their costs from the other side. Your probably right though, but then less than subtle marketing "research" isn't exactly a new way to get some press.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  20. Tulyar
    Member

    The issue comes when you look at the standards set in the ORR guidance and the standards which appear to be being delivered so far in Edinburgh.

    I've been tracking (sorry) the topic for cycles and level crossings as well, and it boils down to actually delivering a decent quality for the running surface. Here are some interesting figures relating to the vertical upstand limits set for various features, and you will see that a limit of 5-6mm is a fairly common denominator. I know that the dimension for tramline paving was assessed by tests carried out at TRL about 20 years ago, but my attempts to get the documentation found by TRL or DfT (then DETR) have drawn a blank (this is research paid for by public funds too). But the experience of clipping the edge of street ironwork, ridges of badly finished trench repairs etc, and the pure mechanics of it, shout out that any ridge greater than 5-6mm is going to seriously affect the handling of a cycle or motorcycle striking it obliquely.

    Here's the table

    Dropped kerbs - flush or no greater than 6mm
    Tramliine tactile paving - 5mm specified
    Thermoplastic road markings - 6mm max (3mm noted in some publications, and in ORR tramway design manual)
    Thermoplastic road markings with rumble profile - rumble set at 6mm to avoid hazard to motorcycles, and to be omitted where cycles cross these lines
    Tram rails - we pressed for +0 to -6mm to road surface and ORR sets 6mm tolerance, and their drawing infers no greater than +3mm
    Table 4.3 of Part 5 of the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges includes
    Wearing course The wearing course level shall be within + 5mm and –0mm of the adjacent kerb, edging strip or any ironwork.
    Kerbs and edging strips The surface level shall be within ±6mm of the design level.
    Surface regularity The maximum deviation of the footway surface under a 1m straightedge shall not exceed 3mm.

    I've photographed the profile of the finished(?) on street sections with a improvised straightedges spanning between the tarmac surfaces and typically the step between some elements is in the region of 9mm (half the diameter of the 5p piece I was using to scale the photo. More affluent types might note that 2 x £2 coins are 5mm thick in a stack, if measuring heights of ridges.

    Some riders have actually had loss of control when striking the coloured surfacing/road markings outside the line of the rails notably I gather at the West end of Princes Street, which suggests that this is also applied too thickly or with an edge that has not been thinned down. Others report that their wheels were almost guided in to the slot, which does seem a possibility given the way that the initial ridge will knock your tyre in towards further ridges (the polymer seal for the rail embedding) and the railhead itself. Once in the slot there is a very strong potential for the tyre to jam solid and the rotation around the axle relative to the ground transfers from the wheel to the bike and rider. This is due the the unfortunate fact that the dimension for the groove in standard tram rails is almost exactly the dimension of typical town bike tyres 32- and 37- ETRTO sizes.

    With NET in Nottingham we pressed strongly on the quality of finish for this interface, and on a recent visit I was impressed by the difference from Edinburgh in delivering this finish - I've asked for some photos.

    Meantime it would be very useful to get some feedback on the vertical profiles for tram rails and the other irregularities introduced to the road surface around them.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  21. Instography
    Member

    @steveo: True. I'm thinking of Erin Brokovich.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  22. steveo
    Member

    I can just imagine WC doing his best Julia Roberts impression!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  23. I can do the pout. I have the legs.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  24. wingpig
    Member

    I wonder if the absence of any mention of pedal cycles' rights regarding the current east end single-lane arrangement are deliberate, as the current setup requires a little practice to be able to be in the right place to cross the tracks at the right angle. Despite the frequency of warning signs on the wire-holding poles along the central reservation there's nothing much to warn anyone approaching from Waterloo Place that they're about to have to cross a track six times or more as the single channel weaves across the tracks as they turn up towards St Andrew's Square.

    You don't have to perform an optional/avoidable-in-the-eyes-of-people-not-wishing-to-issue-compensation-for-injuries-incurred manoeuvre like an overtake to have to enter what the tram byelaws excitingly refer to as the ETN Hazard Zone. Turning right onto Waverley Bridge, heading into Haymarket Yards and joining Princes Street from Lothian Road involve interacting with the tracks in a manner in which it can be difficult to meet the track at or above the official safe angle. As Artemis is pointing out to the EEN frothers, motorised traffic is often too impatient or ignorant to provide the space and time for cyclists to do the necessary pre-track-crossing path adjustments to make their crossings thereof as perpendicular as possible.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  25. SRD
    Moderator

    104 comments on the EEN site. Not going there!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  26. crowriver
    Member

    @wingpig, I'm having to navigate the east end of Princes Street on my way to/from Waverley. Today and yesterday, in the rain.

    It's not that difficult, but my wee folder has chunky 1.75" tyres...

    Posted 11 years ago #
  27. Arellcat
    Moderator

    you will see that a limit of 5-6mm is a fairly common denominator.

    Tulyar and I were discussing this offline recently. San Francisco Dept of Public Health's manual for its Bicycle Environmental Quality Index methodology lists 1/4" as a 'medium impediment' and examples given include raised cracks, raised parallel surfaces—and tram rails. Potholes, multiple cracks, drains and manhole covers are considered 'large impediments'.

    Three wheels sounds like the best solution to navigating Edinburgh's (inevitably to become notorious) slippery tram rails. I can't recall having a single problem cycling around the centre of Toronto with its real tram network, possibly because there are lots of cyclists, lots of sensible car drivers, and few buses.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  28. Roibeard
    Member

    @steveo I can just imagine WC doing his best Julia Roberts impression!

    Urrgh - I'm remembering the "award for best actress' support" jokes and my traitorous mind is conjuring up all sorts of horrible images...

    That's twice this week you've laid pitfalls for me - three strikes and there will be duelling at Peter's Yard!

    Robert

    Posted 11 years ago #
  29. steveo
    Member

    :D

    En garde!

    Posted 11 years ago #
  30. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Shared off-road paths were safer than on road cycling but not as safe as bike-only paths. And roads with tram tracks had three times risk of injury.

    "

    http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=8968#post-92008

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin