CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

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

(92 posts)

No tags yet.


1234

  1. fimm
    Member

    Well boyfriend and I investigated those rails last night on the way to somewhere else. They don't look so bad in the flesh, as it were, it looks like there is more space.

    Boyfriend says just turn your front wheel towards right angles and then cross them. He says that there is not enough space for a car to pass there, so no car will try to pass and you'll have plenty of room. I admit that it should just be buses and taxis there - but I wish I shared his optimism about no taxi driver ever trying to pass a cyclist through that section...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  2. crowriver
    Member

    My experience so far is that taxis seem happy enough to wait while I zig-zag across the tram lines. A pleasant surprise, I must say!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  3. kaputnik
    Moderator

    as Fimm says, if you ride an S-shape route across both rails, you can pass them at a more optimal angle. It#s far from ideal, but certainly safer. Depends of course on compliance of following traffic, as you have to move left to begin the S, they might take it that there's room for them to pass, just as you swing right infront of them. Maybe hand signals required too.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  4. kaputnik
    Moderator

    whoops, double post

    Posted 11 years ago #

  5. Tulyar
    Member

    @Arellcat has taken some more pictures, and I have made a nocturnal visit between trains, given that I had to change trains in Edinburgh and there were 2 more departures before the last one.

    @Arellcat's near fall was on the short section of green surfaced road in which the tram track sits. It has a 'slot' along the edge of the green surfacing where the joint with the uncoloured surface occurs. That slot is about 25m wide (mental note use a £2 coin (30mm) for daylight photo)and deep enough to affect cycle control.

    But further along - in worrying places where traffic is crossing and turning, the poured polymer seal that connects the track system to the road surface has started to come out, with a serious chunk sticking up/out where the Mound meets Princes Street, and at the stop line by the National Gallery the tarmac is also crumbling.

    Posted 11 years ago #

  6. fimm
    Member

    I took my bike (Brompton) along Princess Street on Saturday and lived to tell the tale. Actually it seemed quite quiet even though it was late Saturday afternoon, hmmm.

    I did, however, have to cross the new tracks on Shandwick Place to get to and from Manor Place. So I slowed right down and took them nice and slowly, as advised. On my way back, there was a car behind me, so I gestured to the lines to explain why I was going so carefully. Driver didn't seem to get it, though. We proceeded to the red light and he wound the window down:

    "Do you want the whole road?" he asked.
    "Yes, please," I replied.

    I don't think that's the answer he was expecting, even when I tried to explain about the tram tracks... oh well, drivers will just have to get used to it, and cyclists develop a thick skin...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  7. chdot
    Admin

    "I don't think that's the answer he was expecting"

    Classic!

    "drivers will just have to get used to it, and cyclists develop a thick skin..."

    The first bit might not happen until trams actually start running on-road.

    That'll be a learning curve for everyone!

    Posted 11 years ago #

  8. chdot
    Admin

    "That'll be a learning curve for everyone!"

    I think they might need people with red flags for the first few weeks...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  9. kaputnik
    Moderator

    My only real interaction witht he tram tracks is at the bottom of the Mound. I find myself making rather grand and overblown maneouvres to take the tracks at a far more optimal angle than the cooncil's paint department see fit. It is my way of saying "I AM TAKING THESE IN A MANNER THAT I DEEM FIT. I AM CLEARLY A RAVING LUNATIC FOR CYCLING. KEEP BACK. I BITE"

    Posted 11 years ago #

  10. fimm
    Member

    @chdot; in the usual manner of only thinking of a better reply when it is far too late, I think I should have said
    "no, just 3 feet of it"...

    @kaputnik; that's the effect I was trying to achieve... clearly I failed...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  11. SRD
    Moderator

    @fimm how about 'no, just the safe part'

    Posted 11 years ago #

  12. chdot
    Admin

    "only thinking of a better reply when it is far too late"

    I think your response was perfect - in a tram line situation.

    I presume you haven't crossed the tram tracks before.

    You need the whole of the road to work out the optimum line - and you probably won't find that the first time.

    ALSO it seems the the surfaces around the rails are less than constant/reliable so 'optimum' may change - even when it's dry...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  13. fimm
    Member

    @SRD "just the safe part"

    I quite like that, but then the "safe part" of the road is the bit that is free from thoughtless or careless road users, particularly those in charge of large lumps of metal. Maybe "no, just enough for my safety" (like whoever it is with "yes, my child's safely is more important than 20 seconds of your time"). But then you are back to "well get a car if you think being on a bike is dangerous", and by the time you've started to answer that the lights have changed...

    Posted 11 years ago #

  14. chdot
    Admin

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/edinburgh-has-more-bike-tram-accidents-than-any-other-city-1-4367394

    Posted 7 years ago #

  15. threefromleith
    Member

    Don't bother reading the comments. The same tired old guff by the same tired old crowd.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  16. Frenchy
    Member

    Don't bother reading the comments. The same tired old guff by the same tired old crowd.

    That's unfair. Someone getting annoyed at the EEN because their browser's dictionary is American English was novel.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  17. Stickman
    Member

    @Frenchy - genuine LOL at that one. The use of caps lock made it even better.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  18. Ed1
    Member

    What I wonder is does the picture at the top of article show someone cycling someone between tram and bus is this about creating a subconscious perception of cyclists careless interactions with trams

    Posted 7 years ago #

  19. zesty
    Member

    cyclist was required or encouraged to cross the tram track at a shallow angle

    Surely common sense would dictate that there is a change of your tyre getting caught if crossing at a shallow angle.

    Common sense has to prevail at some point.... or maybe not in this "got to sue someone" era.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  20. jonty
    Member

    Common sense would also dictate that you don't swerve out in front of a taxi to avoid crossing at a shallow angle, but the old Haymarket road layout often forced you to make the choice.

    (Now the swerving is done with the assistance of red paint.)

    The key aspect here is negligence - CEC were repeatedly warned the tram plans would present avoidable hazards to cyclists. Common sense would dictate they change the plans to, er, avoid them. To save money, they didn't. If there's no risk of getting sued, there's nothing to stop them (literally) throwing cyclists under a bus to save money again.

    Posted 7 years ago #

  21. Arellcat
    Moderator

    Thought experiment:

    If all motor vehicles were removed—cars, taxis, buses, HGVs, motorbikes—so that only bicycles and trams were left, how many tram rail-bike accidents would occur?

    Posted 7 years ago #

  22. Stickman
    Member

    http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/opinion/leader-comment-cyclists-are-cyclists-the-whole-country-over-1-4367753

    Posted 7 years ago #

  23. Stickman
    Member

    https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/traffic-and-travel/two-cyclists-win-damages-claims-against-edinburgh-trams-1-4956116/amp

    Posted 4 years ago #

  24. I were right about that saddle
    Member

    The council had maintained that it fulfilled all duties of reasonable care.

    What a grim claim to make. It's infuriating that everyone told them this was inevitable. Really infuriating. What a waste of our money and their time and health.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  25. Stickman
    Member

    What a waste of our money and their time and health.

    And, so far, one life.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  26. Stickman
    Member

    Full judgement here:

    https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=649c69a7-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

    Posted 4 years ago #

  27. acsimpson
    Member

    It sounds like the council were trying the playground defence (It wasn't me). I suppose they knew they didn't have a leg to stand but needed something to put in their defence.

    Is it possible that their costs are being met by insurance? If so they may not have been allowed to admit liability.

    Let's hope they now get their act together and make the tracks safe before anyone else gets hurt.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  28. crowriver
    Member

    You can't make the tracks safe. There's always an inherent risk, as the case highlighted they were unsafe "in the 1950s" too. What you can do is to remove cycling infrastructure/routes from intersecting with them, which is what I imagine will happen. Another option is to remove ,motor vehicles from interacting with them, and thus make the tracks safer for cyclists. I can't see that happening.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  29. acsimpson
    Member

    The correct solution at Haymarket unfortunately requires the tracks to be moved. However separating cyclists and motor vehicles by time (without delaying cyclists) would also allow cyclists to cross the tracks at the correct angle.

    Even if they create parallel routes for cyclists to enjoy without a legally enforceable ban on cycling at dangerous locations they still leave themselves liable. I can't see for instance how they can make a safe crossing angle at the bottom of the mound without removing motor traffic, not think of a suitable alternative route.

    Posted 4 years ago #

  30. Arellcat
    Moderator

    It sounds like the council were trying the playground defence (It wasn't me).

    My school's unofficial motto at the time was "Wisnae me".

    separating cyclists and motor vehicles by time (without delaying cyclists) would also allow cyclists to cross the tracks at the correct angle.

    That assumes cyclists are able to reach the safe place on the road from which to begin crossing during a protected phase. Call it an 'advanced crossing reservoir' or something, but drivists have a remarkably poor sense of spacial perception at the best of times. You would need the physically separated route plus a stop line plus a suitable light phase (Liberton/Blackford/Mayfield/Kirk Brae is not a suitable precedent).

    I think removing motor traffic would go a long way towards ameliorating the hazard. Can Toronto provide a way forward? Lots of on-road trams there, mingling with drivers and bicyclists. I thought the drivers were a lot more polite than here, when I visited.

    Posted 4 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

1234

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin