60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

But you agree that there was a safe solution for the cyclist to use, but they chose to take a dangerous route at a dangerous speed instead. And paid the price for that decision.

So you make my point that no matter how good the cycling provision near the tram tracks is, some cyclists will ignore them, bleating "not good enough".

The only provision that would satisfy some cyclists would be if all vehicles were banned, trams were banned, pedestrians banned, and still they would manage to injure themselves, and bleat "not good enough".

If cyclists cannot be trusted to behave sensibly and use the safe provisions provided, the alternative being injury, the only solution is to prohibit them.

You see that as a safe solution? Leaving into a congested area with taxis (oh yeah,professional drivers?) with a questionable surface. forcing cyclists to rejoin a road they just left.
Thats safe?

Retrogamer

Altarf wrote: »

But you agree that there was a safe solution for the cyclist to use, but they chose to take a dangerous route at a dangerous speed instead. And paid the price for that decision.

So you make my point that no matter how good the cycling provision near the tram tracks is, some cyclists will ignore them, bleating "not good enough".


If cyclists cannot be trusted to behave sensibly and use the safe provisions provided, the alternative being injury, the only solution is to prohibit them.

As i said previously, if this is about liability reasons that you're concerned then all the council need to do is either remove the cycle lanes, or which i think better is re-design them. Either one abolishes the council of negligence because then they aren't encouraging cyclists to actively cycle on a potential dangerous surface.

If it's about making cyclists safer by removing them from the area where there is danger, that's just silly. Danger exists for all road users and some of the risks are much higher than the ones presented here but i don't see you focusing as much energy into those types of threads on here.

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

You see that as a safe solution? Leaving into a congested area with taxis (oh yeah,professional drivers?) with a questionable surface. forcing cyclists to rejoin a road they just left.
Thats safe?

Clearly would have resulted in fewer injuries than the route they did take.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

Clearly would have resulted in fewer injuries than the route they did take.

'they'? Who are they?
What data do you have for the other route?
What data for the afore mentioned 'they'?

Perhaps the 'safe' route was blocked by taxis spilling into the road,or the route was blocked as is often the case(trust me)
Then what?

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

'they'? Who are they?
What data do you have for the other route?
What data for the afore mentioned 'they'?

Perhaps the 'safe' route was blocked by taxis spilling into the road,or the route was blocked as is often the case(trust me)
Then what?

And again you make my argument for me.

No matter what provisions are put in place for cyclists to safely use roads with tram tracks, there will be cyclists with views like this.

Only solution is to ban cyclists.

esuhl

Altarf wrote: »

If cyclists cannot be trusted to behave sensibly and use the safe provisions provided, the alternative being injury, the only solution is to prohibit them.

In that case, it's only fair to ban all drivers from the roads. They can't be trusted to behave sensibly.

There are many more car accidents than cycling accidents, and the injury and death rates are far higher. And drivers tend to cause problems for other road-users with their dangerous driving. Cyclists are only likely to be putting themselves in danger, which is obviously less of a moral problem.

So banning cars from the roads is a much more pressing issue than anything to do with cycling.

Altarf

esuhl wrote: »

Cyclists are only likely to be putting themselves in danger, which is obviously less of a moral problem.

Not my personal experience.

I see cyclists putting pedestrians at risk every day due their inability to think about anyone else.

custardy

esuhl wrote: »

In that case, it's only fair to ban all drivers from the roads. They can't be trusted to behave sensibly.

There are many more car accidents than cycling accidents, and the injury and death rates are far higher. And drivers tend to cause problems for other road-users with their dangerous driving. Cyclists are only likely to be putting themselves in danger, which is obviously less of a moral problem.

So banning cars from the roads is a much more pressing issue than anything to do with cycling.

Altarf wrote: »

Not my personal experience.

I see cyclists putting pedestrians at risk every day due their inability to think about anyone else.

Just a couple of recent local examples.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1xLr7ZFFTY

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Not my personal experience.

I see cyclists putting pedestrians at risk every day due their inability to think about anyone else.

I presume your selective quoting of Esuhl's post means that you agree with the rest of it, that if you wish to ban cyclists from roads because of their inability to ride safely, the same should apply to motorists, who also sometimes don't behave appropriately.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26919991

Clearly such vacant thinking is not the way forward.

Accidents happen - fact. We need to learn from them. Those responsible for reducing collisions, from front line road referees and cause investigators, to those charged with making roads and cars safer, are gradually but inexorably reducing the number of collisions. They don't do it by knee jerk banning of one entire group based on their own personal prejudices. They do it by examining what factors are placing road users at risk, and working on positive progressive solutions.

Tilt

Altarf wrote: »

Not my personal experience.

I see cyclists putting pedestrians at risk every day due their inability to think about anyone else.

Like this you mean?

http://youtu.be/L95IR9ZvPDA