60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council

brat

The alternative is to ban other motor vehicles and create a pedestrian/cycling/tram zone. What's not to like?

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/cyclists-want-george-princes-street-traffic-ban-1-3135232

Altarf

mttylad wrote: »

And then the cyclists will ignore it & still fall on the tracks etc.

So the only sensible thing to do to keep cyclists safe is ban then from any street with tram lines.

Johno100

brat wrote: »

The alternative is to ban other motor vehicles and create a pedestrian/cycling/tram zone. What's not to like?

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/transport/cyclists-want-george-princes-street-traffic-ban-1-3135232

How will that stop the conflict between cyclists and these killer tram tracks?

modsandmockers

Altarf wrote: »

So the only sensible thing to do to keep cyclists safe is ban then from any street with tram lines.

It’s hard to resist saying that the only way to keep cyclists safe is to confiscate their bikes...

Altarf

brat wrote: »

The alternative is to ban other motor vehicles and create a pedestrian/cycling/tram zone. What's not to like?

But the cyclists will still ride into the tram tracks, and then blame someone else.

So make it a pedestrian and tram zone.

Strider590

Perfect example of a cycling infrastructure designed by a car driver, too dangerous for cyclists, who are then forced to use the road and come into conflict with drivers who don't see the danger.

modsandmockers

Strider590 wrote: »

Perfect example of a cycling infrastructure designed by a car driver, too dangerous for cyclists, who are then forced to use the road and come into conflict with drivers who don't see the danger.

It might also be a perfect example of a successful box-ticking protocol with no useful practical purpose except to minimise costs whilst satisfying the requirements of the politically correct.

brat

Johno100 wrote: »

How will that stop the conflict between cyclists and these killer tram tracks?

The tram lines seem to compete for the same space as cyclist, namely the kerbside lane. Remove the motor vehicle, and the cyclists and pedestrians will be able to use that freed up space without having to conflict with trams. It works exceptionally well in continental cities.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

The tram lines seem to compete for the same space as cyclist, namely the kerbside lane. Remove the motor vehicle, and the cyclists and pedestrians will be able to use that freed up space without having to conflict with trams. It works exceptionally well in continental cities.

But there is still the risk that cyclist's wheels will still get accidentally trapped in the tram track, even if there are no cars around. e.g. a pedestrian steps out, a cyclist avoids them, hits the tram track and down.

So the only sure-fire solution to keep cyclists safe is to ban them from all streets with tram tracks.

Generali

molerat wrote: »

http://www.inverness-courier.co.uk/News/Urgent-safety-review-into-flagship-700000-cycle-lane-just-weeks-after-opening-05122014.htm

It does seem that a cycle route is a "must have", if a few cyclists get killed / injured in the name of being "green" then so be it A busy winding hill road 4m wide total including a cycle lane each side, makes you wonder at the intelligence of these planners.

It's a bit worrying that drawing some paint on a road that is too narrow for cars and bicycles to use leads to:

Highland Council initially insisted the route met all safety guidelines