60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council

Altarf

brat wrote: »

Trams and cyclists can coexist quite successfully

Can you give any examples of locations where cyclists are allowed to cycle along a road with a tram track, and there has never been a cyclist accident due to the tracks?

Wherever tram tracks exist, cyclists are in danger, so remove the danger.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

Can you give any examples of locations where cyclists are allowed to cycle along a road with a tram track, and there has never been a cyclist accident due to the tracks?

Wherever tram tracks exist, cyclists are in danger, so remove the danger.

Remove the cars. plenty of free space away from the trams

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

Remove the cars. plenty of free space away from the trams

But if the cyclists are still permitted to cycle on the parts of the road the trams use, they will do, and will still suffer injuries.

The problem still exists, and you have now made it more dangerous for cyclists using the adjoining roads due to the higher traffic density.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

So only way to achieve certainty is ban the cyclists from the whole road that has a tram track.

You know it makes sense.

What may seem like sense to you is not sense to most other sensible people.
Cyclists need to easily be able to stay well away from tram tracks unless at safe crossing areas. This could probably be done quite easily by limiting the space available to the motor car.
The original idea for reintroduction of the tram would have been to coincide with other measures designed to restrict or reduce the volume of motorised traffic in the city.
I'm sure this sensible directive will resurface in the grander plans to maintain Edinburgh as a city of international repute.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

But if the cyclists are still permitted to cycle on the parts of the road the trams use, they will do, and will still suffer injuries.

The problem still exists, and you have now made it more dangerous for cyclists using the adjoining roads due to the higher traffic density.

Well you will find with no cars,the cyclists are free to move around and if needs be cross tracks at a safe angle. Trams run on big tracks. They don't pull out of junctions,squash cyclists into the side of the road etc.
Higher traffic density is more dangerous? Based on what?

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Can you give any examples of locations where cyclists are allowed to cycle along a road with a tram track, and there has never been a cyclist accident due to the tracks?

Wherever tram tracks exist, cyclists are in danger, so remove the danger.

There is risk in almost every activity. The subtlety you seem to find hard to grasp is to find the best way to reduce the risk, while not sacrificing the advantage of the system or its environmental benefit.

Your argument is like saying that because cars sometimes get crushed by hgvs on the motorway, we should ban cars from the motorway.

It's regress, not progress.

Altarf

custardy wrote: »

Well you will find with no cars,the cyclists are free to move around and if needs be cross tracks at a safe angle. Trams run on big tracks. They don't pull out of junctions,squash cyclists into the side of the road etc.

The trams are not causing the accidents, the cyclists are by cycling into the tram track.

That will still happen if cyclists are permitted to cycle on the tram tracks.

custardy wrote: »

Higher traffic density is more dangerous? Based on what?

Common sense, something that cyclists seem to lack.

But to explain it simply to you -

Street with 10 cars per hour, not many chances for a car to drive into a cyclist.

Street with 1,000 cars per hour, lots of chances for a car to drive into a cyclist.

Retrogamer

brat wrote: »

Trams and cyclists can coexist quite successfully, it simply needs better thought than has been given here. .

They seem to coexist well in the Netherlands i was thinking as well.

Altarf wrote: »

Common sense, something that cyclists seem to lack.
.

Hypocrisy

Tilt

brat wrote: »

What may seem like sense to you is not sense to most other sensible people.
Cyclists need to easily be able to stay well away from tram tracks unless at safe crossing areas. This could probably be done quite easily by limiting the space available to the motor car.
The original idea for reintroduction of the tram would have been to coincide with other measures designed to restrict or reduce the volume of motorised traffic in the city.
I'm sure this sensible directive will resurface in the grander plans to maintain Edinburgh as a city of international repute.

Although I wasn't around then, I think there were a few motor cars (obviously no where as many now) around when we had trams last time round. As I said, there probably wasn't the same standard of safety measures back then as now. So why do we seem to be having these issues now?

brat

Altarf wrote: »

The trams are not causing the accidents, the cyclists are by cycling into the tram track.

Cyclists are being encouraged to cycle into danger zones.

http://youtu.be/GAVD4EXb8_M

How it was ever allowed is beyond me!