60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council

brat

Tilt wrote: »

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?

Times have changed. I think this photo was taken of Princes St in the fifties.


A tram system such as this would be much safer for cyclists than the current version, especially as cyclists are now being encouraged to cycle over the top of them at a narrow angle as in the vid I posted in my last post.

custardy

Altarf wrote: »

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.



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.

More cars,slower average speed.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

Cyclists are being encouraged to cycle into danger zones.

http://youtu.be/GAVD4EXb8_M

How it was ever allowed is beyond me!

And you make my point for me.

Cyclists are not being encouraged to cycle into danger zones, but are choosing to cycle away from safe zones into dangerous zones.

The cycle path takes you to the left of the tracks into the end of the taxi rank and then across the tracks at a right angle.

So nice clear signs and road markings, but a cyclist decides to ignore them, taking a dangerous route at too high a speed for the conditions, and ends up hurting themselves.

If cyclists cannot be trusted to follow safe routes, then the only solution is to ban them from wherever tram tracks exist.

Tilt

Altarf wrote: »

And you make my point for me.

Cyclists are not being encouraged to cycle into danger zones, but are choosing to cycle away from safe zones into dangerous zones.

The cycle path takes you to the left of the tracks into the end of the taxi rank and then across the tracks at a right angle.

So nice clear signs and road markings, but a cyclist decides to ignore them, taking a dangerous route at too high a speed for the conditions, and ends up hurting themselves.

If cyclists cannot be trusted to follow safe routes, then the only solution is to ban them from wherever tram tracks exist.

Lol... some cyclists ignore red lights, no entry signs and pedestrian zone restrictions... so what chance have you got enforcing any ban?

Altarf

Tilt wrote: »

Lol... some cyclists ignore red lights, no entry signs and pedestrian zone restrictions... so what chance have you got enforcing any ban?

And again my point is made.

If the cycle route is marked away from the tram tracks (as in this case), and the tram tracks marked as dangerous, some cyclists will still ignore them and hurt themselves.

If cyclists are are prohibited from cycling on these roads, then if they choose to break the law and hurt themselves, then the courts will treat any injury claim the same as they would a claim from a cyclist who had run a red light, ignored a no-entry, etc. Tell them to go away.

No money in it for the no-win no-fee lawyers, so they won't take up the cases, so no cost for the council.

Banning cyclists from tram routes is the best solution.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

The cycle path takes you to the left of the tracks into the end of the taxi rank and then across the tracks at a right angle.

So nice clear signs and road markings, but a cyclist decides to ignore them, taking a dangerous route at too high a speed for the conditions, and ends up hurting themselves.

Thanks for pointing that out to me, because it certainly wasn't obvious on the video.

What is obvious is the warning sign for tram tracks, which would make me wonder how I was to avoid them, because they appear to be closing down my lane. If I was wishing to turn right ahead, (as appeared to be the case with this cyclist because he was changing) lane, I would be wondering how best to do it. If I was unfamiliar with the road layout I wouldn't be expected to notice the diddy arrow on the road 100 metres ahead, especially as the cycle lane had disappeared.

I'd like to think I'd avoid the dangers of tackling the tracks too narrowly, but I'd do it by bossing the lane rather than using my crystal ball to realise they want me to cycle through a lay-by 100 metres ahead.

Altarf

brat wrote: »

If I was unfamiliar with the road layout I wouldn't be expected to notice the diddy arrow on the road 100 metres ahead, especially as the cycle lane had disappeared.

Surely if you were unfamiliar with the layout, then you wouldn't be cycling at an inappropriate speed for the conditions.

That is what caused the accident, the cyclist heading into a situation on a wet road far too fast for them to navigate it sensibly.

Tilt

Anyone watched the clip after the one in Brat's link?

esuhl

Altarf wrote: »

If cyclists cannot be trusted to follow safe routes, then the only solution is to ban them from wherever tram tracks exist.

Drivers are so stupid that they follow their sat-nats and drive into canals! The only solution is to ban drivers from roads and make them drive in a desert where there's nothing they can drive into.

brat

Altarf wrote: »

Banning cyclists from tram routes is the best solution.

Only for the hard of thinking. As I said, there is never a zero risk option. A far bigger picture is that most city centres are trying to consider ways to reduce polluting vehicles, to make their towns safer from the pollutant effect of the car engine and more environmentally appealing to the tourist and the shopper.
The obvious option is to reroute the car around the town perimeter and widen the available space for the environmentally friendy road user such as the tram, the cyclist and the pedestrian. It'd make the city much more appealing too, much like many of its European tourism competitors.