Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • molerat
    • By molerat 23rd Jan 15, 1:59 PM
    • 21,621Posts
    • 15,850Thanks
    molerat
    60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council
    • #1
    • 23rd Jan 15, 1:59 PM
    60 Cyclists To Sue Edinburgh Council 23rd Jan 15 at 1:59 PM
    50 60 cyclists are to sue Edinburgh council after accidents crossing the tram tracks at a poorly thought junction.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30951833

    The picture does seem to show an accident waiting to happen, do street designers need to go on a common sense course ?
    Last edited by molerat; 24-01-2015 at 1:27 PM.
    https://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/give-support/donate-now/
Page 3
    • Altarf
    • By Altarf 25th Jan 15, 6:14 PM
    • 2,881 Posts
    • 1,701 Thanks
    Altarf
    You mentioned dedicated cycle paths previously which often have broken glass, wet & slippy leaves etc all over them, and are unsalted in the winter. They aren't comparable apart from ones which form part of the road layout.
    Originally posted by Retrogamer
    This fully demonstrates why cyclists need to be prohibited from these roads, due to their lack of risk assessment.

    A few damp leaves = avoid cycle path
    Miles of slippery steel and the risk of trapping cycle wheel = fine

    All they need to do is modify the layout in such a way that doesn't encourage cyclists to cycle on a dangerous road surface.
    Originally posted by Retrogamer
    Since you have demonstrated in previous posts that you actively ignore anything the council does to persuade you to use a particular piece of highway, clearly this would not be the solution.

    How about if you broke some bones due to a severe pothole. damaged your car and you couldn't claim for your personal injuries through your own policy, however you have a compelling case the council were liable and will cover all the costs?

    Because that's more relate-able to the scenario the cyclists who came off are in.
    Originally posted by Retrogamer
    So as you demonstrate, these roads are far too dangerous for cyclists to use, so they must be prohibited from using them for their own safety. To do anything else would be irresponsible.

    Your refusal to apply logic or common-sense was boring the first time. It really betrays your lack of imagination to use the same line in every single post.
    Originally posted by suicidebob
    Because the answer is the same each time. If you are incapable of understanding the basic principles, perhaps that is why you find the discussion boring.
    • Retrogamer
    • By Retrogamer 25th Jan 15, 7:27 PM
    • 4,006 Posts
    • 3,954 Thanks
    Retrogamer
    This fully demonstrates why cyclists need to be prohibited from these roads, due to their lack of risk assessment.

    A few damp leaves = avoid cycle path
    Miles of slippery steel and the risk of trapping cycle wheel = fine
    Originally posted by Altarf
    Perhaps the cyclists who often use cycle paths & routes are the ones being injured in the tram lines.


    Since you have demonstrated in previous posts that you actively ignore anything the council does to persuade you to use a particular piece of highway, clearly this would not be the solution.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    Could you quote / show me where i said that i actively do this? You're either making things up now, or getting me confused with someone else.
    I can understand why some people avoid cycle paths & tracks but personally i use mines a lot of the time.


    So as you demonstrate, these roads are far too dangerous for cyclists to use, so they must be prohibited from using them for their own safety. To do anything else would be irresponsible.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    I disagree. I'm sure most rational people and the Edinburgh council will disagree as well, but you're entitled to your opinion.

    Because the answer is the same each time. If you are incapable of understanding the basic principles, perhaps that is why you find the discussion boring.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    I think it's more to do with you making up things and pretending people said things they didn't (see quoted part above) and repeating the same nonsense every thread.
    • brat
    • By brat 25th Jan 15, 10:08 PM
    • 2,458 Posts
    • 3,112 Thanks
    brat
    No, I'd claim on my motor insurance, suck it up and be more careful in future.

    There is f'all chance of my council paying out anyway.

    Figures obtained by the Birmingham Mail show just five out of nearly 600 claims for damages against Birmingham City Council [in respect of potholes] have been upheld in the last three years.
    http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/drivers-seeking-damages-over-potholes-5458515
    Originally posted by Johno100
    If nothing else, you've provided 600 examples of evidence that it's not only cyclists who take action against councils for poor road conditions.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • brat
    • By brat 25th Jan 15, 10:19 PM
    • 2,458 Posts
    • 3,112 Thanks
    brat
    I think it's more to do with you making up things and pretending people said things they didn't (see quoted part above) and repeating the same nonsense every thread.
    Originally posted by Retrogamer
    Altarf will have found one example (albeit probably tongue in cheek) of cyclist extremism and is using that to vilify all cyclists.

    It's the usual sous le pont strawman buffoonery.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • RichardD1970
    • By RichardD1970 26th Jan 15, 12:26 AM
    • 3,299 Posts
    • 4,929 Thanks
    RichardD1970
    Rather appropriate episode of Top Gear tonight.
    • armyknife
    • By armyknife 26th Jan 15, 12:56 AM
    • 592 Posts
    • 2,502 Thanks
    armyknife
    Rather appropriate episode of Top Gear tonight.
    Originally posted by RichardD1970
    Was there someone on it trolling Richard Hammond? :-)
    • Johnmcl7
    • By Johnmcl7 26th Jan 15, 1:12 AM
    • 2,604 Posts
    • 1,733 Thanks
    Johnmcl7
    Hi I think you will find you are wrong, I'm not one of the ones who is to sue the council but I have had accidents. I've been cycling a mountain bike with high traction, wide tyres in Edinburgh for 12 years and before the trams I had 2 small accidents with just a cut or graze. In the past year I have had 3 accidents on the tram tracks, one of which sent me into busy traffic and left me limping for a few weeks, I still have some of the scars. Edinburgh has become one of the least bike friendly cities in the world, for the first time ever I have considered giving up cycling as I have a genuine fear now.
    Originally posted by obriens2uk
    I've heard a lot of similar comments from friends in Edinburgh some of whom are highly experienced cyclists who have been commuting in Edinburgh for decades and had nasty accidents on the tram lines. The council advise taking the tram lines at a perpendicular angle yet the design of the cycle lanes and tram lines forces cyclists to take the rails at an unsuitable angle.

    The staggering amount of derogatory anti-cyclist comments the topic brings shouldn't be a surprise but it's depressing all the same.

    John
    • Norman Castle
    • By Norman Castle 26th Jan 15, 9:05 AM
    • 8,845 Posts
    • 7,757 Thanks
    Norman Castle
    Originally Posted by Johno100
    No, I'd claim on my motor insurance, suck it up and be more careful in future.

    There is f'all chance of my council paying out anyway.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30976052
    Don't harass a hippie. You'll get bad karma.

    Never trust a newbie with a rtb tale.
    • Retrogamer
    • By Retrogamer 26th Jan 15, 9:40 AM
    • 4,006 Posts
    • 3,954 Thanks
    Retrogamer
    Waiting for Altarf to suggest cars should be prohibited from roads now.
    • jeepjunkie
    • By jeepjunkie 28th Jan 15, 8:47 AM
    • 1,683 Posts
    • 1,483 Thanks
    jeepjunkie
    I've heard a lot of similar comments from friends in Edinburgh some of whom are highly experienced cyclists who have been commuting in Edinburgh for decades and had nasty accidents on the tram lines. The council advise taking the tram lines at a perpendicular angle yet the design of the cycle lanes and tram lines forces cyclists to take the rails at an unsuitable angle.

    The staggering amount of derogatory anti-cyclist comments the topic brings shouldn't be a surprise but it's depressing all the same.

    John
    Originally posted by Johnmcl7

    Although I've commuted through Edinburgh city centre by bike for 20+ years fortunately I don't get caught up with them trams


    The roads in Edinburgh are bad enough what with poor surfaces, idiot drivers, dark for 6 months of the year and now pointless trams...


    Ever since I was a kid I've never understood why domestic cars are allowed into the city centre given we have always had an excellent bus service, totally crazy...
    • theEnd
    • By theEnd 28th Jan 15, 11:16 AM
    • 830 Posts
    • 895 Thanks
    theEnd
    Why do cities seem to like trams? Do they offer much over a bus service? Seems a poor, but very expensive option.
    • jeepjunkie
    • By jeepjunkie 28th Jan 15, 11:25 AM
    • 1,683 Posts
    • 1,483 Thanks
    jeepjunkie
    Don't give the litigious lycra brigade any ideas, they'll be suing the council next for not removing the leaves from or gritting cycle paths.
    Originally posted by Johno100

    Sounds like you are some sort of racist?


    I.E. You enjoy bullying minorities?


    Tell me I'm wrong?
    • brat
    • By brat 28th Jan 15, 12:35 PM
    • 2,458 Posts
    • 3,112 Thanks
    brat
    Sounds like you are some sort of racist?


    I.E. You enjoy bullying minorities?


    Tell me I'm wrong?
    Originally posted by jeepjunkie
    He is prejudiced against cyclists, there's little doubt.

    But he's not a bully to be feared. Because his inane anti cycling rants are so easy to pull apart, his presence in a cycling thread is actually helpful.
    Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.
    • Johno100
    • By Johno100 28th Jan 15, 2:16 PM
    • 4,922 Posts
    • 6,330 Thanks
    Johno100
    Sounds like you are some sort of racist?

    I.E. You enjoy bullying minorities?

    Tell me I'm wrong?
    Originally posted by jeepjunkie
    Yes you are wrong!

    You don't become a minority group or an 'out group' just because you jump on a push bike.
    • Altarf
    • By Altarf 28th Jan 15, 4:23 PM
    • 2,881 Posts
    • 1,701 Thanks
    Altarf
    Waiting for Altarf to suggest cars should be prohibited from roads now.
    Originally posted by Retrogamer
    Potholes - Not intended to be there, so need to be removed to make the road safe for all users.

    Tram lines - Intended to be there, so cannot be removed to make the road safe for all users, so solution is to remove the users it is not safe for.

    Or doesn't that make sense in the strange world of cyclist victims.
    • Retrogamer
    • By Retrogamer 28th Jan 15, 4:37 PM
    • 4,006 Posts
    • 3,954 Thanks
    Retrogamer
    Potholes - Not intended to be there, so need to be removed to make the road safe for all users.

    Tram lines - Intended to be there, so cannot be removed to make the road safe for all users, so solution is to remove the users it is not safe for.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    Wouldn't it be more reasonable given how many people cycle, to either move the cycle lane, or remove it altogether? That way the council aren't liable, and they'll have more money to spare for all the motorist pothole claims, rather than cyclist injuries.

    Or doesn't that make sense in the strange world of cyclist victims.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    I imagine your suggesting to ban all cyclists from that part of the road wouldn't make sense to anyone who has the ability to think reasonably and rationally.
    Last edited by Retrogamer; 28-01-2015 at 4:40 PM.
    • Altarf
    • By Altarf 28th Jan 15, 4:45 PM
    • 2,881 Posts
    • 1,701 Thanks
    Altarf
    Wouldn't it be more reasonable given how many people cycle, to either move the cycle lane, or remove it altogether? That way the council aren't liable, and they'll have more money to spare for all the motorist pothole claims, rather than cyclist injuries.
    Originally posted by Retrogamer
    Correct, move the cycle lanes to the non-tram streets, and ban the cyclists from the tram streets.

    Problem solved.
    • Retrogamer
    • By Retrogamer 28th Jan 15, 4:58 PM
    • 4,006 Posts
    • 3,954 Thanks
    Retrogamer
    Correct, move the cycle lanes to the non-tram streets, and ban the cyclists from the tram streets.

    Problem solved.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    If they remove the cycle lane from the tram section and leave it at that, the council then wouldn't be liable because they're not actively encouraging cyclists to use that lane. It would be left up to the cyclist to decide what lane they want to use and then they would become liable for their own injuries.
    • Altarf
    • By Altarf 28th Jan 15, 5:04 PM
    • 2,881 Posts
    • 1,701 Thanks
    Altarf
    If they remove the cycle lane from the tram section and leave it at that, the council then wouldn't be liable because they're not actively encouraging cyclists to use that lane. It would be left up to the cyclist to decide what lane they want to use and then they would become liable for their own injuries.
    Originally posted by Retrogamer
    That is not enough.

    Cyclists don't have to have take any tests before they cycle on the road, and they don't have to be over a minimum age, so children are permitted to cycle.

    How are these untrained children to know that cycling near an unmarked tram track is dangerous? They will not.

    So the council will need to actively mark these areas as dangerous to cyclists to protect the untrained and young.

    If that marking is not sufficiently unambiguous then the untrained and young may still cycle there, have an accident, and sue the council.

    As it would not be possible to only let cyclists with sufficient skill and knowledge cycle on roads with tram lines, the only practical solution is to ban all cyclists from those streets.

    You may want to take risks, but you must think of the children.
    • custardy
    • By custardy 28th Jan 15, 5:23 PM
    • 35,089 Posts
    • 29,768 Thanks
    custardy
    T

    As it would not be possible to only let cyclists with sufficient skill and knowledge cycle on roads with tram lines, the only practical solution is to ban all cyclists from those streets.

    You may want to take risks, but you must think of the children.
    Originally posted by Altarf
    Or key in cyclists when designing roads and public transport networks?


    Crazy stuff......
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,710Posts Today

7,106Users online

Martin's Twitter