UKC

Lawyers in Edinburgh say compensation claims are running into hundreds of thousands for cyclists falling off on the tram lines.

Why don't they man up, take a bit of personal responsibility, or learn to bunny hop.

I think its PATHETIC, ...it's everybody's fault but mine.

In reply to Seocan:

The tram lines are just the thin end of the wedge! Some of these mountain bike trail centres are just dangerous! There are drops, rocks, ramps and steep sections that are just crying out for a compensation claim, the fact that the signage recommends a helmet must be accepting liability and admission that the trails are unsafe. Perhaps a canny "no win, no fee" lawyer could set up in the car parks of the more popular trails! Those tram lines sound dangerous, how is a cyclist supposed to know that a wet metal rail could be slippery when ridden on??

In reply to Seocan:

My understanding is that there is one particularly badly designed junction which tapers the cycle lane and the tram lines at too narrow an angle. I'm sure an Edinburgh cyclist will be along to confirm or deny soon, but I think the problem is just by Haymarket station, where there is a crazy junction. I think this is a pretty legitimate case against awful design, rather than people whining.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Yes, it is there at Haymarket, I fell off my bike there recently. I immediately thought of sueing....sueing myself for not staying on my bike!

In reply to Seocan:

Sheffield supertram has been injuring (possibly killing) cyclists for years, think it's come up here before

In reply to nickinscottishmountains:

The 'middle aged' bloke on radio Scotland news this morning injuries were, broken teeth, sliced off finger top, hip dislocated, and a wrecked knee, requiring reconstructive surgery!
Should have just rode on the pavement, like all the neds do...

In reply to Seocan:

There are a couple of parts to this:
The Council was warned about the dangers posed by some of the design and routing, ignored the suggested preventative measures and carried on regardless.
The junction concerned is on a bend, off camber and the bikes meet the tramlines at a very narrow angle where for a cycle to widen the angle of attack would involve weaving across lanes of traffic.

Pursuing the Council for the consequences of preventable incorrect design decisions is perfectly reasonable.

Bunnyhopping classes for the masses is an idea I like though.

In reply to oldbloke:

That sounds like a terrible design.

In reply to oldbloke:


Is it? Guess who pays.

More reasonable would be to pursue the Council to fix the problem.

In reply to dek:

I'm not even sure of the problem, but assume that the wheels are going into grooves?

My instant soloution is to fit some resiliant rubber material at the troublesome junction , putting it into the grooves so that the weight of a bike will not compress it and it can be ridden over, but the tram weight will compress it will and then it comes back up to fill the void.

In reply to Seocan:

Slight aside: my dad told me the other day that back in the late 40's / early 50's, he got his old, spindly car tyres stuck between/in the old tram lines whilst going up The Mound. He had to reverse back down to extricate himself from the situation, much to the amusement of the driver of the tram coming up behind him!

In reply to Jim C:

I've been wondering too, but think its possibly the wheels slipping on the smooth metal, into the grooves, causing loss of control (at speed) and the riders attention being on the traffic?

In reply to Seocan:

That's exactly what it is. Inexperienced cyclists won't know this though.

In reply to Jim C:



That was one of the solutions possible originally and ignored.


Having ignored the problem at design stage and with the design on the ground, might be a tad tricky now but they've not shown any appetite to do so. Council official guidance is to cross the rails at right angles yet their design prevents this. So having failed to design something which complies with their own guidance, they then advise getting off and walking. As an Edinburgh Council Tax payer I'm hoping the litigation is what finally forces the Council to act.

In reply to oldbloke:

More likely is that the greedy Edinburgh lawyers will coin it; the Council will pay out, leaving them less money to, for example, fix the potholes everywhere; lawyers/cyclists will then sue regarding the potholes; ad inf. - until it all goes up its own arse!

There does appear to be a problem that needs solving; the question is how best to achieve that.

In reply to oldbloke:


Btw the 'Spokes' site gives other avoidance strategies for that particular junction. They might not be being used, perhaps because they might not be as quick; or perhaps it's an education/publicity thing.

In reply to Rob Parsons:

If you spend a bit of time going through the Spokes website it gives lots of info on how the bad design came about. After so many missed opportunities to get it right at the start, I think any hope of the Council solving the problem without being beaten by a big stick is optimistic. I share your frustration at the cycle of litigation, but all the evidence so far is of a refusal to deal with the issue otherwise.

Would you be happy with iron spikes on the outside of a sharp bend? Or perhaps landmines, so long as there's a warning triangle? "Why did people ignore the signs?", I hear you cry.

Sometimes bad design is bad design and causes accidents. To blame the victim and say "it's just one of those things" excuses the balls-up and points the finger in the wrong direction.

In reply to oldbloke:
Are you talking about Sheffield? Or Edinburgh? As a relatively new Sheffield cyclist (moved here last August) I'm one who has come off after slipping on a tram track. Suing didn't even cross my mind, but I am sort of pissed off that the Council puts a half hearted cycle path in along the road through Hillsborough where the tram also runs. On my current commute there isn't really a very sensible alternative route to following the tram tracks and needing to cross them at times. I used to live in city with far more trams, but despite other annoyances with their cycle path planning, they did at least keep cyclists away from the tram tracks.

Perhaps Edinburgh has failed to think about where cyclists go when they put in their trams?

Edit: reading further, I see you meant Edinburgh, not Sheffield. Soz.

In reply to Rob Parsons:


I suspect the latter. Although even in that case I cant say I would be overly impressed by having to go out of my way because of some piss poor design.
I recall seeing a detailed article on that junction a while back and it did seem to be going into the realm of actively dangerous.
if I was in the area I would probably be looking to give them a hard time over it since who is to say they wouldnt do the same idiocy elsewhere?

In reply to oldbloke:


I'm guessing that as it is rubber it can still be fitted retrospectively ?

In reply to dek:


Almost certainly the wheels slipping on the smooth metal, but If they fill the grooves with rubber, the wheels will not have a groove to go into, smooth metal or not.

In reply to dissonance:

I can think of places on the Manchester Metrolink network where TfGM are keen to keep cyclists away from the track, but the detours they send them on are actually much more dangerous, such as a steep cobbled descent with some dubious repairs.

In reply to Seocan:

Don't know the details of this at all but compensation costs councils so much because they always capitulate before the matter gets to court so end up paying out when there might be no case to answer. That said, rubbish road design needs sorting and councils should take responsibility.

In reply to blackmountainbiker:

With good reason. I suspect a court could order them to change it.

Maybe it seems like a class action with no-one accepting any out of court pay offs would be the only way to get anything changed.

Either that or someone get seriously injured.