[Closed] Sad cycling death in Edinburgh

No way that could be described as an unexpected event. Always been a matter of when, not if. Feel terrible for the minibus driver as well

My sympathies to all. Sadly, it was just a matter of time. I'd like to think that the one positive would be that CEC have a re-think on cycle safety around the trans lines, however given that they are a law unto themselves most of the time, I'll not hold my breath.

Very sad indeed, rode there a couple of times last week and found it very unpleasant so it's made me very sad today, a very difficult bit of town to ride through safely unfortunately. I say that despite originally saying I can't understand how people find it difficult to ride around the tram tracks - the reality when you have citylink coaches doing 40mph past you is quite different.

Amazed at an overheard conversation at work between two colleagues about it, one saying "bloody cyclists" and the other responding "well they take their life into their own hands". I managed not to lose my rag at them somehow.

It was only a matter of time

considering how badly designed some of those junctions seemed to have been, it should be a corporate manslaughter charge

edit - from google earth that seems to be where the cycle lane actually goes straight along between the tram lines 😯

So Sad, terrible outcome for everyone involved 🙁

well they take their life into their own hands

Arrrrgh, pet hate of mine that phrase,

"No! no they don't, their lives are in your* hands, all you have to do is not drive your vehicle into them! Without the vehicles there is no danger"

*as in drivers

Arrrrgh, pet hate of mine that phrase,

"No! no they don't, their lives are in your* hands, all you have to do is not drive your vehicle into them! Without the vehicles there is no danger"

*as in drivers

My piss is still simmering, as much from them saying it openly in an office kitchen I think. It's someone's daughter, friend, possibly even mother who knows.

When I was young Edinburgh had trams. The tram lines were a known injury/death risk to cyclists.

Why on earth did they have to reintroduce them?

Why on earth did they have to reintroduce them?

Vanity project.
There have been several threads on here over the last 6-7 years of the whole debacle. Utter farce from start to finish. Too expensive to cancel, too much political face to lose by admitting it was all a complete ****-up.

Poor cyclist. 🙁 As said above tragically it was always a case of when, not if.

It looks like this may be a case where Cycling UK (formerly the CTC) should seriously consider private prosecutions under Corporate Manslaughter legislation and/or under Health and Safety legislation. I appreciate that the police have probably only started their investigation, but I presume that the police will largely confine the scope of their investigation into whether there has been a road traffic offence. An investigation - and possible resulting prosecution - into whether the design and positioning of the tram tracks in conjunction with the road layout was so bad that it constitutes criminal negligence which warrants prosecution under Corporate Manslaughter legislation and/or under Health and Safety legislation would normally be undertaken by the HSE.

At the end of the day, the penalties (usually fines) under H&S legislation are not very severe, but the embarrassment and publicity of a high profile prosecution in this case might be a much bigger deterrent than any fine to those who might be tempted in future to similarly wilfully ignore expert advice on cyclists' road safety.

The HSE has generally avoided getting involved in road safety, despite there often being a significant 'work related' component to many road accidents, e.g. people driving company vehicles and - in this particular case - the dangerous design of the tram line layout, and I imagine that the HSE has little appetite to get involved in this case.

If the campaigning bodies like Cycling UK got together and made it clear that they would launch private prosecutions if the HSE/police did not, that might force the latter to act. If they didn't, I imagine that a private prosecution would be expensive and problematic, not least because of the difficulty of getting hold of the relevant evidence, i.e. the documentation detailing the decision making and likely also statements from those concerned in the design.

Even so, I still think they should seriously consider it, and if Cycling UK sought crowdfunding or similar to fund the likely high costs of preparing and making a private prosecution, I would be willing to contribute.

Slowster - to all intents and purposes there are no private prosecutions in Scotland. They are theoretically possible but incredibly rare and only with the permission of the crown.

Unfortunately happened across it almost immediately as it happened on my way to work. Awful scene. Not much else to say, it's not a great design for your average cyclist to negotiate.

to all intents and purposes there are no private prosecutions in Scotland. They are theoretically possible but incredibly rare and only with the permission of the crown.

Apologies for my ignorance of the Scottish judicial system.

However, I presume that there must be other legal avenues which could be explored, e.g. if the relevent public bodies indicate that they will not investigate possible criminal negligence in the design then a judicial review could be applied for to challenge that decision and potentially even compel them to undertake such an investigation.

Even if unsuccessful, just the application for judicial review would bring public scrutiny, and fear of similar scrutiny may cause road designers to be more wary of deliberately ignoring advice and designing road layouts that are inherently and unnecessarily dangerous for cyclists.

Surely it wouldn't take much to place a fluid filled membrane which displaces under the weight of a tram but not under the weight of a bike into the gap.

Or arrange a 90 degree crossing then segregation.

I cross rail tracks every time I commute but it's at 90 degrees so no danger

Comments on FB news article about this tragedy are depressing. Right in with the victim blaming. Unreal.

Apologies for my ignorance of the Scottish judicial system.

you are forgiven...

However, I presume that there must be other legal avenues which could be explored, e.g. if the relevent public bodies indicate that they will not investigate possible criminal negligence in the design then a judicial review could be applied for to challenge that decision and potentially even compel them to undertake such an investigation.

its very unlikely they won't investigate if it is in their remit, much more likely that they report to the PF (Scottish Equivalent to CPS) and the PF decides there is no realistic prospect of a conviction (if that is indeed the case). I've never heard of the PF's decision being subject to Judicial Review - presumably because as I understand it, a Judicial Review really asks if you followed due process rather than if you reached the correct outcome. If Crown Council / Lord Advocate / senior PF reviews the evidence as appropriate and says its a ropey case, then due process was followed - keep in mind what seems open-and-shut to us is not always so clear when the admissibility of evidence is considered and the necessary legal tests of mens rea etc are applied. A particular challenge in manslaughter cases against giant organisations is determining who really was the controlling mind, and who really knew about the risks involved and overlooked them, as opposed to who did the best they could with the budget they had and ability to be heard. Who is at fault? The designer, The person who approved it, the person who hasn't changed it despite complaints, the person who gives them the budget, the CEO, the Councillors. Quite possibly all of them - but you can be sure their lawyers are all going to point the fingers at each other and a Jury might not be able to decide!

Even if unsuccessful, just the application for judicial review would bring public scrutiny, and fear of similar scrutiny may cause road designers to be more wary of deliberately ignoring advice and designing road layouts that are inherently and unnecessarily dangerous for cyclists.

Yes - although the JR you suggested would bring the law enforcement agencies under scrutiny not the actual council decisions. But you could expect an almost inevitable civil court case against the council to achieve similar and Thomsons who are representing various cyclists who incurred minor injuries there in the past have already publicly lambasted the council for doing nothing [I will be surprised if the Council/Insurers don't try to avoid a civil case though].

If the aim is to prevent recurrence rather than achieve criminal punishment, then a Fatal Accident Inquiry (similar to Coroner's Inquest in England) is likely the most appropriate channel. The PF decides if one is required - using totally different criteria from prosecution - and it would be somewhat surprising if they didn't think it were appropriate here.

Daffy - Member
Surely it wouldn't take much to place a fluid filled membrane which displaces under the weight of a tram but not under the weight of a bike into the gap.

It's not just the risk of the wheel falling into the gap.

The rail is smooth polished steel, and with a coating of diesel and oil from traffic it can be incredibly slick if there's any moisture about - worse than slick ice.

Surfaces like that don't belong on our roads. They are a danger to cyclists and motorcyclists, and a potential control issue for cars.

But worst of all, the danger is extremely well known and a topic of discussion as far back as the start of the cycling era. 100+ years of knowledge was ignored to put those stupid trams there.

Poly, thank you for the reply and insight. I appreciate the difficulties in bringing a criminal prosecution, especially so for corporate manslaughter, but I think that the cycling safety campaigning organisations do need to seriously consider pushing this hard.

A few thoughts regarding your comments:

its very unlikely they won't investigate if it is in their remit, much more likely that they report to the PF (Scottish Equivalent to CPS) and the PF decides there is no realistic prospect of a conviction

I'm somewhat sceptical of this. My understanding is that the HSE could be much more active in the field of work related road safety and accident investigation under current H&S legislation and its existing remit, but has chosen not to, probably because of a lack of resources. I think that like any organisation they will pick their battles, and will tend to shy away from breaking new ground or anything difficult, even when public interest would warrant them doing so.

This case is unusual from a road safety perspective in that the key issue is probably the road/tram line layout design, rather than the actions of the cyclist or the driver, and there appears to be a lot of evidence that the design is dangerous, and that the persons who approved the design knew this and approved it anyway. This is exactly the type of thing that the Construction Design and Management Regulations would normally cover (risk assess at the design stage and design out or mitigate unacceptable risks) and would normally be enforced and prosecuted by the HSE. I don't know if the design of highways/tram networks would somehow be excluded under the CDM Regs, but I am not aware of the HSE ever undertaking enforcement action with regard to something like this. Maybe this is the case where the HSE needs to be prodded to get out of its comfort zone and break new ground.

A particular challenge in manslaughter cases against giant organisations is determining who really was the controlling mind

I thought that the current legislation for corporate manslaughter no longer made it so easy for organisations to get off such a charge by exploiting the difficulty in identifying the mens rea (which was always crazy, since it made large complex organisations much more difficult to prosecute than small businesses).

Yes - although the JR you suggested would bring the law enforcement agencies under scrutiny not the actual council decisions. But you could expect an almost inevitable civil court case against the council to achieve similar and Thomsons who are representing various cyclists who incurred minor injuries there in the past have already publicly lambasted the council for doing nothing

The civil compensation claims and the associated publicity appear to be having limited effect: apparently no alterations have been made to make it safer. I cannot help but suspect that the authority is not that bothered by the compensation awards, especially since the money comes out of the taxpayer's pocket anyway. A criminal investigation, and especially a prosecution, even though the penalty for a H&S offence is likely to be a fine less than the civil award, would turn the heat up a lot more under the individuals who were involved in these decisions. A civil claim can be simply negotiated away by lawyers, unlike a criminal investigation with interviews under PACE with the prospect of possibly being called to account for your actions in a criminal court and the resulting publicity.

My understanding is that the HSE could be much more active in the field of work related road safety and accident investigation under current H&S legislation and its existing remit, but has chosen not to, probably because of a lack of resources.

I personally would welcome them considering what role they should be playing in what is for most employers the most dangerous bit of their workplace - the roads their staff drive on. I don't know if it is a genuine legal point, resourcing or simply politics that keeps them out of that. There is perhaps another quirk in scotland that it doesn't really matter who investigated the PF is the prosecutor anyway so it could simply be a police investigation if there are grounds for culpable homicide / corporate homicide [the Scottish equivalent of manslaughter].

... and there appears to be a lot of evidence that the design is dangerous...

it would probably be difficult to argue otherwise with multiple civil cases on going.

... and that the persons who approved the design knew this and approved it anyway...

I haven't studied the details - but did they know that when the approved the design?

This is exactly the type of thing that the Construction Design and Management Regulations would normally cover (risk assess at the design stage and design out or mitigate unacceptable risks)

do they apply after a construction project is completed and the project is in use?

I don't know if the design of highways/tram networks would somehow be excluded under the CDM Regs,

I think Trams fall under the auspices of the ORR rather than HSE?

I thought that the current legislation for corporate manslaughter no longer made it so easy for organisations to get off such a charge by exploiting the difficulty in identifying the mens rea (which was always crazy, since it made large complex organisations much more difficult to prosecute than small businesses).

You are right - that is the whole point of that legislation. However you need to show that the systems in place were at fault (rather than trying to pin the blame on the individual) and then even if found guilty there is some reticence to levy huge fines on Local Authorities as it harms public services and vulnerable people suffer. In many ways its preferable if the office holders are accountable rather than hiding behind the organisation.

The civil compensation claims and the associated publicity appear to be having limited effect: apparently no alterations have been made to make it safer.

slightly ironically they may have made the council reluctant to make radical improvements - because that would by implications suggest there must have been a fault with the design!

I cannot help but suspect that the authority is not that bothered by the compensation awards, especially since the money comes out of the taxpayer's pocket anyway.

I assume any significant payment will come from an insurer?

A civil claim can be simply negotiated away by lawyers, unlike a criminal investigation with interviews under PACE with the prospect of possibly being called to account for your actions in a criminal court and the resulting publicity.

No PACE in Scotland either! But still the option of a "no comment" interview, and if you want to minimise scrutiny a guilty plea and pay the fine. Actually a FAI is a potentially more embarrassing prospect as (assuming there is no prospect of a criminal prosecution) I think those responsible can by cited and required to answer the questions. Certainly the Scottish media would enjoy that.

So sad. I wondered if there could be a device of sorts that could sit in or over a tram line that crosses the forward path of a cycle lane that allows the tram wheel to pass through but 'close' after the tram wheel is passed-allowing for a road surface that doesn't have a metal trough in it. Kind of like a rubber gaiter of sorts that is stiff enough to part for a tram wheel but close and 'seal' the tram track- akin to closing a zip. There must be a good reason this doesn't exist but when lines cross or are in cycle lanes, some solution should be found. Thoughts are with all affected.

Very sad when you can see accidents coming like this. I've tried to ride amongst tram tracks around Croydon and despite 20 years MTB and commuting experience I still found if very difficult doing it amongst traffic. I've no idea how someone new to cycling would cope.

There are products available but I'm not sure how well they work

http://www.poly-corp.com/transportation/industrial-ports.asp

I wondered if there could be a device of sorts that could sit in or over a tram line that crosses the forward path of a cycle lane that allows the tram wheel to pass through but 'close' after the tram wheel is passed-allowing for a road surface that doesn't have a metal trough in it. Kind of like a rubber gaiter of sorts that is stiff enough to part for a tram wheel but close and 'seal' the tram track- akin to closing a zip.

There is and it was discussed and rejected in the design of the system. Something like:
[url= http://www.strail.de/index.php?id=197&L=1 ]Velostrail[/url]

Cyclists have been trying to sue the council for a few years over the design deficiencies and that's come to nothing so, sadly, can't see this making a change.

very sad

i hope the council don't simply close ranks but rather be open and go ahead and make positive changes - not easy but changing use of road space is more dependent on political balls than the art of the possible

i've seen some of the past threads on the problems in Edinburgh and commented as have lived with trams in Sheffield (horrible) and currently in Melbourne (more or less OK) - the key difference between the Edinburgh and Sheffield schemes and those in Melbourne and many continental cities is that in Edinburgh and Sheffield cyclists are forced to cross and ride along parallel to tracks - Edinburgh would seem tragically intransigent - think posted a link on one of the Road CC threads - the council advice was simply if not confident get off and walk (from memory but not paraphrasing)

CycleSheffield have had some recent success - but not sure how big a success but at least council finally accepting that there is a problem:

[url] http://www.cyclesheffield.org.uk/2017/01/06/sheffield-council-approve-tram-cycle-safety-action-plan/ [/url]

I haven't studied the details - but did they know that when the approved the design?

TJ made the following comment back on [url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/edinburgh-tram-track-crashes ]this thread[/url], which I assume refers to where the accident happened:

The reason the council have no defense and will have to pay up is that they commissioned a report from Dutch transport experts on how to get safe cycle provision with the tram tracks along princes street to haymarket - and then completely ignored the results.

do they apply after a construction project is completed and the project is in use?

They do. A key aspect of the CDM Regs is to ensure that H&S is considered right from the design stage, and to ensure that it is considered for the design, for the construction phase (build it safely), for how the building/structure will be used and maintained, and even how the building/structure would eventually be decommissioned/dismantled. Basically it requires architects and other designers to design in safety from the outset and design out avoidable unnecessary risks. If someone is killed or injured later due to a failure to do so, then the HSE can prosecute the designer.

slightly ironically they may have made the council reluctant to make radical improvements - because that would by implications suggest there must have been a fault with the design!

I know what you mean and that some people and organisations will take that approach, but it is flawed and will only make things much worse for them if it goes to court. If it's work related, they actually have a duty to review the relevant risk assessment in the light of a major accident and if appropriate take corrective action; not doing so and taking no action after multple accidents would put them in a much worse position in defending a civil compensation case, and even more so a criminal prosecution.

I assume any significant payment will come from an insurer?

Possibly, but many councils self insure. Even if they are insured, that will only be an annual insurance contract, and the insurer will increase the price at next and subsequent renewal if incidents like this result in it losing money (the other thread I linked to mentioned 191 cyclists requiring hospital treatment as a result of accidents caused by the tram tracks). Moreover, this is not something where the council could improve its claims experience by better training for employees or issuing them with better personal protective equipment etc., it is something that they have built in to the design of the roads, so any insurer will know that there will be more claims, possibly fatalities, from this next year, and they will charge accordingly.

Actually a FAI is a potentially more embarrassing prospect as (assuming there is no prospect of a criminal prosecution) I think those responsible can by cited and required to answer the questions. Certainly the Scottish media would enjoy that.

If the FAI were to spend the necessary time reviewing the design input and decisions, then that sounds like it would be a good second best to a criminal prosecution.

Not much to add to the ^

However, is there a case for the bus driver to answer for? If he can't stop in time to avoid someone who fell off their bike in front of them, then surely he was driving too close?

Or is that now so common and standard practice that it is accepted?

There was this article 2 [s]days[/s] (sorry) years before the fatality (didn't see it previously linked in the thread).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-32899109 [i]

"To my mind, it's absolutely inevitable that unless something happens we will see a death on the streets of our capital city."

They put "fake" tram tracks in my local shopping precinct, I slipped on them in the wet and clattered my (thankfully helmet clad) head on a fence.

Surprisingly the anti cycling/victim blaming comments on the evening news article are in a significant minority.

Wonder if the council will do anything now since public opinion is broadly against them. Obviously they're not going to move the tracks, but I'd imagine they would give those rubber gaitors a try.

Though I'm not sure we have a council just now? Are they still arguing about who won?

Thanks to poly for a good explanation of the options.

However, is there a case for the bus driver to answer for? If he can't stop in time to avoid someone who fell off their bike in front of them, then surely he was driving too close?

Perhaps - if that is how it happened. What if the cyclist was filtering beside the traffic at the time? What if the wheel getting caught launched the cyclist sideways? Lots of what ifs. It's also quite possible that the bus driver is completely innocent and did nothing wrong, yet will carry the mental scars of having killed someone for the rest of their life.

I'm fortunate enough not to have to cycle near the tracks, but I've paid a lot of attention to the discussions over the years and the council have behaved appallingly IMHO. I hope there is a FAI and I hope the council get the book thrown at them.

Of course, the individuals who presided over all of this will have departed with golden parachutes and never be called to account. Lesley Effing Hinds comes out with this crap:

"The council advises that it's best to cross the tracks as close to a right angle as possible and to take extra care to avoid getting wheels caught in between the rail grooves.

despite the road layout having been designed to force cyclists to do exactly the things they should avoid.

However, is there a case for the bus driver to answer for?

Cyclist fell into oncoming traffic you could be at walking pace and still kill someone if they end up underneath.

However, is there a case for the bus driver to answer for? If he can't stop in time to avoid someone who fell off their bike in front of them, then surely he was driving too close?

Perhaps - if that is how it happened. What if the cyclist was filtering beside the traffic at the time? What if the wheel getting caught launched the cyclist sideways? Lots of what ifs. It's also quite possible that the bus driver is completely innocent and did nothing wrong, yet will carry the mental scars of having killed someone for the rest of their life.

The Edinburgh Evening News reports that the cyclist fell into the path of an oncoming bus, so very possible she wasn't at fault.

The bus company that have been reported as being involved have a poor history of safe driving around cyclists. Myself and others have felt the need to complain to the company - impatience, close passes, poor overtaking etc.

[quote=yourguitarhero ]However, is there a case for the bus driver to answer for? If he can't stop in time to avoid someone who fell off their bike in front of them, then surely he was driving too close?

That was exactly my initial thought - though in this case it seems rather unlikely that the bus was directly behind the cyclist, and it's not at all unreasonable for a bus to overtake a cyclist in which case there's going to be a point where there's little the driver can do if the cyclist falls off directly in front of them. That 1.5m safe gap disappears rather quickly if you fall off sideways. The problem here is almost certainly the poor infrastructure rather than poor driving.

I feel the speculation based on reported accounts in news articles is mostly pointless, however I think having both driven and ridden round there a lot, if someone comes off and into your path suddenly from the side for example, you've got no chance of avoiding them, which as said above would be the infrastructure letting people down. Even with the best driving, someone can still get themselves under your wheels.

Comments on FB news article about this tragedy are depressing. Right in with the victim blaming. Unreal.

Unfortunately any divisive topic brings out all the bottom feeding trolls. I am always amazed at what people will say on facebook though.

New article on BBC news website now, CEC giving the usual "we've made every effort to let people know that there are tram tracks there" combined with "anyway, the official cycling route is down George Street."

Honeybadger.
I saw that statement too about The official route being george street and not princes street. Surely to get to george street from Lothian road you have to negotiate that junction anyway as george street doesn't actually start until slightly further east of the junction / Lothian road.

Did stink of a "her fault" attitude though.

I know of someone else who was about a bawhair away from being under a bus due to the tracks and narrowly avoided getting his head squashed due to the quick reactions of the bus driver but broke his elbow and was off work for months.

The problems have been reported from day one and nothing got done about it. There will be a legal papertrail somewhere and hopefully the council will get hammered for ignoring all the warnings.

Living in Birkenhead on the worlds first tram route, developed by an an american called George Francis Train, which was opened in 1860, sadly we just have a short preserved line now and some old and rebuilt trams running.In fact i rode over it today on a bike.

The serious risks of wheel trap/slide accidents are well known amongst tram operators around the world and in the uk, designs are and can be made to eliminate some of the risk to cyclists and motor cyclists, but it seems the edinburgh tram system was built down to a budget that was frequently exceeded, and costs had to be cut to bring the system back into budget.

Other UK based tram systems that use on road running, dont seem to have many cyclist complaints, probably because they where better designed and motor vehicle drivers show more respect to cyclists etc.

Birkenhead, Blackpool,ShefField,Manchester,Croydon,Midland Metro,LLandudno tramway and Nottingham all have on street running, with few problems.

Sadly the lady cyclist fell off on a tram line and was then run over by a bus, Probably RAIB and the Police Scotland will be investigating.

RIP, LADY CYCLIST

There will be a legal papertrail somewhere and hopefully the council will get hammered for ignoring all the warnings.

Which is exactly why they are out in front of the media doing the "nothing to see here" act. They have been building their "argument" for years so they feel a need to defend it and deflect attention.

If that isn't a bike route then why, looking on streetview, is there a picture of a bike on the greenway right between the tram tracks (tram, bus, taxi, bike only markings)?

There's a follow up article (from today) here - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40119525 ]www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-40119525[/url] warning that previous warnings and injuries were ignored.

There's also an article and a sadly prophetic one from a few days ago - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-32899109 ]www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-32899109[/url] so as others have said, this doesn't seem unexpected.

Traffic's a little quieter down here in Somerset but the last time we were in Edinburgh the level of traffic was scary; the tram tracks must make things extra dangerous!

[quote=PJay ]There's also an article and a sadly prophetic one from a few days ago - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-32899109 so as others have said, this doesn't seem unexpected.

A couple of years ago (not trying to be pedantic, but it probably should be pointed out it's not that recent an article - and surprising in a way it's taken this long for somebody to be killed).

The comments from the council spokesperson in the follow up article make me quite angry - clearly it's not lack of awareness which is the problem. Maybe they should also check exactly how other European cities incorporate cyclists and trams which doesn't result in them having the same problems. I really hope they get hammered by the FAI, and what's more that one or more people get personally held responsible.

I used to live in Sheffield and was very wary of the tracks, but not aware of fatalities there?

What's so different in Edinburgh?

Whoops, yes I didn't spot that it was May 2015! Even then there still seem to have been quite a number of significant injuries. Today's article's suggest that the injury count is approaching 200.

What's so different in Edinburgh?

The fact that they designed/built the tracks without giving [i]any[/i] consideration to cyclists. This was because the politics of the whole fiasco meant that they were desperate to cut costs and finish the job as quickly as they could.

Awful news and thoughts with family and friends.

I really do hope everyone pulls together to make Edinburgh council realise that something urgent should be done

Just to add to the whole tram shambles the council dug up half of Leith resulting in businesses closing then decided not to bother laying the line down. Now they want to do it again. In principle I'm for trams but not when mismanaged and dangerous.

Examples of Edinburgh's tram related cycling "infrastructure":
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

The last one shows what Haymarket originally looked like after the tram work. Travelling from left to right of the photograph, there wasn't room to cycle on the main road between the tracks and the island where the traffic lights are, so cyclists were supposed to filter to the left (impossible due to parked taxis in the picture) go behind the traffic light island, rejoin the main road, cross the tram tracks at right angles and then proceed on the right of the tram route. That is actually what they came up with as a design when the road opened. They clearly hadn't thought about cycling at all. It has been improved a bit now, but it is still not very good.

I'm very sorry to hear about the death of the cyclist. An accident like that should be impossible if properly designed facilities had been delivered in the first place.

Sad news indeed. Its outrageous how badly thought out the tramlines are from Princess street to Haymarket and there is such a depressing inevitably about this tragedy.

A couple of months ago my wife witnessed a near fatality a few hundred yards from where this accident occurred in almost identical circumstances. Fortunately in that incident, wife said the oncoming bus managed to stop in time but the wheels were literally inches from where the cyclist landed (after getting his wheel caught in the tramline) - she was convinced the guy was going to be crushed.

Its crazy when you think if this had happened in a workplace, somebody high up would be getting charged with industrial manslaughter.

That first picture looks horrible to negotiate, and made even worse when the surface is wet. Appalling.

The first picture is haymarket yards and is actually part of sustrans cycle route 1!

Fortunately its not busy with other traffic like Princess street but its still ridiculous to have a national cycle route traverse such badly thought out and dangerous infrastructure.

is there a case for the bus driver to answer for? If he can't stop in time to avoid someone who fell off their bike in front of them, then surely he was driving too close?

I commute by bike and bus In Edinburgh and from experience I've seen double deckers trailing cyclists by a matter of feet way too often. Its at a cyclists pace but really there is no need to even risk an emergency stop if the cyclist had an off. If the buses hung back just a few more meters they'd be, ooo, 3 seconds later to their next stop? Winds me up seeing it.

For those that are in Edinburgh next week, it looks likely that there will be an informal gathering on Wednesday morning at the junction of Lothian Road/Shandwick Place.

8.30 seems to be the time. The details of why, what, and when are being discussed here:

http://citycyclingedinburgh.info/bbpress/topic.php?id=17789&page=6

While the tramlines are an issue, how close was the vehicle behind her to not be able to stop?

<deleted as I was actually wrong>

It's not been made clear which way the cyclist was going.

One of the witness statements on the news said the bus and cyclist had just left the traffic lights together, other reports refer to the bus as oncoming, which suggests otherwise.

NZ, I hope you are ok. Not a nice thing to experience.

The bit around haymarket is totally mental, I don't have a pic of it but the orange cycle lane that is designed to lead you over the tram lines at 45 degrees or whatever basically spits you directly into megabuses. Apparently there was an Australian contingent visiting last year or the year before to see how not to design a tram line, apparently it's called "not doing an Edinburgh"

While the tramlines are an issue, how close was the vehicle behind her to not be able to stop?

I'm not sure it was necessarily behind her.

Well from the Edinburgh forum link it seems it maybe was behind her, but still, I'm not sure there's much point in speculation.

Interesting about the illegal practice of rabbies tour guides speaking whilst driving, I suspect that will come up in court. Unbelievable about passers by filming the victim getting cpr though, that's dark.

The bit around haymarket is totally mental,

It is awful. I rode it a couple of weeks ago - and I am used to Sheffield trams...

I'm not sure it was necessarily behind her.

Ah, I hadn't thought of that.

Stopping distance at 20mph = 12 metres? Possibly longer for a minibus?

Either way I'm not sure the minibus driver could be held at fault for not being able to stop, nobody maintains 12 metre distance.

CEC seem to be getting into the tricky territory of arguing that commuter cyclists should have the cornering and bunnyhopping skills necessary to negotiate tram tracks in heavy traffic, good way to encourage folk off bikes and back into cars...

The bit around haymarket is totally mental,

It is awful. I rode it a couple of weeks ago - and I am used to Sheffield trams...

I'm not sure it was necessarily behind her.

Ah, I hadn't thought of that.

Either way I'm not sure the minibus driver could be held at fault for not being able to stop, nobody maintains 12 metre distance.

I don't know the specifics of this accident in particular so please don;t take the following comments as relating to this particular event, but lets take those statements in isolation...

Either way I'm not sure [s]the [/s]a [s]minibus [/s] vehicle driver could be held at fault for not being able to stop

That's exactly the kind of thing you [i]should [/i]plan for when driving, leaving appropriate distances so that you can respond to unexpected* events, especially in cities or other urban areas where this a lot of traffic and mixing with other road users. To not do so would mean that every little incident would result in drivers rear-ending each other and accidents all over the place, it's a core principle of driving, be vigilant, and give yourself time to react and distance to stop/avoid.

nobody maintains 12 metre** distance

Well, where to start... just because other people don't take care or drive appropriately doesn't mean it's OK. It also means paradoxically that you should take [i]more [/i]care. If someone is tailgating you, the correct response is not to get closer to the vehicle in front, it's to leave more room in front of you. If [i]everyone else[/i] is doing it then [i]you [/i]still have the option of doing it properly.

This is classic 'everyone else is rubbish so it's OK for me to be rubbish' justification, it's not OK.

* let's not even get into the fact that a cyclist negotiating tramlines and having an accidnet isn't exactly unexpected, given the history it might be [i]unlikely[/i] but it is exactly the kind of thing you should [i]expect[/i], just like when passing schools, it is unlikely that stray children will run out in front of you, but it's a possible scenario to expect and be vigilant for.

** although decent guidance the 'official' stopping distances are still just that, modern cars may be able to stop quicker, or weather/surface conditions may mean it's longer, so [i]appropriate [/i]distance rather than fixed 12m

It's surely not difficult to imagine a scenario where a vehicle and a cyclist are side-by-side, the cyclist falls to one side and is hit by the vehicle, especially if they have just moved off from a junction and the cyclist is filtering or on a marked cycle lane alongside the main carriageway. In that case, I wouldn't expect the vehicle to be 12 metres behind the cyclist (indeed, there'd be no need for cycle lanes)

It's surely not difficult to imagine a scenario where a vehicle and a cyclist are side-by-side, the cyclist falls to one side and is hit by the vehicle

Absolutely, which is why I made a very clear disclaimer about this not being about this particular incident as it sounds like that what happened, one of those very rare cases where all the wrong things happened at the same time and the margins for error were either not there or too tight.

It's just like the archetypal story of a rider hitting a pothole and falling to the path of the car behind, terrible, and on the face of it unavoidable, except it's not always unavoidable is it? With enough passing room and distance and a driver noticing that there are potholes and understanding that they might pose a risk to the rider a lot of the time it [i]could [/i]be avoided.

However, you've thrown in two different scenarios there too... if they have [i]just [/i]moved off from a junction speed will be nowhere near 20mph yet, add in that with a proper passing distance, coupled with proper observation* massively reduces the chances of such an outcome happening.

*it's very unusual for people to *suddenly* fall (except on ice, when you should be giving a wider berth anyway), there is normally some tell tale wobble, or instability before hand, and being that the tram tracks are a known hazard and visible to drivers too it should be a fairly identifiable possibility to drivers and so should leave room accordingly.

On a related note...

Modern proximity warning, collision avoidance and emergency auto-braking systems are becoming more common now, I often wonder how urban traffic would be different if (when?) every vehicle was fitted with such a system.

Would we find it getting activated all the time due the way people currently drive in cities?

I guess if you could flip a magic switch and turn it on for every car on the road right now there'd be a bit of that for a while, until everyone adjusted to leaving more room, and then I guess the systems would become semi-redundant was we'd then have people leaving safe distances by default and it would only kick in when necessary for those unexpected events or lapses.