Cyclist suffers life-threatening injuries in crash after wheel got "stuck in tramlines"

Wow! That's bloody lethal. How does something like that ever get off the page? Surely there is some basic element of risk assessment before a road design gets approved?

Sriracha wrote:

Wow! That's bloody lethal. How does something like that ever get off the page? Surely there is some basic element of risk assessment before a road design gets approved?

Presumably they assess risk for the drivers and don't really care about any other traffic

Not entirely true - they've put "pedestrian strainers" on to keep the walkers out of the way...

chrisonatrike wrote:

Not entirely true - they've put "pedestrian strainers" on to keep the walkers out of the way...

Or are they there to prevent corner-cutting motorists?

If put there for that purpose they're a waste of money, because they're always getting damaged by those bloody cyclists.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Does anyone have figures for Europe / tram accidents?  They do them extensively in many European countries - including The Netherlands.  Shouldn't be beyond the wit of someone in this country to, you know, look at where it works?  (I mean, we all know the NL is a country-sized death-trap for cyclists...)

UPDATE: a study from Belgium on this.

Edinburgh council were offered the help of a tram safety engineer from The Netherlands (funded by / arranged by the local cycle campaign group - their trams page has a lot of other useful info on the subject).  He made some recommendations which were largely ignored.  I'm guessing "not our expert" applied.  After one death and a *lot* of injuries and losing cases the council has - very slowly, sort of - got the message.  Unfortunately now we're limited to "divert the bikes a bit and paint / sign it better".

Edinburgh council ignored a lot of advice when building the tram system and not just about cycling safety. The council planners were inexperienced, naive and incompetent and that's why the project was hugely delayed, massively over budget and much shorter than originally intended. If they'd listened to sage advice from industry (and perhaps got Transport Scotland to manage it), they could have had twice the network in half the time and for half the money.

TBF trams are more efficient, both because they are longer (so more people moved per vehicle) and because of the much reduced rolling resistance of steel wheels on steel rails compared to rubber tyres on tarmac or concrete. Trolleybuses can also suffer disconnection problems (the connecting poles coming off the wires) though I think that's often due to poor maintenance. 

That said, both share the efficiency of electric traction of course, and I certainly wouldn't discount the "sexy new system" element.

I'll counter that by trams are more dangerous because of extended braking distances of steel wheels on steel tracks and the inability to turn to avoid a collision. Battery trolleybuses solve the temporary disconnection problem and can run in battery mode to give more route flexibiity whilst still running on mains for the majority or the route, minimising the cost and disruption of putting in the overhead cables while allowing for changes in use pattern over time. 

I don't have a beef either way but when I checked it was as Bmblbzzz says.  It's a balancing act e.g. different solutions may be optimal in different circumstances.  As you allude to I think "big bung theory" applies.  Major projects are exciting and money attracts money.   Large sums mean more potential bungs and troughing - apologies - "jobs and local economic benefits" to put it in PC language.

There's also a "capacity" factor.  Again this is dependent on having enough people to use the tram in the first place.  Given that, as I understand it trams can be expanded (by adding length) for absolute carrying capacity.  Another important factor is they can have more doors and get people on and off more quickly.  Trams can be longer - I think - because as the vehicle length increases going round a corner on a fixed track is easier engineering-wise / safer (see concerns about bendy buses...).

There are also probably some things you can do *because* trams are more expensive e.g. an extra million or two for more infra doesn't seem a big deal when you're in the hundreds of millions or more.

In the case of my town (Edinburgh) I haven't seen the usage figures.  Sadly because the whole thing became a spectacular SNAFU * I suspect we're not a good case study for capacity vs. value.  I suspect that putting in decent separated cycling infra and doing "smaller" public transport (maybe bus lanes / tracks) would in many cases be much more cost-effective for the same or better capacity and greater flexibility / resiliance.  I don't have any suitable places for comparison in mind though.

* Edinburgh is probably a good case study in hubris / how not to do it.  *Massive* underestimates of costs / time.  Strangely this is virtually a law for large-scale public infra projects yet is a surprise every time...

>In 2019 we recorded over 7.4 million customers journeys.

I've come a cropper once in Croydon on the tramlines - fortunately with only a few cuts and bruises. I'd even "reminded" myself, just a few seconds earlier to "mind the tramlines!"  I'm much more wary of them now...

Me too actually...

Was that because the metal was slippy in the wet? another reason they are dangerous to cyclists. 

Yes, riding a broad tyred hybrid e-bike.

Nasty - especially being incapacitated on tram tracks (likely trams AND cars).  Not heard of this mode of failure, only thing I can think of is maybe either front braking leading to loss of grip or if it was a hub-motor maybe that suddenly spinning then the jolt when it got traction again.

The Edinburgh crashes aren't all just wheel-wedging I think.  I've seen and experienced loss of front end when crossing at a shallow angle (rather than perpendicular).  Like suddenly hitting ice.  Belatedly the council has retro-fitted wider turns / guide paint for bikes to try to get people crossing at 90 degrees to the rails.

She doesn't really know, but I think it was damp track and a slight imbalance. There is a point where your contact point is entirely on the track and in that instant the bike will vanish from under you.