- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Add new comment
2 comments
My two cents:
Overall the video is reasonable. There were a few things I disagreed with:
This is largely irrelevant to the rest of the discussion, but I would not assume the cyclist had been using the bit of cycle track further up the road - in its current state it is functionally useless (especially when coming downhill on Leith Street from Princes Street).
It's not quite clear where the cyclist did stop, or where Ashley thinks they should have stopped. It seems to me that if the cyclist had used any part of the advanced stop box, they would have had trouble seeing the nearer set of light (especially considering the hood) and found it far easier to look at the further set. Ashley also assumes the only factor influencing stopping position is being able to see the lights - but as a cyclist it's also important to position yourself taking into consideration other road users - and this can mean going further forwards than is "ideal" to give yourself more space and ensure maximum visibility.
Ashley noted that the other traffic on York Place might have indicated that cars were still coming. An alternative explanation is that the cyclist saw those other cars pass, then a relatively long period of no cars and pedestrians start to cross, giving the opposite impression. (Although in all likelihood, the cyclist was just watching the lights and did not consciously consider either option).
Although in isolation from those Street View images the road markings/directions are reasonably clear, its worth remembering that that gyratory used to be a roundabout and "straight" meant continuing from Leith Street down onto Leith Walk, with the cyclist's direction of travel first being a left turn onto York Place and then a separate right onto Broughton Street. We don't know how long the cyclist has lived in Edinburgh or used that junction (clearly they were unfamiliar with the current layout/traffic light situation), but that is another reason why the directional arrows/lights might not be intuitive, if you consider "straight" to be carrying on towards Leith Walk (which is the straightest direction of travel overall). (Worth repeating that this junction has been undergoing works for years, with frequent different layouts/markings/signs as the works progressed). Even in the current layout, the direction of travel from that junction onto Broughton Street is clearly left of true "straight," as demonstrated by the cycle markings across the tram tracks.
Finally, having pointed out all the problems with the infrastructure, Ashley's closing remark is that we can't blame the infrastructure and the fault is still entirely the cyclist's lack of observation - which seems to undermine everything he'd said before. Yes if the cyclist had better observation the collision probably would not have occured, but we can't rely on people to be perfect all the time and we can (and should) design and build infrastructure in such a way as to keep people as safe as possible despite the fact that sometimes people's observation skills will fall below the desired standard.
Per my waffle on the other thread, I couldn't agree more.
We have made LOTS of engineering - on-road, in law and in-car - to assist (predominantly) motorists getting it right. Leaving aside the whole question of whether it's due dilligence to continue designing systems where vulnerable road users feel they have to choose safety OR convenience... If the system (as currently the case) could confuse then we must also consider what happens to those not in motor vehicles. The consequences are almost inevitably going to be more serious for them.
Finally this all started (original vid) from Ashley making a point about thinking about "RLJ isn't just victimless crime - or rather it's NOT only on the person breaking the law. It's selfish also because many others can be seriously affected". There's maybe a conversation there (although I couldn't help thinking "would I be big enough to return from the dead and apologise?"). However Ashley then (IMO) undercut his point by referencing things (2nd and 3rd examples) which sound more like "a mistake became a fatal one because the other party was in a motor vehicle".
I do get that motoring is so completely ubiquitous though that you may be left shocked as a driver if something like this happens when you'd "done all you could".
I know the way we currently deal with this (and I don't want more). A better way? Maybe drain a bit of the drama ("whose fault?"), make this about "health and safety" as well as "legal responsibility". I think we agree we all want to get home safe AND we don't want to kill others (who may be our relatives). However some modes are simply much more dangerous to those using other modes. AND the system - like here - can set us all up to fail. Make the priority "safe movement of people" and I think we can start making genuine change. Not (just) by putting up more warning signs, pedestrian fencing or speaking ill of the dead.