Cyclist sues Edinburgh Trams and city council after tram track fall – and more cases could follow if she wins

made this point before...the layout of the tram tracks in Edinburgh can't be compared to those in major European cities. Used to live in Sheffield and issue is the same being forced to ride parallel to the tracks and to cross a track parallel or near parallel and then return. Crossing at right angle or near is no problem - currently live in Melbourne , down under extensive tram network but like Amsterdam generally in the middle of wide streets with no need to ride adjacent to or among the tracks. Can recall two occasions in Sheffield when I thought I was lucky to get home rather than end up in an ambulance and my self preservation desire is pretty high. Fundamental lack of concern for cyclists both in design and implementation.

Here's the scene of one near miss in Sheffield and the only available route to local facilities:

Doesn't look much like Amsterdam

also similar here https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-36112576

How about metal manhole covers that become slippery in the rain, painted-on road markings (ditto) or for that matter marble pavements that would put a skating rink to shame when it rains (had a nasty fall in Athens, Greece, on one of those).  Wait, maybe the brand that made my shoe soles was negligent there.  Or how about Roubaix-style cobblestones with enough space between them to swallow a 28mm tyre?

Imho there's a standard of reasonable care that an authority or company should adhere to but there's also personal accountability for one's own safety.  Any cyclist with the sense of self-preservation of a snail knows that tram rails are a mortal hazard.  If you're not comfortable crossing, there's no law stopping you from getting off the bike to do so.  Though I have to cross those buggers on a daily basis I wouldn't dream of holding the city accountable if I fell.  Putting rubber covers in place to mitigate the risk sounds nice but also opens up other angles of attack in case something goes awry with those.

As to Amsterdam:  it's certainly not the case in all locations that tram rails have dedicated cyclist crossings that are protected.

Here's one of my personal favourites in google maps, check the street view, looks like tic-tac-toe with the rails:

Edinburgh Trams, as alluded to by AV Lowe above has become a case study in catastrophic project management. Wrecked by political infighting, colossal cost overruns, lack of accountability, ongoing project changes throughout the inception, design and build and a decade late when finally delivered.

The idea that cyclists were even considered at any stage is pretty laughable - if they were it was put to the back of the queue as the build progressed.

Compare it to the Manchester tram system which (although not perfect) was delivered on time, on budget, with at least a reasonable degree of thought for cyclists and covers about 20x more track length than the Edinburgh line.

The council deserve everything they get - successive Edinburgh councils cocked up every single aspect of that tram line and this should be seen as a lesson to everyone what happens in those circumstances. The idea behind it is that other councils will see these court cases and learn from it so this shit design doesn't happen again and cyclists are better catered for in future infrastructure projects.

I've tracked this project right from the building stage. The transverse profile of tarmac-seal-concrete-rubber(insulation/seal)-steel(railhead)-slot-steel(keep)-rubber(insulation/seal)-concrete-rubber(insulation/seal)-steel(keep)-slot-steel(railhead)-rubber(insulation/seal)-concrete-seal-tarmac should have no step or ridge greater than 3mm aside from the rail groove.  We delivered this in Nottingham over 20 years ago, and the track on most streets is still  of this quality.  It was delivered in Blackpool and in Manchester contemporary with the Edinburgh project, and these were notably built to a higher quality than Edinburgh. 

Edinburgh's on street track is cracking apart as well, along with the road pavements that run alongside. A section of Princes Street has sunk over 6 " and road plates cover other holes, most exactly where cyclists will be riding, some in place for at least 2 years. Manhole frames are sinking and breaking up - requiring repair every 6-9 months - I believe I know why this is happening & it goes right back to poor specification and management of the construction.

The victim probably did not have her wheel 'drop into the groove', this has all the indications of  was a rear slide - causing her to land on her side - this happens when making a turn with the rear tyre bridging the groove, and sliding sideways.

Not quoted from Chris's results, and that of a study in Toronto as well, over 50% of cyclists' crashes were a result of other road users' actions influencing the way the victim crossed the rails. This may well have been the case for Zhi Min Soh, given the reputation of some bus drivers tail gating cyclists, along the bus-only Princes Street, and the rapid appearance of 'keep your distance' signs afterwards, and her death mirrors that of Roger de Klerk in Croydon, who also fell off crossing the rails, with the bus driver behind (also a woman bus driver) unable to stop before running him over.  

As Troy points out, if it can be done in Amsterdam, why not in Edinburgh?

Did the council ignore cyclists in planning the trams, and if they did consider them, did they adopt the measures taken in places like Amsterdam?  If they didn't, they were negligent.

I'm sure someone knows the answers.

I agree that it is a demonstrable hazard - but what kind of design change is going to alleviate it? They will put up signs saying no cycling and maybe fine the people that ignore it. Look at somewhere like Amsterdam - an order of magnitude more bicycles & tram tracks coming into contact with each other and yet there seem to be less overall injuries (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4310015/) - is there a distinct difference in design or could it be that cyclists are aware of the hazards and ride accordingly? 

@HarrogateSpa - As to point number 2 : it's clear that this lady claims she was forced by traffic, that is not provable by us. Personally I've never been forced into a 10 cm danger zone in the middle of the lane by traffic - maybe to either side but that is not where the tram tracks are. If it can be shown that she was forced by traffic movement then that could potentially be fixed - I'll definitely concede that. 

Perhaps my first comment came off a little strong - it was partially in jest, although I don't believe that any hazard mitigation will go further than banning cyclists or putting cautionary signs up; and if you think that's the solution then great. My personal experience with those tracks could have been mitigated by me, even if I'd been injured it still would have been my fault for not taking adequete care around a clearly visible hazard.

I think it demonstrates, once again, that cyclists were not considered when building new infrastructure.

Little did I know that I could potentially be 50 grand richer by suing after I cycled into a clearly visible obstacle and didn't get hurt.

1) The amount of damages depends on the severity of the injuries - as you probably realise.

2) From the report, it's clear that the lady was forced by traffic to ride where she wouldn't have done if the road was traffic-free. That must have happened to all of us at some point.

3) If tens or hundreds of people are being injured, it's a dangerous design and should be changed.

191 cyclist hospitalisations and one death in 6 years? How many additional incidents have there been involving motorcyclists and moped riders? Sounds more likely an issue with the tram tracks being demonstrably, repeatedly and predictably dangerous. The authority responsible has been and continues to be extremely negligent in not removing or effectively mitigating the hazard. Unfortunately it will be the tax payers who will suffer as a result of any financial award of damages whilst the people responsible will avoid censure when they should be facing charges of culpable and reckless conduct for putting the public at risk or even corporate manslaughter.

I took a spill on the Princes street tracks shortly after they were put in place - I should've been paying more attention and not tempting fate. Little did I know that I could potentially be 50 grand richer by suing after I cycled into a clearly visible obstacle and didn't get hurt. 
 

It'd be some going to get your back wheel trapped without being extremely close to getting your front wheel trapped.