Another one bites the dust.

Simon Mason said:

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zrails.htm

I see that Russell, Jones and Walker are the advising sillysodders in
this case (why do I want to replace Russell with Mainwaring?). These
are the CTC's tame sharks, aren't they?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zrails.htm

I see that Russell, Jones and Walker are the advising sillysodders in
this case (why do I want to replace Russell with Mainwaring?). These
are the CTC's tame sharks, aren't they?

Makes no difference, I'm afraid. The rail people blame the road people and
the road people blame the rail guys, so nothing ever gets done.

--
Simon M.

Simon Mason said:

The rail people blame the road people and
the road people blame the rail guys, so nothing ever gets done.

Solution: sue them jointly and severally :-)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Simon Mason said:

Some people might have seen on Howard's site a Hull level crossing that has
the rails at a shallow angle to the road. So many cyclists have been injured
over the years including my barber who badly hurt his knee a year ago and is
still waiting for compensation.

Here is another poor soul who has crashed on the" death rails":

Can't the cyclist just cross them at 90 degrees (ish)? He'd have to
swing out to the centre of the road then back in again, but this is all
in the HC - isn't it?

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:41a60ae1.0@entanet...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

Some people might have seen on Howard's site a Hull level crossing that
has the rails at a shallow angle to the road. So many cyclists have been
injured over the years including my barber who badly hurt his knee a year
ago and is still waiting for compensation.

Here is another poor soul who has crashed on the" death rails":

Can't the cyclist just cross them at 90 degrees (ish)? He'd have to swing
out to the centre of the road then back in again, but this is all in the
HC - isn't it?

There are four rails to be crossed, all slanting from left to right. You can
walk across like this:

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/erimages/springbank2.jpg

but you shouldn't have to.

--
Simon M.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Some people might have seen on Howard's site a Hull level crossing that has
the rails at a shallow angle to the road. So many cyclists have been injured
over the years including my barber who badly hurt his knee a year ago and is
still waiting for compensation.

Here is another poor soul who has crashed on the" death rails":

Sorry about the tea bag stains, but I fished it out of the bin.

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zrails.htm

In it for the money. Nasty accident, but surely one that could have
been avoid had the cyclist taken a bit more care.

--
Hywel

Hywel Jenkins said:

In it for the money. Nasty accident, but surely one that could have
been avoid had the cyclist taken a bit more care.

When does it stop being a coincidence / accident? Simon tells us
there have been a *lot* of bike crashes here. Crossing those rails,
at that angle, on a wet day, must be a nightmare.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Hywel Jenkins said:

In it for the money. Nasty accident, but surely one that could have
been avoid had the cyclist taken a bit more care.

When does it stop being a coincidence / accident? Simon tells us
there have been a *lot* of bike crashes here. Crossing those rails,
at that angle, on a wet day, must be a nightmare.

No doubt it's difficult, but one doesn't have to ride over them,
particularly if it's known to be dangerous.

--
Hywel

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Some people might have seen on Howard's site a Hull level crossing that
has the rails at a shallow angle to the road. So many cyclists have been
injured over the years including my barber who badly hurt his knee a year
ago and is still waiting for compensation.

Here is another poor soul who has crashed on the" death rails":

Sorry about the tea bag stains, but I fished it out of the bin.

http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/zrails.htm

Earlier this year I posted regarding a friend who had a serious (i.e. life
threatening) accident at a level crossing when his front wheel went down a
gap between the concrete slabs that form the 'road' between the rails.

9 months later and Network Rail have finally admitted responsibility, only
another year or two to go to agree the level of compensation.

Major difference on this one is that the slabs had recently been worked on
and left incorrectly fitted, there was no warning sign plus the crossing
could not be seen due to a slight rise from the approaching road.

Woody

Quoted message said:

There are four rails to be crossed, all slanting from left to right. You can
walk across like this:

http://www.thebikezone.org.uk/erimages/springbank2.jpg

but you shouldn't have to.

--
Simon M.

Remarkably like the angle of the tram lines where a cycle lane crossed
tramlines on outskirts of Cologne, where Nathan got his front wheel stuck in
one and went over... Left a significant amount of his DNA on the tramline, and
got some *nasty* cuts. He was, however, ministered to by some German nurses
from a nearby clinic - all of whom happened to be young, blonde & very
attractive ;-) They were very kind and wouldn't take any payment for their
ministering. PLus we discovered a rather good ice cream parlour nearby where
Nathan had to have a very large ice cream - for medicinal purposes to calm the
frayed nerves.

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

Woody said:

Major difference on this one is that the slabs had recently been worked on
and left incorrectly fitted, there was no warning sign plus the crossing
could not be seen due to a slight rise from the approaching road.

There was no signage at all indicating there was a level crossing?

R.

dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

PLus we discovered a rather good ice cream parlour nearby where
Nathan had to have a very large ice cream - for medicinal purposes to calm the
frayed nerves.

Were the frayed nerves a consequence of your not leaving him alone with
the nurses, but instead insisting on buying an ice-cream?

Jon

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

When does it stop being a coincidence / accident? Simon tells us
there have been a *lot* of bike crashes here. Crossing those rails,
at that angle, on a wet day, must be a nightmare.

No doubt it's difficult, but one doesn't have to ride over them,
particularly if it's known to be dangerous.

As flagged by the warning sign.....

Zog The Undeniable said:

Can't the cyclist just cross them at 90 degrees (ish)? He'd have to
swing out to the centre of the road then back in again, but this is all
in the HC - isn't it?

There's a level crossing near me that sounds a lot like the one referred
to in the article and I always take the approach you suggest. I also
tend to slow down considerably.

Level crossings terrify me.

d.

Simon Mason said:

but you shouldn't have to.

It's all very well saying that, but I'd rather get off and walk than end
up with broken bones just to prove a point.

d.

Quoted message said:

Were the frayed nerves a consequence of your not leaving him alone with
the nurses, but instead insisting on buying an ice-cream?

Jon

He was ordering his ice cream as he was being ministered to by the young,
pretty, blonde nurses, as the nurses came down from the clinic to the ice cream
parlour (long'ish story), so it was probably a teenage male fantasy fulfilled
in reality ;-)

Cheers, helen s

--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e*nd**$o$ts**i*$*$m*m$o*n*s@$*a$o*l.c**$om$

--Due to financial crisis the light at the end of the tunnel is switched off--

Hi folks,

I would suggest that those who think the injured cyclist should have
just have got of and walked should look at the web page on this.

Firstly it is often simply not possible to move out and back again as
recommended in 'Cyclecraft'. At rush hour this road carries nose to
tail traffic and I personally know one cyclist who was seriously
injured in a 'hit and run' crash when a driver, enraged by him moving
out, forced himself up the inside of the cyclist, knocking him off and
leaving him with a broken arm.

If you get off and walk -which you simply should not have to do on a
public road- you then have the problem of getting back into the
traffic flow safely. this is a particular problem as there is a 'left
turn only' lane right after the crossing.

The rails and road surface are far from even and even a Railtrack
report accepts this.

The story is that a number of years ago the local highways authority
decided to change the layout of the road, a move that would mean
cyclists having to ride over the trail lines at an angle. Local
cyclists objected saying it would be dangerous, the Health and Safety
Executive got in involved and agreed, the highways authority then went
ahead anyway... As a result very many cyclists have fallen and being
injured on this crossing but only a couple have successfully gained
compensation.

Now the Highways acts say a road should be safe for all road users,
including cyclists, and this section of highway simply isn't. In
addition the surface is in a poor condition with marked height
differences between the road and the rails. Hull City Council and
Railtrack both tries to claim the other party, or the fallen cyclist,
was responsible then a couple of years ago a car driver skidded on the
tram lines in Sheffield and was awarded over £1 million in
compensation. This went to the High Court who ruled that the highways
authority was ultimately liable for the safety of any section of road,
even if other parties, such as a tram operator, installed rails in
that road.

I have been working on this case for a few years and at one point a
local solicitor got involved and uncovered a lot of very useful
additional information. For example the railway act relating to this
crossing states that it should be maintained in a safe and level
condition, which it is not. He also got an engineers report from
Railtrack which accepts there is at least a 10 mm height difference
between the rail and the road surface. In the Sheffield case it was
ruled that if even a 1 mm difference was enough to cause a car to
skid, it was a danger and the highways authority could be held liable.

This solicitor couldn't take the case further but then a CTC member
fell on these lines in April and I put together bundle of evidence for
him (Postage alone was almost £10!). The CTC has looked at this and
has decided to seek compensation for their member in what will
probably end up in the High Court as a test of the limits of The
Highways Act. (That is can a highways authority get away with failing
to maintain it's roads in a safe state for cyclists).

I feel we have a rock-solid case but then again the court may just
display the all-too common prejudice against cyclists and rule in
favour of the highways authority. In fact they did something similar a
while back when it was ruled that a highways authority could get away
with maintaining the margins of a road (where cyclists ride) in a
poorer state than the main part of the road (used by cars)...

Or perhaps cyclists should just get off the road anywhere where the
local authority cannot be bothered to meet it's legal obligations to
make the road safe for all road users, including cyclists...

davek <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Simon Mason said:

but you shouldn't have to.

It's all very well saying that, but I'd rather get off and walk than end
up with broken bones just to prove a point.

So would I, but I shouldn't have to.

--
Dave...

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I see that Russell, Jones and Walker are the advising sillysodders in
this case (why do I want to replace Russell with Mainwaring?). These
are the CTC's tame sharks, aren't they?

The photo shows him in a CTC jacket, so who else would he go to? I
notice it also shows him wearing a PFDB. The story doesn't say whether
he was wearing it at the time of his crash but let's see. Concussion,
broken cheek, cracked eye socket - yes, it sounds as if he was.

--
Dave...