Trolley tracks in Fourth Avenue Underpass claim two on opening night
It appears that at least two bicyclists suffered broken bones from falling on the trolley tracks when the Fourth Avenue Underpass opened last Thursday night.
It seems every time the Tuesday Night Bike Ride goes past the tracks, somebody goes down. It happened again last night, but the cyclist was fortunately not injured.
You really go down fast if you get a wheel stuck in those things. It’s especially difficult on the Mercurio (that’s the orange bike you see in the photo of my office at the masthead of this blog) because you have three wheels to pay attention to, all in different places.
People often ask me if an injured cyclist could sue the city over these things. I suppose you could try, but my feeling is that tracks are one more hazard we probably need to get used to living with.
–Erik Ryberg
August 27th, 2009 at 12:29 am
If the city built a sidewalk with an intentionally uncovered channel cutting across it to drain water, and someone stepped in it an broke a leg, would you sue the city?
You bet your sweet a** you would!
August 27th, 2009 at 11:26 am
Or they could always watch where they were going and not step in it in the first place.
Why are people always looking for someone else to blame for their own inability to pay attention to their surroundings?
August 27th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
I agree, Scott, the level of attentiveness
isn’t always what it should be-especially
in this techno-twitter-texting cell phone
era.
However, the city’s effort to mitigate the
level of hazard that the tracks at the south
end of the underpass represent falls way
short. Paint and signs really are not enough
here. The tracks are at exactly the wrong angle,
the traffic is heavy and the pattern is not
entirely clear. This is an area and condition
where shit happens. All it takes is an unusual
distraction and down you go. 1000 successful
crossings mean nothing-except maybe contributing
to over-confidence. Go down and watch.. there is
an inordinate amount of cross directional movement
in a short amount of space. A city willing to go
50% over budget and not accommodate safe bicycle
passage which it knew would be high could very
likely be found liable. It will probably be just a
matter of time…and I hate to say that.
That whole intersection is so bizarre, weird
and wrong that it’s interesting.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Oh, I have no doubt that the city could be found liable sooner or later. After all, McDonalds was found liable for serving hot coffee to some fumbler who was unable to keep from dumping it in their own lap. I just don’t happen to agree that it’s right.
(Erik, I cross tracks at least a couple dozen times a month – if I ever come to you wanting to sue the city or Amtrack or DOT or whoever because I couldn’t be bothered to notice them and cross them properly, do me a favor and tell me to grow up and pay attention next time.)
August 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
From seeing people eat it on other sets of tracks around Tucson, it seems that inexperienced riders are the ones that fall victim to the tracks the most. I don’t think it’s necessarily inattention as much as lack of knowledge about how to navigate over them. I’ve seen a lot of hesitation and bewilderment as people approach the tracks.
I’ve intentionally ridden parallel to the tracks before out of curiosity to see what happens when your wheel slips into the groove. It’s a pretty scary thing because you completely lose control.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
You know. what is so wrong
with addressing the tracks
in a more effective way.
Track hazard is a well-known
condition here for years. In a
new construction project of
this size and nature, why is,
say, pictures on tiles on the wall
a more important expenditure?
Not doing this says bicycles are
not important and our heads are
still not even inching away from
car mode.
August 27th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Scott said “McDonalds was found liable for serving hot coffee to some fumbler”
The coffee story wasn’t quite that simple:
http://www.caoc.com/CA/index.cfm?event=showPage&pg=facts
August 27th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Can I find something nice to say
about the 13-rack bike corral; the
biggest one the city has put in and
an indication that they expected a lot
of bike traffic in the area??… NO!
You have to cross at least two lanes of
traffic and trolley tracks…IN
AN INTERSECTION….to get to it.
There needs to be a sign there
somewhere that says, “BICYCLES:
GOOD LUCK”.
I contend that the city is as devoid of
common sense and responsibility as the
fool who spilled coffee on his lap.
Cyclers are a big enough faction in
this population to deserve the consideration
of a little safety engineering in their
street projects.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
“I’ve intentionally ridden parallel to the tracks before out of curiosity to see what happens when your wheel slips into the groove.”
Yup, that would be Lauren.
Coghauler — good point about the bike corral. I had only looked at it, not actually tried to use it. You are so right!
And Scott, don’t worry, I have already refused to sue the city over trolley track accidents, so it wouldn’t do you any good to come my way anyhow. (I also wouldn’t sue them over a divot in the sidewalk absent particularly egregious circumstances).
EBR
August 27th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
“You know. what is so wrong with addressing the tracks in a more effective way.”
How exactly would you accomplish that? Due to the wheel flange that keeps the wheels centered, tracks *must* either stick up above the surrounding surface or include a clearance groove alongside each rail that has to be wider than a narrow bicycle tire. There is not a usable wheel design available that would eliminate the need for this groove – the only way to eliminate the need for bicyclists to pay attention to tracks is to eliminate the tracks, or to ban bicyclists from roads that contain tracks.
Personally, I think that the trolley is a useless and wasteful boondoggle, but somehow a very noisy minority has convinced the powers-that-be in this town that retrograde steel-wheel mass transit technology, be it quaint trolley or a more “modern” bus-on-rails, is required to achieve metro-nirvana; leaving the only real choices as “bicyclists pay attention” or “no bicycles allowed” – you choose. Or not – because as soon as someone scores a big settlement from sticking their wheel in a track, we all know which course the city will favor.
August 27th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
“the only way to eliminate the need for bicyclists to pay attention to tracks is to eliminate the tracks, or to ban bicyclists from roads that contain tracks.”
Or to copy (license) the design from trolley systems in the Netherlands that prevents bicycle tires from entering the flange channel, and also prevents debris that could cause a derailment from getting caught in the channel. We are so backwards in the US, or maybe the NIH syndrome is catching up to us, the feeling that if we didn’t invent it it must not really work. The fact that a system has been developed and put into operation but wasn’t installed on tracks next to bike lanes indicates the City of Tucson wants to be sued for negligence, simple as that. Installing infrastructure that gets cyclists killed or injured when a safer alternative already exists is begging to be sued.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
The only real option left now is to create
a passage for bikes that avoids the tracks
as best you can. That means that engineers
would have to discuss with cyclists what
meets their needs and actually believe that
we know best about it. Advisory groups may
get consulted (as in the underpass) late in
a project when funds are running low and they’re
in a hurry to finish. Bikes are an afterthought
to car-minded project designers.
Opus is right, those rails exist. And they
have been discussed with designers. But,
they are made in Europe and they are expensive.
Well that shouldn’t be a problem if you’re not
afraid to run 50% over budget. We only need them
in bicycle critical areas. They are difficult to
manipulate and fit, they say. I guess Europe
can do the hard thing and we can’t.
It’s not a stretch to think that the odds are
being played when it comes to cyclists’ safety.
It would seem bicycles are just not that important.
August 30th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
This thing isn’t open. Peds have only one side (narrow) and no ped bridges crossing 4th ave.
I like how they made them shoulders instead of bike lanes.
January 24th, 2010 at 10:53 pm
Actually, the City of Tucson and Old Pueblo Trolley have been sued-a few times-over the tracks in 4th Avenue. Each time, the City and OPT won or the case was dismissed. Under the existing cases, it has been legally determined that the placement of the tracks in the pavement does not constitute negligence and that the bicyclist has the duty to exercise due care in the operation of their vehicle.
The first few cases were filed by local attorneys, but once they lost, potential plaintiffs have had to get attorneys from Maricopa County to represent them. No attorney in Pima County that I know of will take a case involving the City and OPT.
As for the flangeway filler, the City did examine that but from what I understand, determined that the material that it is made of would not last more than a year or so in our dry climate.