Question - who has right of way when a vehicle is in front of an oncoming tram? I cycle round Sheffield and have noticed the different ways vehicles are treated by tram driverrs. When a supertram pulls up behind lorries or cars, it slows down and stops. When a cyclist is in front, the tram routinely blares its bells and horns, and doesn't slow down. The effect is to bully the cyclist off the road.

Now I'm quite happy to stay out of motorists' way, hanging to the kerb as much as I can, without going down a drain or pothole. But when cycling along Langsett road for instance, I have to either stay in the centre of the road between the tram tracks, or to the left of the left hand track. The problem is there's not enough room on my right for the tram to safely pass by, and the raised kerbs of pavements and platforms on the tram route means I can't physically get off the road to let the tram by, even if I wanted to.

Not having half a tonne of steel around me to cushion any impact means I feel less confident and more vulnerable than the driver of a motor vehicle and so when a tram appears I have the choice to a) play chicken and hope the driver is a decent soul or b) pedal like [removed] and get past the next platform, so I can pull left or put space between me and the tram. The third option, knowing that the tram driver will respect me as a fellow road user and wait for the moment when I can safely move aside and let them past, seems very unlikely.

So basically you want to delay 150 odd people on public transport because you think you're special. You ain't. Get out of the way. Why should all those people be delayed because you've decided to slow the flow of traffic for the tram and everything behind it down to a snails pace and don't think you should have to get out of way until you feel like it?

So basically you want to delay 150 odd people on public transport because you think you're special. You ain't. Get out of the way. Why should all those people be delayed because you've decided to slow the flow of traffic for the tram and everything behind it down to a snails pace and don't think you should have to get out of way until you feel like it?

Have you really read the OP.
We used to do English comprehension which meant reading and understanding what was being said.
You seem to have skipped the salient points.

That's exactly the kind of snarky, narrow-minded and pointless reply I've come to expect from this forum. If you actually read my post, I've explained I CAN'T get out of the way because of how the pavements are built. Nonetheless, it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask why are the rules different for cars (if in fact they are)? Why don't they get out of the way?

Anybody like to actually answer my question instead of belching the first thing that comes out of their shrivelled frontal lobes? What are the rules about right of way in front of a tram?

Have you really read the OP.
We used to do English comprehension which meant reading and understanding what was being said.
You seem to have skipped the salient points.

Thanks for the support.

Could the tram driver be letting you know he's behind you, trams are quieter than other traffic, of course that doesn't explain why they don't slow down.

Have you been in touch with Supertram about it?

why are the rules different for cars (if in fact they are)? Why don't they get out of the way? because they travel at the same speed that the tram is timetabled to travel at, so they're not holding the tram up

Don't get me started on how our roads work. I think we should implement the same laws as Holland - there would be lots less injuries to cyclists

I still don't know how that would work with the tram though

Have you really read the OP.
We used to do English comprehension which meant reading and understanding what was being said.
You seem to have skipped the salient points.

I understood this bit about 3 options:

a) play chicken and hope the driver is a decent soul or

b) pedal like [removed] and get past the next platform, so I can pull left or put space between me and the tram.

The third option, knowing that the tram driver will respect me as a fellow road user and wait for the moment when I can safely move aside and let them past, seems very unlikely.

So choice B of speed up and get out of the way is apparently terrible. The OP wants to be 'respected as a fellow road user' and to carry on at her own pace until she she sees fit to get out of the way.

I'm sorry, but when you've got a tram full of people behind you and traffic stuck behind them, yes, you do 'peddle like [removed]'. You get out of the way as quickly as you can, you don't carry on as you were and expect the entire road of traffic just to sit behind you.

...What are the rules about right of way in front of a tram?

Pretty sure you have the right to cycle on the highway, so shouldn't be bullied...

...but you can fail a your (car) test for "impeding the flow of traffic".

Take from that what you like.

When they were having the consultation period about the tram, I was a cyclist and asked this very question. I pointed out that there wasn't going to be enough room for the tram to overtake cyclists and that the result would be that the tram would be going about an inch behind you ringing its bell while you tried frantically to find some method of getting out of the way. I was told no, this definitely wouldn't happen, the tram would allow me to continue in front of it and wouldn't intimidate cyclists at all.

Somehow it didn't turn out like that. As I knew it wouldn't.

because they travel at the same speed that the tram is timetabled to travel at, so they're not holding the tram up


They do hold it up when they stop in a queue. When that happens, every vehicle is equal. My point is I'm travelling as fast as I can (and I can manage almost 30mph on the flat if I really peg it) but I don't feel any confidence that the tram will make any allowance at all for me, whereas they always do for motorised vehicles.

I think the design of Sheffield's tram tracks is all wrong anyway. Placing them in the middle of conventional roads just destroys the tram's punctuality at peak times.

I'm sorry, but when you've got a tram full of people behind you and traffic stuck behind them, yes, you do 'peddle like [rem'oved]. You get out of the way as quickly as you can, you don't carry on as you were and expect the entire road of traffic just to sit behind you.
So, you're driving across the snake pass, with next to no overtaking spaces, and there's somebody up your rear end with a more powerful car, which can take the bends one heck of a lot faster than yours too, what do you do? Hoof it and just hope you don't spin off the bend?

Question - who has right of way when a vehicle is in front of an oncoming tram? I cycle round Sheffield and have noticed the different ways vehicles are treated by tram driverrs. When a supertram pulls up behind lorries or cars, it slows down and stops. When a cyclist is in front, the tram routinely blares its bells and horns, and doesn't slow down. The effect is to bully the cyclist off the road.

Now I'm quite happy to stay out of motorists' way, hanging to the kerb as much as I can, without going down a drain or pothole. But when cycling along Langsett road for instance, I have to either stay in the centre of the road between the tram tracks, or to the left of the left hand track. The problem is there's not enough room on my right for the tram to safely pass by, and the raised kerbs of pavements and platforms on the tram route means I can't physically get off the road to let the tram by, even if I wanted to.

Not having half a tonne of steel around me to cushion any impact means I feel less confident and more vulnerable than the driver of a motor vehicle and so when a tram appears I have the choice to a) play chicken and hope the driver is a decent soul or b) pedal like [removed] and get past the next platform, so I can pull left or put space between me and the tram. The third option, knowing that the tram driver will respect me as a fellow road user and wait for the moment when I can safely move aside and let them past, seems very unlikely.

If a tram pulls up behind cars and lorries it is because they are stood at lights or in a traffic queue.

I was unaware that the entire length of Langsett Road is raised kerbs and platforms. Surely you can dismount before a platform if you are delaying a tram? You are aware of what traffic is doing behind you aren't you?

Pretty sure you have the right to cycle on the highway, so shouldn't be bullied...

...but you can fail a your (car) test for "impeding the flow of traffic".

Take from that what you like.You wouldn't fail your cycling proficiency for it though, unless you were causing a deliberate and unnecessary obstruction, such as cycling two abreast when you could drop into single file

the tram has the right away as you can move out the way off it

I understood this bit about 3 options:

a) play chicken and hope the driver is a decent soul or

b) pedal like [removed] and get past the next platform, so I can pull left or put space between me and the tram.

The third option, knowing that the tram driver will respect me as a fellow road user and wait for the moment when I can safely move aside and let them past, seems very unlikely.

So choice B of speed up and get out of the way is apparently terrible. The OP wants to be 'respected as a fellow road user' and to carry on at her own pace until she she sees fit to get out of the way.

I'm sorry, but when you've got a tram full of people behind you and traffic stuck behind them, yes, you do 'peddle like [removed]'. You get out of the way as quickly as you can, you don't carry on as you were and expect the entire road of traffic just to sit behind you.

I'm not assuming a right to hold up traffic, I'm just asking that the tram driver show the same degree of respect they do to other road users, taking into account the physical limits I've got. I'm not trying to hold everyone up, I'm going as fast as I can, and as I said, given the opportunity and space, I'd be on the left out of the way. Given that I physically can't do that for long stretches of road, I need to know that tram drivers understand my circumstances and will not bully me when I can't actually do anything about the situation.

like it thats what your legs are for lol

the tram has the right away as you can move out the way off it

Once again,there are stretches of road where I can't move aside. The design of pavement/road and platform on roads that share tram track make it physically near-impossible and dangerous for a cyclist to try and mount the kerb to get out of the way, and even hanging to the left of the lane leaves insufficient space for tram and cycle to pass safely.

look up the high way code

I'm not assuming a right to hold up traffic, I'm just asking that the tram driver show the same degree of respect they do to other road users, taking into account the physical limits I've got. I'm not trying to hold everyone up, I'm going as fast as I can, and as I said, given the opportunity and space, I'd be on the left out of the way. Given that I physically can't do that for long stretches of road, I need to know that tram drivers understand my circumstances and will not bully me when I can't actually do anything about the situation.

What percentage of Langsett Road is there that a cyclist couldn't dismount because of platforms? We aren't talking a lot are we? And I seem to think there are quite a few bus stops on that road where you could pull over, plus the car parking on the lhs going down towards Tesco from the Hillsborough Hotel (sorry - that last bit's Infirmary Road)

If a tram pulls up behind cars and lorries it is because they are stood at lights or in a traffic queue.

I was unaware that the entire length of Langsett Road is raised kerbs and platforms. Surely you can dismount before a platform if you are delaying a tram? You are aware of what traffic is doing behind you aren't you?

Did I say it was the entire length? My point is about having a tram approach from behind when I'm in those places where the layout makes it impossible/impractical to get out of the way. It's a comparatively short distance, so what harm would it do the tram to slow slightly for the thirty seconds it takes me to cycle ahead? Afterwards they can accelerate and catch up their time in a matter of seconds. This is about knowing what the rules are (no one here seems to know) and whether all road users are willing and/or able to play to those rules.

I'm not assuming a right to hold up traffic, I'm just asking that the tram driver show the same degree of respect they do to other road users, taking into account the physical limits I've got. I'm not trying to hold everyone up, I'm going as fast as I can, and as I said, given the opportunity and space, I'd be on the left out of the way. Given that I physically can't do that for long stretches of road, I need to know that tram drivers understand my circumstances and will not bully me when I can't actually do anything about the situation.

Heres an idea. Don't cycle on tram routes. You are as you admit physically incapable of doing it. So instead of whining about trams being annoyed with you just stop holding them up by not getting in their way.

No great surprise you support OSC, a selfish idiot who thinks the world owes them a living.

tram has the right away

Did I say it was the entire length? My point is about having a tram approach from behind when I'm in those places where the layout makes it impossible/impractical to get out of the way. It's a comparatively short distance, so what harm would it do the tram to slow slightly for the thirty seconds it takes me to cycle ahead? Afterwards they can accelerate and catch up their time in a matter of seconds. This is about knowing what the rules are (no one here seems to know) and whether all road users are willing and/or able to play to those rules.

I'm puzzled as to where this is except at tram stops (which you should be able to pass in a lot less than thirty seconds I would hope).

How close behind you does a tram have to be before you are aware of it?

Heres an idea. Don't cycle on tram routes. You are as you admit physically incapable of doing it. So instead of whining about trams being annoyed with you just stop holding them up by not getting in their way.

No great surprise you support OSC, a selfish idiot who thinks the world owes them a living.

Thanks for that ignorant, bigoted, brain-dead drivel. This seems to be where pub bores meet when they can't afford a pint. My views on Occupy Sheffield (what's the C for?) are irrelevant to this thread, and your linking them to the topic just illustrates that you have nothing to contribute but bone-headed prejudice.

For the nth time I. DON'T. WANT. TO. GET. IN. THE. WAY. BUT. SOMETIMES. I. CAN'T. GET. OUT. OF. THE. WAY. Like you, I have a right to use whatever route is practical to get where I'm going. Why not direct your ire at motorists who routinely queue across box junctions, blocking traffic in all directions? Or [removed] up revellers on West Street lunging at trams and forcing them to stop dead? Am I more 'selfish' than them?

Might is right, even when it's wrong!

I'd watch out for the narrow bits and ensure a tram wasn't following me before proceeding through them - unless I thought I could peddle like ***** to get through the section before the tram caught up with me.

It would depend on relative speeds, distances and gradients how I paced my ride, but I'd not normally expect to be in the position OP described. Trams aren't all that frequent, are they?

I'd rather wait a few seconds than see if I made good strawberry jam!

Might is right, even when it's wrong!

I'd watch out for the narrow bits and ensure a tram wasn't following me before proceeding through them - unless I thought I could peddle like ***** to get through the section before the tram caught up with me.

It would depend on relative speeds, distances and gradients how I paced my ride, but I'd not normally expect to be in the position OP described. Trams aren't all that frequent, are they?

I'd rather wait a few seconds than see if I made good strawberry jam!

Usually when I'm caught in this situation the road is pretty empty and I think I'm making good progress. Trams have acceleration on their side, and I can see them coming from quite a way, but it's a judgement call: go on or stop, if I can stop.

I'm afraid you're right about this, but I find it depressing to see the usual unthinking anti-cyclist bigotry coming to the surface here. Public transport and cycles are supposed to be solutions to the same problem, but the blind beast of car culture trumps all, it seems.

Question - who has right of way when a vehicle is in front of an oncoming tram? I cycle round Sheffield and have noticed the different ways vehicles are treated by tram driverrs. When a supertram pulls up behind lorries or cars, it slows down and stops. When a cyclist is in front, the tram routinely blares its bells and horns, and doesn't slow down. The effect is to bully the cyclist off the road.

Now I'm quite happy to stay out of motorists' way, hanging to the kerb as much as I can, without going down a drain or pothole. But when cycling along Langsett road for instance, I have to either stay in the centre of the road between the tram tracks, or to the left of the left hand track. The problem is there's not enough room on my right for the tram to safely pass by, and the raised kerbs of pavements and platforms on the tram route means I can't physically get off the road to let the tram by, even if I wanted to.

Not having half a tonne of steel around me to cushion any impact means I feel less confident and more vulnerable than the driver of a motor vehicle and so when a tram appears I have the choice to a) play chicken and hope the driver is a decent soul or b) pedal like [removed] and get past the next platform, so I can pull left or put space between me and the tram. The third option, knowing that the tram driver will respect me as a fellow road user and wait for the moment when I can safely move aside and let them past, seems very unlikely.

Isn't there a cycle path to the left of the pavement on infirmary road/langsett road. I have lost count of the amount of times I have seen a cyclist holding a tram up just tootling along on the road when that cycle lane is empty.

Where are all the raised kerbs on langsett road, the only bits that are raised are the platforms and these are not all along langsett road.

If you don't want to pedal flat out, there are plenty of side streets and a few bus lay bys that you could pull in to to let the tram by.

Usually when I'm caught in this situation the road is pretty empty and I think I'm making good progress. Trams have acceleration on their side, and I can see them coming from quite a way, but it's a judgement call: go on or stop, if I can stop.

I'm afraid you're right about this, but I find it depressing to see the usual unthinking anti-cyclist bigotry coming to the surface here. Public transport and cycles are supposed to be solutions to the same problem, but the blind beast of car culture trumps all, it seems.

Could you be any more smug and self satisfied if you tried?

You..one person..are regularly holding up many people on a tram because you insist on cycling very slowly in front of them. This makes you the "baddy" not the "peoples champion". Comprende?

Usually when I'm caught in this situation the road is pretty empty and I think I'm making good progress. Trams have acceleration on their side, and I can see them coming from quite a way, but it's a judgement call: go on or stop, if I can stop.



Sorry, but if you are caught in this situation fairly often as you imply, then I think your judgement of speed / distance is in question.

As a regular user of that road I really am having difficulty in seeing were you can't dismount except at the 3 tram stops on Langsett Road.

I don't understand how there isn't anywhere you can go either to the left or right of you. Put a Google earth link up and people can understand exactly what you're on about and maybe make some suggestions.

Blimey. What a silly thread. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would go about their journey as quickly as they could. If they were travelling more slowly that the rest of the traffic, they would look for a place to pull over and let others make progress.

That has been the way on country roads for fifty years, tractors allow cars to pass when they can. Surely a cyclist can let a tram make progress, with little cost to their own journey time. No question of right of way, just plain, old-fashioned good manners.

Note also at two of those stops, Langsett / Primrose

http://www.thetrams.co.uk/supertram/pictures/000530?sid=1328572453&seq=1&ref=L3N0b3BzLnBocD9zZWN0aW9uPXN1cGVydHJhbSZzdG9wPU xhbmdzZXR0L1ByaW1yb3NlX1ZpZXc=

and Bamforth Street

http://www.thetrams.co.uk/supertram/pictures/000529?sid=1328572547&seq=2&ref=L3N0b3BzLnBocD9zZWN0aW9uPXN1cGVydHJhbSZzdG9wPU JhbWZvcnRoX1N0cmVldA==

there is room in the middle of the road (the hatched area) to pull over pretty safely.

Blimey. What a silly thread. Anyone with a modicum of common sense would go about their journey as quickly as they could. If they were travelling more slowly that the rest of the traffic, they would look for a place to pull over and let others make progress.

That has been the way on country roads for fifty years, tractors allow cars to pass when they can. Surely a cyclist can let a tram make progress, with little cost to their own journey time. No question of right of way, just plain, old-fashioned good manners.


Im afraid old fashioned good manners are rare these days.

I've just removed a vast amount of masked swearing. Whilst this is evidently a very emotive subject, please try and make your points without resulting to not-so-masked profanities or whole posts might start disappearing. Thanks :)

This is an interesting question and one which I've never had to think about. I can see the situation where this would occur and am not sure the going fast and swerving out the way is an ideal solution. The tram will probably be pacing you, and as you are technically holding the tram up, could well be up your backside. Slowing down to make the turn might result in the tram braking heavily (not good for passengers) or the cyclist coming worse off. Turning off the road at high speed could result in injury to the cyclist or a pedestrian.

The Supertram website states:

"Be aware that there are many places that a tram cannot pass a cyclist safely and would never try. A cyclist may need to move away from the tram in order to let the tram by."

Supertram Safety (http://www.supertram.com/safety.html)

The Highway Code states:

"Always give priority to trams, especially when they signal to pull away from stops, unless it would be unsafe to do so."

Highway Code - Tramways (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069864)

Therefore, in the situation where the tram is behind you and you are unable to get out of its path quickly, showing a left hand signal to show your intentions but keeping a constant speed has to be the safest option for the cyclist and passengers!

Also from the Supertram website...

"Supertram runs on electricity and is, therefore, very quiet, it doesn’t make the same noise as say a bus or a lorry. If a Supertram driver sees you he/she will sound the bell or horn to warn you that the tram is coming but you can help by noting these points.."

there is room in the middle of the road (the hatched area) to pull over pretty safely.

If you were driving on the other side of the road when a cyclist coming the other way is swerving into the middle of the road what would you think...? I wouldn't be sure they were going to stop in the middle and have to brake, potentially causing an accident.

If you were driving on the other side of the road when a cyclist coming the other way is swerving into the middle of the road what would you think...? I wouldn't be sure they were going to stop in the middle and have to brake, potentially causing an accident.

No need to swerve if you're aware of the tram behind you from some distance away like the OP claims - but in all honesty I can't see more than a few yards on the pavement side of Langsett Road where a cyclist can't pull over safely and dismount anyway.

If you and the tram are both going in the same direction, why not just get on the tram? Problem solved :D

When the highway code mentions trams, the word 'trams' is often preceded with the words 'Always give way to'.

If trams do always have the right of way, then when you - a cyclist - find there's a tram behind you, presumably the correct course of action would be to move to the left of the road as soon as it is safe to do so, stop the bicycle, get off (if necessary) and wait for the tram to go past.

Fantastic posts Ugly Bob. The only well thought out answer on here, all the rest seem to be made by drunks or raging old men sat at their computers.

Could you be any more smug and self satisfied if you tried?

You..one person..are regularly holding up many people on a tram because you insist on cycling very slowly in front of them. This makes you the "baddy" not the "peoples champion". Comprende?

Your answer is wrong in every respect. You appear to have lost the ability to read and understand English.

So, very slowly -

I am not regularly holding up trams.

I am not cycling very slowly.

I understand your sarcasm, rudeness and ignorance completely.

This is an interesting question and one which I've never had to think about. I can see the situation where this would occur and am not sure the going fast and swerving out the way is an ideal solution. The tram will probably be pacing you, and as you are technically holding the tram up, could well be up your backside. Slowing down to make the turn might result in the tram braking heavily (not good for passengers) or the cyclist coming worse off. Turning off the road at high speed could result in injury to the cyclist or a pedestrian.

The Supertram website states:

"Be aware that there are many places that a tram cannot pass a cyclist safely and would never try. A cyclist may need to move away from the tram in order to let the tram by."

Supertram Safety (http://www.supertram.com/safety.html)

The Highway Code states:

"Always give priority to trams, especially when they signal to pull away from stops, unless it would be unsafe to do so."

Highway Code - Tramways (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069864)

Therefore, in the situation where the tram is behind you and you are unable to get out of its path quickly, showing a left hand signal to show your intentions but keeping a constant speed has to be the safest option for the cyclist and passengers!


Thank you Bob, for an informative, and polite and civilised answer. That's what I needed to know. Thank you to anyone else who attempted to answer the question in a sane manner.

To the rest of you creeps, go and play in front of a tram.

The trams have loud horns, it is not bullying. They are letting you know they are there. Do exactly what the majority of cyclists do at traffic lights i.e get on the pavement and cross with pedestrians

The trams have loud horns, it is not bullying. They are letting you know they are there. Do exactly what the majority of cyclists do at traffic lights i.e get on the pavement and cross with pedestrians

I hear you, but tell that to some of the anti-cyclist twits on this thread 'typical bloody cyclist, breaking traffic laws!'.

I've got the answer I needed now. I've also learned who to ignore on this forum.

Fantastic posts Ugly Bob. The only well thought out answer on here, all the rest seem to be made by drunks or raging old men sat at their computers.

Totally agree with first sentence. Second is in same tone as it's own acccusation!

Totally agree with first sentence. Second is in same tone as it's own acccusation!

I am the latter :)

Rather than every cyclist having to figure this out for themselves (and maybe some of them not getting the right answer) perhaps the signage and general advice could be done better. The best solution would have been to build the tram system with cyclists in mind too from day one, but that didn't happen as Metalman said.

When I have occasionally cycled along the tram route and found myself in the same position as the OP I did wonder what I was supposed to do when there was no room on the road and no cycle lane. Clearly cycling on the pavement isn't a legal option, so I decided that I had to slow down, stop, get off the bike, get on to the pavement and let it pass, then get back on the road when safe to do so. This didn't seem a great solution to me, here in the 21st century industrialised West, but it's presumably the one that all cyclists are meant to arrive at. It would make sense to make this clearer to all road users so we all know what we're supposed to do and expect. The tram tracks are pretty hazardous for cyclists as it is.

Rather than every cyclist having to figure this out for themselves (and maybe some of them not getting the right answer) perhaps the signage and general advice could be done better. The best solution would have been to build the tram system with cyclists in mind too from day one, but that didn't happen as Metalman said.

When I have occasionally cycled along the tram route and found myself in the same position as the OP I did wonder what I was supposed to do when there was no room on the road and no cycle lane. Clearly cycling on the pavement isn't a legal option, so I decided that I had to slow down, stop, get off the bike, get on to the pavement and let it pass, then get back on the road when safe to do so. This didn't seem a great solution to me, here in the 21st century industrialised West, but it's presumably the one that all cyclists are meant to arrive at. It would make sense to make this clearer to all road users so we all know what we're supposed to do and expect. The tram tracks are pretty hazardous for cyclists as it is.

yes you bet they are dangerous. i have cycled around sheffield since the trams were put on the roads, and i regularly use the same roads that they do.
i have had three fairly serious accidents with the tram tracks, i know they are dangerous and do go out of my way to cross them safely but its still resulted in those accidents despite the caution i use with them.
and they have all been to do with the wheels getting caught in the lines and then throwing my off. i found that the tram drivers have been very good with me and have stopped and help my and my bike off the lines and made sure i was ok. so they are not all bad:hihi::hihi:

Simple answer - no-one has "Right of way"
The lead vehicle has priority where there exists no other option - "getting off and walking" is not mandatory, however it is a possibility at the discretion of the cyclist. Giving Way to a tram does mean however that if you are joining a tram route and you are aware of an approaching tram at a distance where it might be perfectly safe to pull out if the tram were any other vehicle, then one should wait until the tram has passed due to it's limited overtaking ability.

Courtesy however dictates, and the highway code suggests, that the slower vehicle should move over when possible and safe to do so, and that the following vehicle should wait patiently for this and not attempt to intimidate another road user into performing a manoeuvre that is unsafe or unnecessary.

Personally I tend to move out into the hatched area in the centre or into one of the right filter lanes and wave the tram past - but not if I am 50 yards from a stop that will result in the passing tram immediately impeding me.

As for each cyclist figuring it out for themselves - well, I think they have to. If you are on a heavy and ill-fitting Tesco mountain bike shaped object struggling to maintain 7mph then your tactic will be much different than if you are a faster rider on a lighter, faster bike maintaining a reasonable road speed

When the highway code mentions trams, the word 'trams' is often preceded with the words 'Always give way to'.

If trams do always have the right of way, then when you - a cyclist - find there's a tram behind you, presumably the correct course of action would be to move to the left of the road as soon as it is safe to do so, stop the bicycle, get off (if necessary) and wait for the tram to go past.

My bold. Spot on I would say. The emphasis is on it being safe to do so. There seem to be a scary number of people on here who, it appears, have never ridden a pushbike, who think that hopping up onto a kerb at speed is a safe thing to do when there's a tram following you matching your speed. If the cyclist got the procedure wrong they'd be underneath the tram.

I always pull over for a following tram, but when it is safe to do so. To stop, mount the kerb etc. will just lead to more delays than if you rode to the next junction and pulled in. There is no where on the tram network that I can think of where you be holding anyone up for more than 30 seconds.

I have contacted Supertram in the past about this and they say their drivers are expected to ring the bell breifly to advise of their presence (not sound the loud horn), and wait at a safe distance for the cyclist to move over. I have not witnessed the phantom scenario that some posters have created of a cyclist holding up hundreds of people deliberately for minutes on end.

To the OP, I would carry on what you are doing, with the confidence that the driver will wait until you find a safe place to pull over. They are only tinkling their bell to let you know they are there.

If trams do always have the right of way, then when you - a cyclist - find there's a tram behind you, presumably the correct course of action would be to move to the left of the road as soon as it is safe to do so, stop the bicycle, get off (if necessary) and wait for the tram to go past.

A bit of foresight on the cyclist wouldn't go amiss to check over their shoulder once in a while to see if a tram is approaching.

I'd rather have two minutes rest and let it pass rather than pedal like billy-o or just continue at a normal pace repeating "I have right on my side". :rolleyes:

As a tram driver when approaching a cyclist i always stay well back approx 3-4 car lengths and keep my speed right down so if that cyclist was to fall off i could easily stop in time. We ring the bell to make the cyclist aware we are approaching them from behind as often the cyclist will be unaware of this. I would never intimidate a cyclist not only is it uncalled for it is also likely to cause an accident.

You have a right to be on the road, stuff the tram, keep pedalling (and, yes, I am serious)

I had the cheek once whilst in my car of trying to turn right on City Road, onto a business premises, whilst unable to because of on-coming traffic. The tram driver decided the best action would be beep their horn at me. How this was going to magically make room for me I don't know.

One other driver ended up shouting at the tram driver something along the lines of 'where do you think he can go?'. Obviously the tram driver new the answer to this but didn't want to share it.

The O.P. has impressed me with his common sense approach to this, a rare bird indeed on here. The point is: what the vehicle behind is, is of no consequence. If ANY vehicle finds itself impeded by a slower moving one, the correct course of action is to reduce speed until it can be passed safely. In the case of trams, they can not change course so must wait until the front vehicle can move to a point where it can move over to the left in order to allow the tram to pass. (One ring of the bell as a courtesy to the cyclist is fine, sounding the horn or any more warnings are intimidation.) He should not be expected to stop. Does a tram stop to let motorists past? If however there is a cycle lane, the cyclist should use that.
I am thinking now though about getting a bike and going for a ride round Sheffield and giving some pay back for all the times I have been delayed behind a tram.

An important thing to keep in mind is that crossing the tram tracks is highly dangerous. Several people have died when their bikes lost traction on the tram lines, and many others have ended up in hospital with broken limbs.

So, moving to the left is not a safe option as it involves crossing a tram line: I suppose dismounting and lifting the bike over could be a possibility, but, given there's a tram behind, I don't think that's safe either.

Fortunately, the tram is well capable of travelling at cycling speed for a short distance, and, like others have mentioned, in all my years in Sheffield, I've never seen a cyclist with a tram and a backed-up line off traffic behind them.

In Sheffield, bicycles are not high on the list of things which hinder tram speeds, those are mainly due to the clogged up road system and excessive numbers of vehicles.

im sorry but cyclist dont pay nothing towards the keep of the roads they should have no rights and im sorry but cyclist have to always stay in the inside lane and single file. trams and busses have the right of way no matter what is in front.

cyclists to pay road tax and insurance to pay towards the road up keep . untill then they dont get no say or any thing about the roads.

Try the 'Infirmary Road Manoeuvre': mount the pavement at the pedestrian crossing as the tram approaches, cycle along the tram platform (the passengers waiting for the tram will politely make way for you so no need to slow down at all) and pop back onto the road at the dropped kerb at the end of the platform. Simples!

im sorry but cyclist dont pay nothing towards the keep of the roads they should have no rights and im sorry but cyclist have to always stay in the inside lane and single file. trams and busses have the right of way no matter what is in front.

cyclists to pay road tax and insurance to pay towards the road up keep . untill then they dont get no say or any thing about the roads.

I hope you don't drive, with ignorant opinions such as this. What else about the Highway Code and rules of the road don't you know, or think you know but are wrong?

What about the new Nissan Micra (http://www.nissan.co.uk/GB/en/environment/co2-emissions/new_micra.html), with emissions so low it pays no what you call "road tax"?

im sorry but cyclist dont pay nothing towards the keep of the roads they should have no rights and im sorry but cyclist have to always stay in the inside lane and single file. trams and busses have the right of way no matter what is in front.

cyclists to pay road tax and insurance to pay towards the road up keep . untill then they dont get no say or any thing about the roads.

Yawn......completely predictable and irrelevant to the OP's point.

If I was too slow to outride the tram, I would allow it to pass, out of courtesy/my own sense of self preservation.

Personally, I would find a different route, although if Penistone Road is the alternative then maybe not.

im sorry but cyclist dont pay nothing towards the keep of the roads they should have no rights and im sorry but cyclist have to always stay in the inside lane and single file. trams and busses have the right of way no matter what is in front.

cyclists to pay road tax and insurance to pay towards the road up keep . untill then they dont get no say or any thing about the roads.

How much road tax do you pay?

jb

im sorry but cyclist dont pay nothing towards the keep of the roads they should have no rights and im sorry but cyclist have to always stay in the inside lane and single file. trams and busses have the right of way no matter what is in front.

cyclists to pay road tax and insurance to pay towards the road up keep . untill then they dont get no say or any thing about the roads.

Have you had a wasted education? All the anti-cyclist rants on here end up with some twit bringing up road tax. Well done, in this case it was you. Hang your head in shame, go and educated yourself about how the roads are paid for in this country and come back with more intellectual comment.

It's a bit of a catch 22, yes you can't get up on the path when one is behind you, but at the same time you are delaying people, where as cars move at the same speed as the tram and therefore aren't causing delays.

It's really down to poor design. I used to have the same issues on langsett but I didn't mind cycling just that little bit faster or the odd bunny hop onto the kerb when the next platform was to far.

Have you had a wasted education? All the anti-cyclist rants on here end up with some twit bringing up road tax. Well done, in this case it was you. Hang your head in shame, go and educated yourself about how the roads are paid for in this country and come back with more intellectual comment.

Sorry, hate to be one of those forummers but you don't really come across as too highly educated yourself (See bold)

So basically you want to delay 150 odd people on public transport because you think you're special. You ain't. Get out of the way. Why should all those people be delayed because you've decided to slow the flow of traffic for the tram and everything behind it down to a snails pace and don't think you should have to get out of way until you feel like it?

What makes you think a cyclist is any way less special than anyone on that tram ?

Your trying to foggy the issue with the number of passengers. The roads don't belong to Stagecoach.

I understood this bit about 3 options:

a) play chicken and hope the driver is a decent soul or

b) pedal like [removed] and get past the next platform, so I can pull left or put space between me and the tram.

The third option, knowing that the tram driver will respect me as a fellow road user and wait for the moment when I can safely move aside and let them past, seems very unlikely.

So choice B of speed up and get out of the way is apparently terrible. The OP wants to be 'respected as a fellow road user' and to carry on at her own pace until she she sees fit to get out of the way.

I'm sorry, but when you've got a tram full of people behind you and traffic stuck behind them, yes, you do 'peddle like [removed]'. You get out of the way as quickly as you can, you don't carry on as you were and expect the entire road of traffic just to sit behind you.You missed out option c) Get on the tram and beat the crap out of the driver.

Simple, take the horn as an indication by the tram that it is there (which is the correct use of the horn as according to the highway code)
at the next available opportunity move to one side to allow the faster moving traffic to pass (as for example, a tractor should)

my main gripe with the tram drivers is their lack of forward observation and planning (this is the biggest fault with most drivers but people who drive for a living should be better trained like the emergency services are) causing them to block road junctions because they don't wait until there is sufficient space the other side of the junction for them to get all the way across before needing to stop.
The number of times Hillsborough corner has been snarled up because traffic is stopped on the road passed Hillsborough park and rather than wait at Hillsborough tram stop until there is space they pull out and stop blocking the whole junction.

Sorry, hate to be one of those forummers but you don't really come across as too highly educated yourself (See bold)

Pedant. But thanks for pointing out the typo. :)

Rather than every cyclist having to figure this out for themselves (and maybe some of them not getting the right answer) perhaps the signage and general advice could be done better. The best solution would have been to build the tram system with cyclists in mind too from day one, but that didn't happen as Metalman said.

When I have occasionally cycled along the tram route and found myself in the same position as the OP I did wonder what I was supposed to do when there was no room on the road and no cycle lane. Clearly cycling on the pavement isn't a legal option, so I decided that I had to slow down, stop, get off the bike, get on to the pavement and let it pass, then get back on the road when safe to do so. This didn't seem a great solution to me, here in the 21st century industrialised West, but it's presumably the one that all cyclists are meant to arrive at. It would make sense to make this clearer to all road users so we all know what we're supposed to do and expect. The tram tracks are pretty hazardous for cyclists as it is.

Yawn......completely predictable and irrelevant to the OP's point.

If I was too slow to outride the tram, I would allow it to pass, out of courtesy/my own sense of self preservation.

Personally, I would find a different route, although if Penistone Road is the alternative then maybe not.

For this particular route, the council have at least tired to offer an alternative, although it's not all that easy to use.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.401345,-1.490793&spn=0.02006,0.055747&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.400937,-1.49037&panoid=BnY7RFOI0eEF9RXbWq9KMg&cbp=12,145.17,,0,0

For this particular route, the council have at least tired to offer an alternative, although it's not all that easy to use.
http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.401345,-1.490793&spn=0.02006,0.055747&t=m&z=15&layer=c&cbll=53.400937,-1.49037&panoid=BnY7RFOI0eEF9RXbWq9KMg&cbp=12,145.17,,0,0

Like most of Sheffield's cycle lane provision, a token guesture, and entirely useless for real journeys to work.

I ride to work every day, bus lanes are the only usable provision for cyclists in this city. Doesn't particularly bother me riding in traffic, but the lack of provision discourages cycle use, and the way to increase safety is to increase numbers.

Like most of Sheffield's cycle lane provision, a token guesture, and entirely useless for real journeys to work.

I ride to work every day, bus lanes are the only usable provision for cyclists in this city. Doesn't particularly bother me riding in traffic, but the lack of provision discourages cycle use, and the way to increase safety is to increase numbers.

Used to cycle to work a lot before moving to Sheffield. I think the hills have some contribution to the low numbers but I certainly never felt safe here which is originally why I stopped. There do seem to be a lot of cycle lanes around though (here's another on the same route (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll=53.394337,-1.488631&spn=0.002345,0.006968&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=53.39428,-1.488525&panoid=JfXDwBl_ExzDGg3ObJbXmA&cbp=12,146.49,,0,0)) which aren't well used, I think partly because they don't really go anywhere.

What makes you think a cyclist is any way less special than anyone on that tram ?

Your trying to foggy the issue with the number of passengers. The roads don't belong to Stagecoach.

Because they are one person and the tram is public transport carrying many people plus they have many passengers waiting for them further along the line. In addition the cyclist has a choice about where they go and the tram can only stay on the tracks if it meets an obstructive cyclist.

I don't drive and I use that tram regularly and it's a fairly frequent occurence to get one of these po-faced cyclists who won't get out of the way and let a tram past dawdling along in front of them refusing to let them past. Ditto the 52 going up to Crookes from Hillsborough when there is heavy traffic and they can't overtake. The amount of times I've been stuck behind and uphill cyclist going at five miles an hour on a bus.

As other posters have said you can bunny hop up a curb or pause in the hatch or speed up to a more convenient place for the tram to pass but you do get cyclists who just sit there determined not to move feeling they have right on their side and it is REALLY frustrating.

cyclist dont pay nothing towards the keep of the roads

they dont get no say

How right you are! Give that man a medal!

If you simply fitted a rear view mirror to your bike you would then be aware of the tram and have plenty of time to get out of the way

what if you ride with headphones on?. i do all the time so even if the tram blares its horn i cant hear it. works for me

what if you ride with headphones on?. i do all the time so even if the tram blares its horn i cant hear it. works for me

Then you're an idiot.

Then you're an idiot.

nail and head,, seems right

Along Langsett Road, I can average the same speed as a tram. I know this because I've moved out of the way of one, then caught it up at every stop...

I have a theory on this, and im sure I will get a good telling off from the cycling community, but here goes;

1. Motorists always complain that they pay road tax, or VED as its known now, but the cyclist will argue that they also pay tax. (but NOT for the cycle) What the cyclist fails to acknowledge is that the motorist CANNOT use the road without VED, and yet the cyclist can! Therfore, VED is a tax on the motorist, but not on the cyclist. The cyclist will state some cars are zero emmisions, but they are just 10% of the total number of cars in the UK today. Thats 90% of us who ARE legally forced to TAX our cars to use the road. The cyclist will argue that this VED dosent go pay for new roads etc. So what? No VED, you CANNOT USE THE ROAD UNTIL YOU PAY. There is your road tax arguement, full stop.
2. Some motorists AND cyclists drive/ride like fools, jumping red lights etc. The cyclist is the biggest culprit as they know they CANNOT get points on their licence, wheras the motorist would. You dont need a licence to ride a cycle, even though you are using the road to propel yourself quicker than walking. This infuriates motorists like myself who DO obey the rules of the road. Always.
3. If you do choose to cycle, which is very healthy and environmentally kind, then good on you. But if you are holding up a queue of traffic, do the decent thing, and pull over for a bit. That includes trams.

Theres plenty of room for every one, but its unfair for one person to hold up one hundred people. Thats not anti-cyclist......thats democracy.

What the cyclist fails to acknowledge is that the motorist CANNOT use the road without VED

Yes they can! And they don't have to buy a low emissions car to do so.

All they need to do is buy a bicycle.

It is quite simple, and they have just as equal a right to buy a bicycle as the cyclist who already did so.

Yes they can! And they don't have to buy a low emissions car to do so.

All they need to do is buy a bicycle.

It is quite simple, and they have just as equal a right to buy a bicycle as the cyclist who already did so.

Ha! Thats quite good, in an ideal world. Im afraid they cannot. You know they cant. If they were to buy a bike, they are no longer motorists, they are cyclists. My post was to clarify the difference between who does actually pay road tax, and who does not, in order to use the road legally. This is unarguable, and your response just seems to be a little anti-motorist.:o:o

It's a bit of a catch 22, yes you can't get up on the path when one is behind you, but at the same time you are delaying people, where as cars move at the same speed as the tram and therefore aren't causing delays.

It's really down to poor design. I used to have the same issues on langsett but I didn't mind cycling just that little bit faster or the odd bunny hop onto the kerb when the next platform was to far.

Remember our tram system was designed over 25 years ago, back in the 1980s when cycling was in massive decline. Rules for the construction of light railways in cities have moved on and the Sheffield system as it was designed just couldn't be built that way now.

Any extension to the system would have to be to the new guidelines and include slip roads for cyclists, safe passing places as well as safe points to cross the rails.

I've got a copy of the Sheffield Council report on cyclists safety on the tram system. Its over 10 years old and to my knowledge not one of its recommendations have ever been implemented.

Ha! Thats quite good, in an ideal world. Im afraid they cannot. You know they cant. If they were to buy a bike, they are no longer motorists, they are cyclists. My post was to clarify the difference between who does actually pay road tax, and who does not, in order to use the road legally. This is unarguable, and your response just seems to be a little anti-motorist.:o:o

That's odd. When I bought my latest bike, I didn't suddenly stop being a motorist. I still have a car. When I ride my bike, I still have a car. When I walk, I still have a car. When I catch the bus, use Supertram, hail a taxi or even sit at home, I still have a car.

They're not mutually exclusive, you know.

That's odd. When I bought my latest bike, I didn't suddenly stop being a motorist. I still have a car. When I ride my bike, I still have a car. When I walk, I still have a car. When I catch the bus, use Supertram, hail a taxi or even sit at home, I still have a car.

They're not mutually exclusive, you know.

I never said they were. Your analogy isnt really what im talking about. Please have another look at what I said about usage. Its not a time for a stand off about what you have or dont have. Its a simple statement that you can use a pushbike on the roads anytime you want, at absolutely zero cost. The same cant be said about a car. If you dont pay for your VED, you cannot use the road. Whichever way you look at that, it IS a road tax on the motorist whether you have a pushbike or not. And as for your reply, are you saying that ALL cyclists have cars? I somehow dont think so.

Ha! Thats quite good, in an ideal world. Im afraid they cannot. You know they cant. If they were to buy a bike, they are no longer motorists

When I get in my car, am I then driving illegally because I am not a motorist. Or am I a motorist? But in your either-or logic, I cannot be a motorist because I am a cyclist, and apparently I am anti-motorist. Yet I am a motorist thus cannot be a cyclist. But I am a cyclist. I must be amazing, being two things that are, according to your post, mutually exclusive.


My post was to clarify the difference between who does actually pay road tax, and who does not, in order to use the road legally.

Yet your post does nothing of the sort - anyone can use the road legally. A car driver must pay the erroneously-termed "road tax" in order to use their motorised vehicle on the road - as do I.


The car driver is just as free to use a bicycle on the road untaxed, as the non-driver.
The non-driver must also pay VED in order to use a motorised vehicle on the road if they decide to drive.


Neither is getting any more or less rights than the other

When I get in my car, am I then driving illegally because I am not a motorist. Or am I a motorist? But in your either-or logic, I cannot be a motorist because I am a cyclist, and apparently I am anti-motorist. Yet I am a motorist thus cannot be a cyclist. But I am a cyclist. I must be amazing, being two things that are, according to your post, mutually exclusive.




Yet your post does nothing of the sort - anyone can use the road legally. A car driver must pay the erroneously-termed "road tax" in order to use their motorised vehicle on the road - as do I.


The car driver is just as free to use a bicycle on the road untaxed, as the non-driver.
The non-driver must also pay VED in order to use a motorised vehicle on the road if they decide to drive.


Neither is getting any more or less rights than the other

Oh my life!! You cycle guys are impossible! Here is my point AGAIN in two simple sentences;

You cannot drive a car on the highway in this country without paying VED.
You can ride a pushbike on the highway in this country without paying VED.

so what is VED

so what is VED


Vacuum Erectile Device. I think :hihi::hihi::hihi:

Oh my life!! You cycle guys are impossible! Here is my point AGAIN in two simple sentences;

You cannot drive a car on the highway in this country without paying VED.
You can ride a pushbike on the highway in this country without paying VED.
Yes, everybody understands that. What they object to is you insisting VED is a road tax and then arguing that drivers should therefore have more rights to the roads than cyclists. The very fact that VED is payable for certain types of vehicles and not others (cycles, low emission cars, etc.) is proof that it is not a road tax - however much you might want it to be.

Yes, everybody understands that. What they object to is you insisting VED is a road tax and then arguing that drivers should therefore have more rights to the roads than cyclists. The very fact that VED is payable for certain types of vehicles and not others (cycles, low emission cars, etc.) is proof that it is not a road tax - however much you might want it to be.

I have never said any such thing! I dont give a crap how you get about, bike car or hovercraft. All I said was that to use a car, you need to buy VED. To use a pushbike, you dont. How hard can that be to understand? When I first posted, it was an observation, that is all. Now its boring, with the same old crap that all cyclists spout on about, clinging together like a lycra clad lynch mob to discredit every other mode of transport except the bicycle. Your welcome to your bikes, lads and lasses, and next time somebody has a go at cyclists about the same old whinges, good luck with it. I wasnt having a pop at any of you. The thing is, when you say on here that a cyclist has done somethime wrong, theres always a chance that some asrehole will get offended.:loopy:

What about the tax that the motorist pays in petrol to propel the car (about 80% of it is tax). Cyclists don't pay that.

What about the tax that the motorist pays in petrol to propel the car (about 80% of it is tax). Cyclists don't pay that.

No we don't, because we don't burn fuel. Except our lunch.

so what is VED

Vehicle Excise Duty

I've got a copy of the Sheffield Council report on cyclists safety on the tram system. Its over 10 years old and to my knowledge not one of its recommendations have ever been implemented.

That's very interesting. Is the document online anywhere, via the council website for instance?

I have a theory on this, and im sure I will get a good telling off from the cycling community, but here goes;

1. Motorists always complain that they pay road tax, or VED as its known now, but the cyclist will argue that they also pay tax. (but NOT for the cycle) What the cyclist fails to acknowledge is that the motorist CANNOT use the road without VED, and yet the cyclist can! Therfore, VED is a tax on the motorist, but not on the cyclist. The cyclist will state some cars are zero emmisions, but they are just 10% of the total number of cars in the UK today. Thats 90% of us who ARE legally forced to TAX our cars to use the road. The cyclist will argue that this VED dosent go pay for new roads etc. So what? No VED, you CANNOT USE THE ROAD UNTIL YOU PAY. There is your road tax arguement, full stop.
2. Some motorists AND cyclists drive/ride like fools, jumping red lights etc. The cyclist is the biggest culprit as they know they CANNOT get points on their licence, wheras the motorist would. You dont need a licence to ride a cycle, even though you are using the road to propel yourself quicker than walking. This infuriates motorists like myself who DO obey the rules of the road. Always.
3. If you do choose to cycle, which is very healthy and environmentally kind, then good on you. But if you are holding up a queue of traffic, do the decent thing, and pull over for a bit. That includes trams.

Theres plenty of room for every one, but its unfair for one person to hold up one hundred people. Thats not anti-cyclist......thats democracy.

yes we should have a network of cycleways only for bikes, like they do in europe. why not?. the 40 million they have used in london to paint the cycleways is 5 times that they used in holland to do the same job.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/contact/

we could solve the problem straight away.

see you could raise funds through this......http://yfrog.com/nu9h7muj
then charge them for doing it.

Thanks Squiggs for trying to dismantle the silly tribalism about cars and bicycles. I ride a bike, but I'm also a pedestrian and a user of public transport. My views and my priorities change depending on which of these I'm using. When I'm a pedestrian for instance, I can get royally annoyed if I see a cyclist running a red light, a) because *all* road users should obey red lights and b) because anyone watching now has an excuse to stereotype cyclists as having poor road skills. It's not Them Vs Us, we're all just trying to get somewhere by different means.

yes we should have a network of cycleways only for bikes, like they do in europe. why not?. the 40 million they have used in london to paint the cycleways is 5 times that they used in holland to do the same job.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/contact/

we could solve the problem straight away.

I'd be quite happy to have proper cycle lanes away from roads, rather than the amateurish things we have now which come and go for no discernible reason.

see you could raise funds through this......http://yfrog.com/nu9h7muj
then charge them for doing it.

People who use bicycles already pay tax for the upkeep of roads. Income Tax.

yes we should have a network of cycleways only for bikes, like they do in europe. why not?. the 40 million they have used in london to paint the cycleways is 5 times that they used in holland to do the same job.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/contact/

we could solve the problem straight away.

Thank you Moll for a very adult and realistic reply. Its such a shame that many of comrades would rather argue and point score than reading a post properly before comment. P.S, I see your Occupy is back! :hihi::hihi:

yes we should have a network of cycleways only for bikes, like they do in europe. why not?. the 40 million they have used in london to paint the cycleways is 5 times that they used in holland to do the same job.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/contact/

we could solve the problem straight away.

I can't see any reference to Holland on that page.

London is the largest city in Europe and implementing cycleways must be a damn site more complicated I'd have thought - are we comparing like with like?

yes i didnt see it either i know i saw an article there. maybe in the archives ?

I'd be quite happy to have proper cycle lanes away from roads, rather than the amateurish things we have now which come and go for no discernible reason.

Did we ever determine which section of Langsett Road where it is not possible for a cyclist to dismount to give way to a tram?

yes i didnt see it either i know i saw an article there. maybe in the archives ?

Go find it - otherwise we don't know if we are comparing like with like.

2. Some motorists AND cyclists drive/ride like fools, jumping red lights etc. The cyclist is the biggest culprit as they know they CANNOT get points on their licence, wheras the motorist would. You dont need a licence to ride a cycle, even though you are using the road to propel yourself quicker than walking. This infuriates motorists like myself who DO obey the rules of the road. Always.

A proficiency test is a good idea, but like the driving test, it only proves you did it right the once. You say cyclists are the most to blame for bad behaviour on the road, but I don't see how you can prove that objectively. I see plenty of cars running red lights, routinely failing to signal, habitually speeding, lazily cutting corners and driving towards other road users on the wrong side of the road, but two wrongs don't make a right, do they? Cyclists can still be arrested and prosecuted for breaking traffic laws, just like motorists.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3310244.ece

Did we ever determine which section of Langsett Road where it is not possible for a cyclist to dismount to give way to a tram?

I think the mixed posts showed that some cyclists would try and pull over, but some would not as they have they same rights as a tram. A bit of a mixed bag, but its always a touchy subject. There must be parts of it that you can pull into, it cant be the high kerb all the way into town

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3310244.ece

Very interesting - still no mention of Holland though.

I think the mixed posts showed that some cyclists would try and pull over, but some would not as they have they same rights as a tram. A bit of a mixed bag, but its always a touchy subject. There must be parts of it that you can pull into, it cant be the high kerb all the way into town

Going back to the OP it appeared that it was a regular occurence - I can't think of anything other than a small percentage of that road where a cyclist couldn't dismount and give way to a tram (and no doubt traffic following the tram).

I have never said any such thing! I dont give a crap how you get about, bike car or hovercraft. All I said was that to use a car, you need to buy VED. To use a pushbike, you dont. How hard can that be to understand? When I first posted, it was an observation, that is all.

Sorry, I've seen so many people argue VED = road tax = cyclists have less right to the roads than motorists that I obviously saw the last stage where it wasn't present.

VED isn't a road tax though and, yes, we know that most motorists have to pay it and cyclists don't. I'm not sure why you think that's relevant though if it's not part of some wider point you want to make.

Sorry, I've seen so many people argue VED = road tax = cyclists have less right to the roads than motorists that I obviously saw the last stage where it wasn't present.

VED isn't a road tax though and, yes, we know that most motorists have to pay it and cyclists don't. I'm not sure why you think that's relevant though if it's not part of some wider point you want to make.

Quite how all this relates to a thread about cyclists and supertram is beyond me. Can we try and stay on topic instead of getting into a cyclists v motorists debate?

cant be arsed reading he entire thread, basicacly grow some balls and dont worry about the tram it aint gonna run you over. keep riding

Oh my life!! You cycle guys are impossible! Here is my point AGAIN in two simple sentences;

You cannot drive a car on the highway in this country without paying VED.
You can ride a pushbike on the highway in this country without paying VED.

Correct. No problems with that observation. Did I miss the bit where someone stated otherwise? What does VED have to do with whether the tram has right of way over a vehicle that is in front of it? Do trams display a tax disc?

Correct. No problems with that observation. Did I miss the bit where someone stated otherwise? What does VED have to do with whether the tram has right of way over a vehicle that is in front of it? Do trams display a tax disc?


Nothing at all.

Yet as always, some misguided fool comes along, sees a thread that contains the magic word "cyclist", his eyes turn red and he leaps into a frenzy, waves his hands wildly above his head and shouts "ROOOOAAAAD TAAAAXXXX"*

As always happens when the c-word is mentioned



*metaphorically, of course!

All I said was that to use a car, you need to buy VED. To use a pushbike, you dont.

Wrong again. See my link to the new Nissan Micra - zero VED. And there are a growing number of other cars in the same bracket.

Going back to the OP it appeared that it was a regular occurence - I can't think of anything other than a small percentage of that road where a cyclist couldn't dismount and give way to a tram (and no doubt traffic following the tram).

On Langsett Road I'm much faster end to end on my pushbike than the tram. I only get held up by the tram at its stopped.

Is there some legal or moral reason that I should get off my bike to let them past to hold me up again in a quarter of a mile? I move happily at 20+ mph continuously.

On Langsett Road I'm much faster end to end on my pushbike than the tram. I only get held up by the tram at its stopped.

Is there some legal or moral reason that I should get off my bike to let them past to hold me up again in a quarter of a mile? I move happily at 20+ mph continuously.

If you can do continuous 20+mph then I don't consider that anyone can object to that.

It was the OP who appears to be regularly in the situation where they are caught by a tram and slow it down.

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8553843&postcount=27

I suspect this means they travel at somewhat less than 20mph+ on some of the more uphill sections although they seem extremely reluctant to be specific when asked.

On Langsett Road I'm much faster end to end on my pushbike than the tram. I only get held up by the tram at its stopped.

Is there some legal or moral reason that I should get off my bike to let them past to hold me up again in a quarter of a mile? I move happily at 20+ mph continuously.

Why would you need to let them past if your faster than they are?

Wrong again. See my link to the new Nissan Micra - zero VED. And there are a growing number of other cars in the same bracket.

Really? when i went to work this morning, did i drive there in a zero ved micra? did the whole street have one parked on the drive? was every car on the M1 this morning a zero ved micra? what do you think? your feeble post holds as much water as your dubiously shaped cycle helmet. the time when everyone has a zero ved car is a long way off yet. if you dont put a ved disc in your normal ved-able car, you cant use the road. you dont need ved for your bike. so whichever way you choose to deny that, you will wrong, stay wrong and be wrong until the day comes when all of us drive zero ved cars.

Question - who has right of way when a vehicle is in front of an oncoming tram? I cycle round Sheffield and have noticed the different ways vehicles are treated by tram driverrs. When a supertram pulls up behind lorries or cars, it slows down and stops. When a cyclist is in front, the tram routinely blares its bells and horns, and doesn't slow down. The effect is to bully the cyclist off the road.

Now I'm quite happy to stay out of motorists' way, hanging to the kerb as much as I can, without going down a drain or pothole. But when cycling along Langsett road for instance, I have to either stay in the centre of the road between the tram tracks, or to the left of the left hand track. The problem is there's not enough room on my right for the tram to safely pass by, and the raised kerbs of pavements and platforms on the tram route means I can't physically get off the road to let the tram by, even if I wanted to.

Not having half a tonne of steel around me to cushion any impact means I feel less confident and more vulnerable than the driver of a motor vehicle and so when a tram appears I have the choice to a) play chicken and hope the driver is a decent soul or b) pedal like [removed] and get past the next platform, so I can pull left or put space between me and the tram. The third option, knowing that the tram driver will respect me as a fellow road user and wait for the moment when I can safely move aside and let them past, seems very unlikely.

Obviously you have the right of way if you're in front of another vehicle.

Personally I can normally hear the tram coming for about a minute before it reaches me, which is plenty of time to plan where I'll pull to the side for 10 seconds before continuing along.
Or going in the other direction (down langsett road) I'm faster than the tram anyway and if he catches me at the lights he can wait since I'll soon leave it behind.

the tram has the right away as you can move out the way off it

If you don't know the answer you'd better off not trying. :roll:

Nothing at all.

Yet as always, some misguided fool comes along, sees a thread that contains the magic word "cyclist", his eyes turn red and he leaps into a frenzy, waves his hands wildly above his head and shouts "ROOOOAAAAD TAAAAXXXX"*

As always happens when the c-word is mentioned



*metaphorically, of course!

Yep squiggles. when cyclists, not unlike yourself, hold such contempt for ordinary folk who believe that ved is a road tax, it might not be such a good idea to label them as 'misguided fools' as this only fuels the belief that cyclists are, nothing more, than the 'C' word. Interestingly, I have a bike too, but im not much good on it, and I would hate to be the cause of a traffic jam, as I have more respect for other, faster moving road users.

Note also at two of those stops, Langsett / Primrose

http://www.thetrams.co.uk/supertram/pictures/000530?sid=1328572453&seq=1&ref=L3N0b3BzLnBocD9zZWN0aW9uPXN1cGVydHJhbSZzdG9wPU xhbmdzZXR0L1ByaW1yb3NlX1ZpZXc=

and Bamforth Street

http://www.thetrams.co.uk/supertram/pictures/000529?sid=1328572547&seq=2&ref=L3N0b3BzLnBocD9zZWN0aW9uPXN1cGVydHJhbSZzdG9wPU JhbWZvcnRoX1N0cmVldA==

there is room in the middle of the road (the hatched area) to pull over pretty safely.

That would be a really stupid place to pull over!

im sorry but cyclist dont pay nothing towards the keep of the roads they should have no rights and im sorry but cyclist have to always stay in the inside lane and single file. trams and busses have the right of way no matter what is in front.

cyclists to pay road tax and insurance to pay towards the road up keep . untill then they dont get no say or any thing about the roads.

I'm sorry but you're wrong regarding pretty much your entire statement.

I have a theory on this, and im sure I will get a good telling off from the cycling community, but here goes;

1. Motorists always complain that they pay road tax, or VED as its known now, but the cyclist will argue that they also pay tax. (but NOT for the cycle) What the cyclist fails to acknowledge is that the motorist CANNOT use the road without VED
This is where your argument falls down... The motorist can get a zero rated vehicle and use the road without paying anything. Next., and yet the cyclist can! Therfore, VED is a tax on the motorist, but not on the cyclist. The cyclist will state some cars are zero emmisions, but they are just 10% of the total number of cars in the UK today. Thats 90% of us who ARE legally forced to TAX our cars to use the road. The cyclist will argue that this VED dosent go pay for new roads etc. So what? No VED, you CANNOT USE THE ROAD UNTIL YOU PAY. There is your road tax arguement, full stop.
It's not road tax, it's a vehicle tax and it only applies to certain motorised vehicles. Cyclists could all be given free tax discs, but what's the point?
2. Some motorists AND cyclists drive/ride like fools, jumping red lights etc. The cyclist is the biggest culprit
Not true, 90% of drivers break the speed limit (my estimate) which is at least as high as the % of cyclists who break any motoring law. as they know they CANNOT get points on their licence, wheras the motorist would. You dont need a licence to ride a cycle, even though you are using the road to propel yourself quicker than walking. This infuriates motorists like myself who DO obey the rules of the road. Always.
If that's true then well done to you, seeing cyclists jumping lights infuriates other cyclists as well!
3. If you do choose to cycle, which is very healthy and environmentally kind, then good on you. But if you are holding up a queue of traffic, do the decent thing, and pull over for a bit. That includes trams.
Yeah, no argument with that.

Theres plenty of room for every one, but its unfair for one person to hold up one hundred people. Thats not anti-cyclist......thats democracy.

If the cycle is passing through the tram stop then they will cause a delay of maybe 10 seconds, there's no reason they'll should delay the tram for any longer as the rest of the route will allow them to move out of the way.

On Langsett Road I'm much faster end to end on my pushbike than the tram. I only get held up by the tram at its stopped.

Is there some legal or moral reason that I should get off my bike to let them past to hold me up again in a quarter of a mile? I move happily at 20+ mph continuously.

On the way up Langsett, that's quite impressive.

Really? when i went to work this morning, did i drive there in a zero ved micra? did the whole street have one parked on the drive? was every car on the M1 this morning a zero ved micra? what do you think? your feeble post holds as much water as your dubiously shaped cycle helmet. the time when everyone has a zero ved car is a long way off yet. if you dont put a ved disc in your normal ved-able car, you cant use the road. you dont need ved for your bike. so whichever way you choose to deny that, you will wrong, stay wrong and be wrong until the day comes when all of us drive zero ved cars.

Does every motorist need to pay VED, that was your assertion.

It's clearly wrong. Some motorists have to pay VED, cyclists do not (and some motorists do not).

Really? when i went to work this morning, did i drive there in a zero ved micra? did the whole street have one parked on the drive? was every car on the M1 this morning a zero ved micra? what do you think? your feeble post holds as much water as your dubiously shaped cycle helmet. the time when everyone has a zero ved car is a long way off yet. if you dont put a ved disc in your normal ved-able car, you cant use the road. you dont need ved for your bike. so whichever way you choose to deny that, you will wrong, stay wrong and be wrong until the day comes when all of us drive zero ved cars.

Oh dear, is that the best you can do? I don't even own a cycle helmet!

But a few years ago I did own a diesel Punto that was only £35 a year VED. If you bothered to look and research you'd find lots of cars pay less than others, and the number is increasing. As fuel and other motoring costs rise, people look to save money where they can.

Perhaps you drive a big gas guzzler and have to fork out hundreds a year to use it on the roads and you're just jealous that others pay less (or nothing) and have exactly the same rights and priorities on the road! :)

Like Cyclone said, my point was that not every car has to pay VED, yet can still use the roads and go everywhere you and your car can, but for free. A fact that's escaped you and your limited reasoning.

Oh dear, is that the best you can do? I don't even own a cycle helmet!

But a few years ago I did own a diesel Punto that was only £35 a year VED. If you bothered to look and research you'd find lots of cars pay less than others, and the number is increasing. As fuel and other motoring costs rise, people look to save money where they can.

Perhaps you drive a big gas guzzler and have to fork out hundreds a year to use it on the roads and you're just jealous that others pay less (or nothing) and have exactly the same rights and priorities on the road! :)

Like Cyclone said, my point was that not every car has to pay VED, yet can still use the roads and go everywhere you and your car can, but for free. A fact that's escaped you and your limited reasoning.

All you say is ok, but most cars do have to pay (DISPLAY) ved. I think between all of us we have established that around 90% of cars on the road today have to pay this ved. Its all well and good calling me names and questioning my upsetness of having to pay huge sums for my gas guzzling car, and even estimating my abillity to see reason, but all that said, its true that the majority of motorists have to pay this ved charge by law, or they just cannot use their cars on the road. That VED charge is imposed, and if you dont have it, your car could be siezed or even crushed. Thats a pretty bold law in my eyes, and it says, clear as crystal, that if you dont tax (VED) your car, then you cannot use it on the road. Admittedly, cycles are a very friendly mode of transport where pollution is concerned, and you are rewarded with the ability to ride wherever you choose at no cost at all to the rider. That isnt disputed with me at all. All I want to get across is that when people complain that VED is a road tax, they have got a point. None of us like paying it as there is enough tax on fuel, and nobody is REALLY suggesting that motorists have any more rights than a cyclist, but when a cyclist does hold up traffic, its only common courtesy to pull over and allow the traffic/tram/bus to pass. If you read this and STILL think that my point deserves the abuse I have got, then so be it, but unless the law tells me I can drive my 5 year old vauxhall on the road without paying any VED, then it is a road tax, as without it, I cannot use the car legally on the road. :o

All you say is ok, but most cars do have to pay ved.

If the cars have to pay ved, why are you complaining? Surely it should be the cars complaining?

If the cars have to pay ved, why are you complaining? Surely it should be the cars complaining?

Your post is worthy of an inclusion on my "Occu-Pie Moan" thread. Very good. My car usually has a whinge about it when we go for a pint. (only one, though):hihi:

is this a good idea or what!!!!!..
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=935483

it would solve the cyclist versus motorist problem. there would be far more cyclist, seeing that Sheffield people are tight asses

is this a good idea or what!!!!!..
http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=935483

it would solve the cyclist versus motorist problem. there would be far more cyclist, seeing that Sheffield people are tight asses

No - it is a poor idea and not needed.

We hardly had any cyclists in Sheffield 30 odd yers ago when traffic was much lighter than it is today - it's these things called hills.

No - it is a poor idea and not needed.

We hardly had any cyclists in Sheffield 30 odd yers ago when traffic was much lighter than it is today - it's these things called hills.

you could always look at it as a health initiative? as well as raising money and reducing congestion. would make people live longer healthier lives. its a win win situation.

you could always look at it as a health initiative? as well as raising money and reducing congestion. would make people live longer healthier lives. its a win win situation.

Or just increase the number of accidents.

Seriously, it is highly unlikely that anything but a small number of people in Sheffield will use cycles. We did have less traffic when we had an efficient (but heavily subsidised) public transport system.

All I want to get across is that when people complain that VED is a road tax, they have got a point. None of us like paying it as there is enough tax on fuel, and nobody is REALLY suggesting that motorists have any more rights than a cyclist

I still don't see how this affects whether a vehicle has right of way over the vehicle in front or not?

I will just point out that all of us have the choice of using a vehicle that is exempt from VED, or making our next purchase a zero or low VED car. The zero VED rate has been around for some years now, it's not exactly new. I made the choice to get a zero VED car four years ago when it was time to change from my old banger that was costing more to run, pay VED for, and maintain than buying something else.

I pay no VED on any of the vehicles I own, bikes or car (does this seem unfair to anyone, I still pay plenty of income and council tax?). I still have right of way (which is what this thread is about) over the vehicle that is behind me when using all of those vehicles. I always however will pull over when on my pushbike to allow the tram to pass when it is safe to do so

I don't get it when society (or some users of this forum) has to have a go at a group of people that are making intelligent and informed choices about reducing their tax burden via their choice of transport. If folks want to "complain that VED is a road tax" then they can go ahead, but if they haven't figured out ways of reducing that tax by now then more fool them. They should act on it and stop complaining, 'cos no one is going to act for them.

I still don't see how this affects whether a vehicle has right of way over the vehicle in front or not?

I will just point out that all of us have the choice of using a vehicle that is exempt from VED, or making our next purchase a zero or low VED car. The zero VED rate has been around for some years now, it's not exactly new. I made the choice to get a zero VED car four years ago when it was time to change from my old banger that was costing more to run, pay VED for, and maintain than buying something else.

I pay no VED on any of the vehicles I own, bikes or car (does this seem unfair to anyone, I still pay plenty of income and council tax?). I still have right of way (which is what this thread is about) over the vehicle that is behind me when using all of those vehicles. I always however will pull over when on my pushbike to allow the tram to pass when it is safe to do so

I don't get it when society (or some users of this forum) has to have a go at a group of people that are making intelligent and informed choices about reducing their tax burden via their choice of transport. If folks want to "complain that VED is a road tax" then they can go ahead, but if they haven't figured out ways of reducing that tax by now then more fool them. They should act on it and stop complaining, 'cos no one is going to act for them.

You only have the choice if you can afford to buy these zero or low emission cars. Are we to think that everyone who needs a car actually has the good fortune to be able to afford these cars? And what about all the cars that are still perfectly usable, but have a VED charge to pay? Shall we just chuck these away, and get into debt to buy the zero VED car? Thats not a choice, that sounds like compulsary vehicle cleansing, when the motor car is not quite as bad as these green loonies would have us believe. Have a read of this link, and then you will see that if this is correct, VED is nothing more than a filthy dirty road tax. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html

Getting back to the original subject and away from the daft "I pay more tax than you" arguments which blight these threads to the point of tedium.

The tram drivers are very skilled in what they do. There were some instances of cycle bullying in the early days of the system, but all the trams now have front and rear CCTV and any incidents are recorded. One of the training videos the tram drivers see is actual CCTV footage of an incident where a female cyclist disappears under the front of the tram that followed too closely (thankfully she was unhurt but its a frightening incident).

Most cyclist will do their utmost to get out of the way of an overtaking tram, and just about every tram driver I've encountered has acknowledged this when Ive pulled out of the way for them.

but..

there are parts of the network where its almost impossible to pull over for quite some distance. One of the worst places for this is Park Grange where there are long sections with very high curbs or steep grass banking which mean there is no where for you to move over into.

As I posted before, the whole system was designed to old regulations. It wouldn't (couldn't) be built in the same way today, but we have to make the best of what we have ended up and this means a bit of give and take by all parties. This includes motorists who need to allow cyclists the space to move into the centre of the rails to negotiate the tram stops.

You only have the choice if you can afford to buy these zero or low emission cars. Are we to think that everyone who needs a car actually has the good fortune to be able to afford these cars? And what about all the cars that are still perfectly usable, but have a VED charge to pay? Shall we just chuck these away, and get into debt to buy the zero VED car? Thats not a choice, that sounds like compulsary vehicle cleansing, when the motor car is not quite as bad as these green loonies would have us believe. Have a read of this link, and then you will see that if this is correct, VED is nothing more than a filthy dirty road tax. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/cow-emissions-more-damaging-to-planet-than-cosub2sub-from-cars-427843.html

Come off it, a low or zero VED car is often a cheaper option when replacing a car. They tend to be low powered and cheap to insure. I haven't said you should scrap your existing car to get one, just that when we go through the process of replacing a vehicle we all have the choice to purchase one with low or zero VED. And we all have the choice to ride a bike, they are available on eBay from 99p.

As for the link, what are you getting at now? We also have the choice to eat less meat if you were really that bothered about co2 emissions.

Come off it, a low or zero VED car is often a cheaper option when replacing a car. They tend to be low powered and cheap to insure. I haven't said you should scrap your existing car to get one, just that when we go through the process of replacing a vehicle we all have the choice to purchase one with low or zero VED. And we all have the choice to ride a bike, they are available on eBay from 99p.



Wow - what are these 99p bikes like on hills in Sheffield. They do have wheels I take it - and gears and useful things like that.

Any of them have motors :cool:

@ the OP, Buy a cheap helmet cam and video the tram drivers that bully. Even if they do nothing at Stage coach you can always stick it on youtube and get the public behind your plight.

@ the OP, Buy a cheap helmet cam and video the tram drivers that bully. Even if they do nothing at Stage coach you can always stick it on youtube and get the public behind your plight.

No, people who do that just get laughed at. Notify stagecoach, you have more chance of getting a result.

All you say is ok, but most cars do have to pay (DISPLAY) ved. I think between all of us we have established that around 90% of cars on the road today have to pay this ved. Its all well and good calling me names and questioning my upsetness of having to pay huge sums for my gas guzzling car, and even estimating my abillity to see reason, but all that said, its true that the majority of motorists have to pay this ved charge by law, or they just cannot use their cars on the road. That VED charge is imposed, and if you dont have it, your car could be siezed or even crushed. Thats a pretty bold law in my eyes, and it says, clear as crystal, that if you dont tax (VED) your car, then you cannot use it on the road.
Except for the 10's of models that are zero rated and anything over a certain age. So it's really quite clear, you were wrong. Admittedly, cycles are a very friendly mode of transport where pollution is concerned, and you are rewarded with the ability to ride wherever you choose at no cost at all to the rider. That isnt disputed with me at all. All I want to get across is that when people complain that VED is a road tax, they have got a point.
No, they really don't. It's an excise duty. None of us like paying it as there is enough tax on fuel, and nobody is REALLY suggesting that motorists have any more rights than a cyclist, but when a cyclist does hold up traffic, its only common courtesy to pull over and allow the traffic/tram/bus to pass. If you read this and STILL think that my point deserves the abuse I have got, then so be it, but unless the law tells me I can drive my 5 year old vauxhall on the road without paying any VED, then it is a road tax, as without it, I cannot use the car legally on the road. :o
I'm sorry but that simply doesn't follow.

Would any cyclist care to explain why the think it is fine to use the stretch of tramway between cathedral & the bowstring bridge with scant regard for trams & pedestrians ?

Would any cyclist care to explain why the think it is fine to use the stretch of tramway between cathedral & the bowstring bridge with scant regard for trams & pedestrians ?
That's an interesting question, and anyone who's cycled that route will know the answer.

You only have the choice if you can afford to buy these zero or low emission cars. Are we to think that everyone who needs a car actually has the good fortune to be able to afford these cars?


£1495 for a 2004 3 door hatchback which has £30 a year road tax. Hardly breaking the bank.


http://www.autotrader.co.uk/classified/advert/201205445844760/sort/priceasc/usedcars/engine-size-cars/1l_to_1-3l/fuel-type/diesel/model/punto/make/fiat/postcode/s11aa/page/1/radius/1500?logcode=p

The uk will never be cycle freindly as is germany and the scandanavia lands. The times campaign is the most hypocritical ive ever come accross, on order to have safe cycling you need decent public transport, susidies to councils all this means the rich paying there fair share of Tax the times hates all the aforementioned things.

Looks like is is not just cyclist - "Crunch! Tram hits car in smash " from The Star

http://www.thestar.co.uk/community/crunch_tram_hits_car_in_smash_1_4228089