The Times Today (Friday)

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Lower speeds allow them to avoid most crashes.

Source please (identifying how much "lower" and that more than 50% of crashes would thereby be avoided).

http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/files/10myths031220.pdf

A few stats and sources to sink your teeth into Gregg.

Doesn't answer the question though.

mybreakfastconsisted

rjsterry wrote:

This is the crux of it: even if the number of accidents remained unchanged, if the speed was a third lower, there would be less severe consequences to those accidents that did occur on account of receiving lower energy impacts.

The human body is designed to withstand collisions at maximum human speed- around 20mph. Above those speeds the risks increase dramatically.

I'd like all urban residential roads to be 20mph because it makes for a far more civilised, more pleasant environment, it's reclaiming public roads from twatty boy-racers who use roads people live on as their own personal racetrack.

davis

Greg66 wrote:

However, how do you get from there (assuming that is the right starting point) to concluding that you are more likely to have a collision at 30mph than you are at 20mph? Because that proposition seems to me to carry a number of silent assumptions about traffic density around you, type of road, time of day, etc.

Ah. I think we might be talking at cross purposes.

I think you're talking about a speed limit being dropped from e.g. 30mph to 20mph, and probably then in an urban environment. I confess I'd extrapolated from this environment into situations that have personally affected me, and they really don't compare. It's therefore likely we won't agree because we're judging the effect of speed on completely different situations. We might never agree if we were to discuss a specific individual situation with all the facts available, but I doubt that's possible.

I largely agree with you about the difference in speeds being a much larger contributory factor than just speed in many cases however.

Either way, I'm done, because I'm apparently getting off-topic, and I'm letting (anecdotal, to you) experiences cloud my thinking.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Lower speeds allow them to avoid most crashes.

Source please (identifying how much "lower" and that more than 50% of crashes would thereby be avoided).

http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/files/10myths031220.pdf

A few stats and sources to sink your teeth into Gregg.

Doesn't answer the question though.

Pretty sure it answers the thrust if it. If you want to get pedantic about the figures then fine, but there's a very strong proven correlation between fewer and less serious accidents and lower car speed.

If you argue otherwise, then you're in cloud cuckoo land.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rjsterry wrote:

This is the crux of it: even if the number of accidents remained unchanged, if the speed was a third lower, there would be less severe consequences to those accidents that did occur on account of receiving lower energy impacts.

Quite. But the reason I said death or permanent injury is because serious injury is, well, serious, one may make a total recovery. Permanent injury is, ummm, permanent.

As ever though life is about balancing risk, and not eliminating it. You could make the argument that lower urban speeds leads to less awareness of the danger of cars, leading to more people stepping out because they assume cars will stop in time. Conversely raise the urban speed limit to 50 and you will have peds not daring to go near the edge of the pavement.

We could make urban roads much much safer by reintroducing the 10mph limit and the man with the red flag. But that would be a disproportionate measure (and would be a PITA for cyclists too).

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

This is the crux of it: even if the number of accidents remained unchanged, if the speed was a third lower, there would be less severe consequences to those accidents that did occur on account of receiving lower energy impacts.

The human body is designed to withstand collisions at maximum human speed- around 20mph. Above those speeds the risks increase dramatically.

I'd like all urban residential roads to be 20mph because it makes for a far more civilised, more pleasant environment, it's reclaiming public roads from twatty boy-racers who use roads people live on as their own personal racetrack.

That would ruin SCR.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Lower speeds allow them to avoid most crashes.

Source please (identifying how much "lower" and that more than 50% of crashes would thereby be avoided).

http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/files/10myths031220.pdf

A few stats and sources to sink your teeth into Gregg.

Doesn't answer the question though.

Pretty sure it answers the thrust if it. If you want to get pedantic about the figures then fine, but there's a very strong proven correlation between fewer and less serious accidents and lower car speed.

If you argue otherwise, then you're in cloud cuckoo land.

"It's sort of something to do with the point [which was about pedantic figures], and anyway, the point's obvious and you're wrong".

You could have just said that and saved yourself the trouble of digging up that paper.

veronese68

I must confess to being irritated by a few blanket statements on speed is bad. Inappropriate speed is bad. 20mph in many urban areas would be a good thing.
However if you travel everywhere at twice the speed you will be on the road for half the time, so half the chance of having an accident. No, I'm not serious.
I would still like to see improved cycling facilities, without losing any of our rights.

mybreakfastconsisted

Maybe properly-enforced 20mph limits would make drivers realise bikes are faster in any urban journey. (London, Cardiff, Bristol and Cambridge all had car versus bike races. the bike won every time).

More bikes = safer roads, drivers become more aware and may even cycle themselves.

Anyway, let's see what raving bigot Simon Jenkins reckons:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... curbing.do

Oh. It's our fault.

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Lower speeds allow them to avoid most crashes.

Source please (identifying how much "lower" and that more than 50% of crashes would thereby be avoided).

http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/files/10myths031220.pdf

A few stats and sources to sink your teeth into Gregg.

Doesn't answer the question though.

Pretty sure it answers the thrust if it. If you want to get pedantic about the figures then fine, but there's a very strong proven correlation between fewer and less serious accidents and lower car speed.

If you argue otherwise, then you're in cloud cuckoo land.

"It's sort of something to do with the point [which was about pedantic figures], and anyway, the point's obvious and you're wrong".

You could have just said that and saved yourself the trouble of digging up that paper.

Pretty sure it was said in more or less words a while back.

The papers have hard figures that back my point up. So while they may not match your (very) specific demand, that doesn't mean the thrust of the argument is incorrect. After all, an argument with some hard evidence to support it is better than one without, right?

rick_chasey

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Maybe properly-enforced 20mph limits would make drivers realise bikes are faster in any urban journey. (London, Cardiff, Bristol and Cambridge all had car versus bike races. the bike won every time).

More bikes = safer roads, drivers become more aware and may even cycle themselves.

Anyway, let's see what raving bigot Simon Jenkins reckons:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... curbing.do

Oh. It's our fault.

That's Simon Jenkins. He's got a regular column in the Guardian and it's f*cking awful.

daviesee

Veronese68 wrote:

I would still like to see improved cycling facilities, without losing any of our rights.

How dare you try to ruin a damn fine rant thread by trying to bring it back OT

alfablue

Veronese68 wrote:

However if you travel everywhere at twice the speed you will be on the road for half the time, so half the chance of having an accident. No, I'm not serious.

I think some people believe this though, but they just get to the next hold up quicker. Like the young lady that raced past me yesterday at high speed and minimal distance from me in a residential street, just to get in a 6 deep queue to turn right at the t junction :roll:

veronese68

daviesee wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

I would still like to see improved cycling facilities, without losing any of our rights.

How dare you try to ruin a damn fine rant thread by trying to bring it back OT

Please accept my humblest apologies.

spen666

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Maybe properly-enforced 20mph limits would make drivers realise bikes are faster in any urban journey. (London, Cardiff, Bristol and Cambridge all had car versus bike races. the bike won every time).

More bikes = safer roads, drivers become more aware and may even cycle themselves.

Anyway, let's see what raving bigot Simon Jenkins reckons:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... curbing.do

Oh. It's our fault.

So let me understand your contention

You want to limit motor vehicles to a legal maximum speed
You then want to use this to prove bikes are faster in any urban journey


Not surprising is it? If I limit you to ride your bike at 5mph, then by the same token, it proves I'm a faster cyclist than you

EKE_38BPM

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The human body is designed...

Dunno about you, but my body evolved, it wasn't designed. Everyone (apart from Americans) knows this.

roger_merriman

Wow!

notsoblue

EKE_38BPM wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The human body is designed...

Dunno about you, but my body evolved, it wasn't designed. Everyone (apart from Americans) knows this.

To be fair, if we just removed all speed restrictions humans would eventually evolve to cope with the impact trauma. Right?

sfichele

And now for something completely different



LALALALALA LALALA LALA LAAAA LAAALALA ......

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The human body is designed...

Dunno about you, but my body evolved, it wasn't designed. Everyone (apart from Americans) knows this.

To be fair, if we just removed all speed restrictions humans would eventually evolve to cope with the impact trauma. Right?

Don't be silly we need Red sunlight to become invulnerable. Well that or a does of Gamma radiation, a bite from a radioactive spider, Super Soldier serum, cosmic rays or a cabo-tanium (because adamantium doesn't exist) to increase our resistance to impact trauma. Then there is the X-gene but that's too volatile.

No brainer prize if you can name them all.

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

The human body is designed...

Dunno about you, but my body evolved, it wasn't designed. Everyone (apart from Americans) knows this.

To be fair, if we just removed all speed restrictions humans would eventually evolve to cope with the impact trauma. Right?

Way back when, in the primordial soup:

Small fish-like creature A: Look, look, if you get to the surface and squint over there, you can see something that one day will be called l-a-n-d.
Small fish-like creature B: So?
Small fish-like creature A: Well, one day, maybe eventually we will evolve so that we can move about on the l-a-n-d.
Small fish-like creature B: Pah. You idiot.
Small fish-like creature A: Yeah, maybe you're right. <Sigh>

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Maybe properly-enforced 20mph limits would make drivers realise bikes are faster in any urban journey. (London, Cardiff, Bristol and Cambridge all had car versus bike races. the bike won every time).

More bikes = safer roads, drivers become more aware and may even cycle themselves.

Anyway, let's see what raving bigot Simon Jenkins reckons:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... curbing.do

Oh. It's our fault.

That's Simon Jenkins. He's got a regular column in the Guardian and it's f*cking awful.

I dunno, I quite like him - although I disagree with him on most things - he's like the Guardian's version of W1. Having read the whole article, I can't see how 'it's our fault is a fair summary; he discusses the slightly one-sided nature of the Times's campaign, which I have some sympathy with, but then goes on to discuss the ideas of Hans Monderman - most famously proposed for Exhibition Road - and seems to think these are a good idea. By the way, the railings around Old Street roundabout have recently been removed, presumably for similar reasons.

rick_chasey

I explode in a shower of fury and rage when I read his 'history' pieces.

He did one on anthropophagy and it couldn't have been more wrong.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

I explode in a shower of fury and rage

You see...

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I explode in a shower of fury and rage

You see...

They trick you by not always having it in the same place.

Else I'd avoid it.

In this instance, I read it thinking, "hmm, this twatishness feels familiar" and sure enough, it was him.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Maybe properly-enforced 20mph limits would make drivers realise bikes are faster in any urban journey. (London, Cardiff, Bristol and Cambridge all had car versus bike races. the bike won every time).

More bikes = safer roads, drivers become more aware and may even cycle themselves.

Anyway, let's see what raving bigot Simon Jenkins reckons:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... curbing.do

Oh. It's our fault.

That's Simon Jenkins. He's got a regular column in the Guardian and it's f*cking awful.

I dunno, I quite like him - although I disagree with him on most things - he's like the Guardian's version of W1. Having read the whole article, I can't see how 'it's our fault is a fair summary; he discusses the slightly one-sided nature of the Times's campaign, which I have some sympathy with, but then goes on to discuss the ideas of Hans Monderman - most famously proposed for Exhibition Road - and seems to think these are a good idea. By the way, the railings around Old Street roundabout have recently been removed, presumably for similar reasons.

Brekkie can't read anything that isn't in the Morning Star or The Guardian without presuming it's anti-cyclist.

I read the article and came to the same conclusion that you did. I'm not sure MBC bothered getting past the headline.

I don't like having The Guardian and me in the same sentence, let alone so close together.

mybreakfastconsisted

Simon Jenkins on parking wardens:

If arson, rape or terrorist attack were occurring in my street, the parking wardens would not care.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... urglary.do

Now, I know what Simon's trying to say, parking attendants concentrate on, well, parking. It's a bit of a jump to suggest they'd nonchalantly walk past someone raping a terrorist who's on fire.

bigmat

Am I the only one here that actually finds MBC's contributions to this thread fairly rational? Fair enough the guy may have been a bit "extremist" on other occasions, but I don't quite get why he's being singled out for snide comments and put downs by certain posters on here.

veronese68

I don't mean to attack him personally. I find some of his views, and some others, too black and white, life tends to be more shades of grey. That's why I picked up on particular points I disagreed with.
As I have said, I do believe there is plenty of room for improvement. I don't have a definitive answer. Both sides of this argument have said things that I consider wrong, and I have commented on both.
Obviously I can't comment for others.

W1

BigMat wrote:

Am I the only one here that actually finds MBC's contributions to this thread fairly rational? Fair enough the guy may have been a bit "extremist" on other occasions, but I don't quite get why he's being singled out for snide comments and put downs by certain posters on here.

There is simply no point in engaging with him, even if he is (temporarily) appearing sensible.

The deranged cut and pasting evidences his complete lack of original thought or argument.

Google almost everything he says (but fails to attribute) and you'll find it's actually come from someone else.

It's impossible to determine what he thinks, compared to what he's stealing from other people.

His completly miopic pan-banging agenda means that he is incapable of actually presenting rational, considered arguments of his own. And, if you catch him out, he will just run away or ignore you - the mark of someone incapable of actually being able to debate their view. But that's the thing, it's so often someone elses view in the first place!

He's been banned from here before, for good reason.