The Times Today (Friday)
Comments
-
Does dondaddy think the TRL research and House of Commons report is "moronic" and "asinine"?
It's basic physics, higher speeds make accidents more likely and the injuries inflicted much worse, I'm not sure how dondaddy can claim this isn't true.0 -
bails87 wrote:Greg66 wrote:
I wonder: L1 min 30, max 70. L2 min 40, max 80. L3 derestricted, but max 90 when L2 is occupied.
How would that work? Carnage?
You want to explain that to a typical driver, and expect them to remember it?!
Put it on the overhead gantries. Christ knows we have an appetite for road signs in this country. A few more wouldn't hurt.0 -
You know what's also crazy. If I approach a crossing (not a junction) with a red light and I am on the bicycle and there is clearly no one crossing. Sometimes I RLJ.notsoblue wrote:
Pretty irrational though. I mean here you and others are pretty much saying that you break the speed limit because driving at below the speed limit just doesn't feel right, and because its safer to break the limit because everyone else is.DonDaddyD wrote:
RLJers are burnt at the stake because some cyclists point the finger at motorists - often unreasonably so - and so in turn motorists point the fingers at RLJers.notsoblue wrote:I hate to be that guy but why is speeding considered to be "okay" (sorry EKE) but RLJ'ers are burnt at the stake? I mean, they're both breaking the law, right?
RLJers are then ganged up on by pedestrians as the action of RLJing can affect them as well.
Crazy!
Sometimes when I'm stopped at a crossing with a red light and car pulls up beside me and I (a) don't fancy it because (b) I think they are going to drive off with me and not give me any room to er wobble. Sometimes I RLJ.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
I'm sorry but that is moronic.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:‘Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Some accidents happen because they simply couldn't be avoided regardless of speed. Some collisions happen at incredibly slow speed. Some accidents/collisions happen because you cannot see or predict the other persons actions.
What you are trying to do is rationalise every possible vehicle accident with some asinine logic and solution.
Speed makes accidents more likely and the consequences much worse. This is basic physics.
Yes but speed isn't always the cause of every accident.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:It's basic physics, higher speeds make accidents more likely
That's twice you've said that, and it is still not true.
It's not physics. If it is anything, it is statistics, specifically probabilities. And we all know what is said about statistics.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
I'm sorry but that is moronic.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:‘Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Some accidents happen because they simply couldn't be avoided regardless of speed. Some collisions happen at incredibly slow speed. Some accidents/collisions happen because you cannot see or predict the other persons actions.
What you are trying to do is rationalise every possible vehicle accident with some asinine logic and solution.
Speed makes accidents more likely and the consequences much worse. This is basic physics.
Yes but speed isn't always the cause of every accident.
Thank goodness you're on hand to rebut all the claims nobody's made.0 -
-
notsoblue wrote:
:shock:DonDaddyD wrote:Sometimes I RLJ.
Sometimes I RLJ. Only in 'bear shitting in the woods' scenarios, though.
Stupid fucking censorship!FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
In that situation you should be positioned in primary. The car can wait behind you. He might not like it but thems the rules.DonDaddyD wrote:Sometimes when I'm stopped at a crossing with a red light and car pulls up beside me and I (a) don't fancy it because (b) I think they are going to drive off with me and not give me any room to er wobble. Sometimes I RLJ.
If he is of the aggressive persuasion why not wait behind him?
If you RLJ in front of an aggressive driver then you are just setting yourself up as a target :twisted:
If that's too dangerous then I have heard that there is such a thing as cycle lanes.
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.0 -
THE FLOODGATES HAVE OPENEDEKE_38BPM wrote:0 -
The formula used to calculate braking distance can be derived from a general equation of physics:
http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm
Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.
Basic physics.0 -
That's just erroneous. How likely is it that all parties are going to be stationary? Movement has to be involved for an object to collide yes. The speed at which the object, in this case a car, isn't always the cause for it's collision with another object.davis wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
I'm sorry but that is moronic.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:‘Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Some accidents happen because they simply couldn't be avoided regardless of speed. Some collisions happen at incredibly slow speed. Some accidents/collisions happen because you cannot see or predict the other persons actions.
What you are trying to do is rationalise every possible vehicle accident with some asinine logic and solution.
Imagine any accident you like. Now imagine all parties involved travelling at 0mph. The accident wouldn't happen, would it?
I'm not a massive shouty "All cars are evil" type, but you're doing your own argument no favours, DDD.
What if the brakes fail or the driver losing conciousness. Even at 10mph or 5mph the inability to stop outweighs the overall speed of movement of the vehicle.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
That's just erroneous. How likely is it that all parties are going to be stationary? Movement has to be involved for an object to collide yes. The speed at which the object, in this case a car, isn't always the cause for it's collision with another object.davis wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
I'm sorry but that is moronic.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:‘Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Some accidents happen because they simply couldn't be avoided regardless of speed. Some collisions happen at incredibly slow speed. Some accidents/collisions happen because you cannot see or predict the other persons actions.
What you are trying to do is rationalise every possible vehicle accident with some asinine logic and solution.
Imagine any accident you like. Now imagine all parties involved travelling at 0mph. The accident wouldn't happen, would it?
I'm not a massive shouty "All cars are evil" type, but you're doing your own argument no favours, DDD.
Once again,nobody's said speed is always the cause.
Why not set up your own thread called "Speed causes all accidents!" where you can tilt at windmills to your heart's content?0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:bails87 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:bails87 wrote:Nope.
Speeding affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
RLJing affects drivers, cyclist and pedestrians.
Speeding is considered okay/OK by many because so many people do it. Maybe that's why some cyclists RLJ, because they see so many others doing it. Same would have gone for drink driving 30-40 years ago, everyone does it, what's the problem. Essentially that was the govt position on the 80mph m'way limit.
A cyclist is more likely to be killed by a car jumping redlights than kill or be killed RLJing.
I know, there's no point getting into 'degrees' though, each action affects the same group, that was my point.
I reckon if every cyclist obeyed every traffic law some motorists would still be hostile and aggressive.
Of course, but they would stand out more against a generally less antagonistic relationship between cyclists and motorists.
ETA: As for the speed/physics/stats question, speed is going to have an effect on the kinetic energy of the vehicle(s) and its/their occupants, and the distance covered during 'reaction times' The former has an effect on the consequences if a collision occurs and the latter is likely to have an effect on the probability of a collision. Higher speed means that more distance will be covered during 'reaction time' - roughly 30m at 70mph. More importantly, as with kinetic energy, the stopping distance increases proportional to the square of the speed, so there is likely to be a tendency for people to underestimate stopping distances more as speeds increase. So no speed itself doesn't cause accidents, but it does increase the severity of those accidents that do occur and it does contribute to the probability of an accident occurring.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
daviesee wrote:
In that situation you should be positioned in primary. The car can wait behind you. He might not like it but thems the rules.DonDaddyD wrote:Sometimes when I'm stopped at a crossing with a red light and car pulls up beside me and I (a) don't fancy it because (b) I think they are going to drive off with me and not give me any room to er wobble. Sometimes I RLJ.
If he is of the aggressive persuasion why not wait behind him?
If you RLJ in front of an aggressive driver then you are just setting yourself up as a target :twisted:
If that's too dangerous then I have heard that there is such a thing as cycle lanes.
Do you always stop in a primary position at a set of traffic lights?
Picture the scene.
Empty road. Ped crossing. Red light. You stop and wait for the ped to cross and the light to turn green before applying the awesome. Car approaches from behind.
Would you have stopped in primary on the empty road in anticipation of the car that wasn't behind you when you stopped, or would you have stopped towards the lefthand side of the carriageway, where you were riding? In otherwords, would you have pulled into primary even though nothing was behind you?FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
daviesee wrote:
In that situation you should be positioned in primary. The car can wait behind you. He might not like it but thems the rules.DonDaddyD wrote:Sometimes when I'm stopped at a crossing with a red light and car pulls up beside me and I (a) don't fancy it because (b) I think they are going to drive off with me and not give me any room to er wobble. Sometimes I RLJ.
If he is of the aggressive persuasion why not wait behind him?
If you RLJ in front of an aggressive driver then you are just setting yourself up as a target :twisted:
If that's too dangerous then I have heard that there is such a thing as cycle lanes.
I've been there and each encounter demands a different reaction. Sometimes I wait beside the vehicle. Sometimes I wait behind it, especially if it has got there first. Sometimes I go through. Sometimes I wait in primary. It's a judgement call and I do what I think is safe for me and those around me at the time.
I'm a very competent cyclist so I trust my judgement.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:The formula used to calculate braking distance can be derived from a general equation of physics:
http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm
Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.
Basic physics.
I think if you read that carefully, you will find that the severity of an injury to a pedestrian increases as described with increasing speed. Not the probability of colliding with a pedestrian.0 -
Devil's advocate.Greg66 wrote:...Nascar looks pretty safe to me...FCN 3: Raleigh Record Ace fixie-to be resurrected sometime in the future
FCN 4: Planet X Schmaffenschmack 2- workhorse
FCN 9: B Twin Vitamin - winter commuter/loan bike for trainees
I'm hungry. I'm always hungry!0 -
Greg66 wrote:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:The formula used to calculate braking distance can be derived from a general equation of physics:
http://www.science.org.au/nova/058/058key.htm
Using data from actual road crashes, scientists at the University of Adelaide estimated the relative risk of a car becoming involved in a casualty crash – a car crash in which people are killed or hospitalised – for cars travelling at or above 60 kilometres/hour. They found that the risk doubled for every 5 kilometres/hour above 60 kilometres/hour. Thus, a car travelling at 65 kilometres/hour was twice as likely to be involved in a casualty crash as one travelling at 60. For a car travelling at 70 kilometres/hour, the risk increased fourfold. For speeds below 60 kilometres/hour the likelihood of a fatal crash can be expected to be correspondingly reduced.
Basic physics.
I think if you read that carefully, you will find that the severity of an injury to a pedestrian increases as described with increasing speed. Not the probability of colliding with a pedestrian.
Then how do you explain the dramatic decrease in collisions of all types in 20mph zones in Hull?0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Once again,nobody's said speed is always the cause.
But your line is that speed is always a (not the) cause. So DDD's point has some relevance.
And I suspect that where you are saying that lower speed limits have reduced accidents, it must follow that you are saying that the higher speed would have been sole cause of all those "saved" accidents.0 -
WHAT RESIDENTS THINK
In August 2000, we asked 3,700 residents of existing 20 mph zones what they thought of the scheme, 546 replied (15 per cent).
— Over 25 per cent of respondents said that they walked or cycled more since the scheme was introduced.
— Nearly 80 per cent of respondents thought that the installation of the scheme was a good idea.
— Over 70 per cent of respondents said that they would recommend traffic calming to someone in another area.
— 78 per cent of respondents felt that traffic speeds had reduced since the measures were installed.
— 25 per cent of respondents felt that there was less traffic since the 20 mph zone had been installed.
— Over 50 per cent of respondents felt that the 20 mph zone had made the area a more pleasant place in which to live. This was particularly encouraging since all of the areas surveyed also suffer from a variety of other problems.
— 60 per cent of respondents felt that more children played in the street.
Ibid.
20 mph is too fast on a narrow road with cars parked alongside, like most UK residential roads. But it's legal. So drivers do it.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:That's just erroneous. How likely is it that all parties are going to be stationary? Movement has to be involved for an object to collide yes. The speed at which the object, in this case a car, isn't always the cause for it's collision with another object.
And here's the crux: if you're going more slowly, you will be more likely to be able to stop and avoid a collision.
I know that DfT stats say that "excessive use of speed" is the primary (I think they still only record the primary) cause in only around a third of accidents, but in every accident I've had been involved in, I'd rather everyone involved was travelling much more slowly, or even stopped.Sometimes parts break. Sometimes you crash. Sometimes it’s your fault.0 -
Yep, I would definitely be in primary there.EKE_38BPM wrote:
Do you always stop in a primary position at a set of traffic lights?
Picture the scene.
Empty road. Ped crossing. Red light. You stop and wait for the ped to cross and the light to turn green before applying the awesome. Car approaches from behind.
Would you have stopped in primary on the empty road in anticipation of the car that wasn't behind you when you stopped, or would you have stopped towards the lefthand side of the carriageway, where you were riding? In otherwords, would you have pulled into primary even though nothing was behind you?
Likewise with DDD's comment, I would wait next to a vehicle. Either in front or behind, as he says, depending on the situation.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Then how do you explain the dramatic decrease in collisions of all types in 20mph zones in Hull?
Part of the cause is something you've already quoted:mybreakfastconsisted wrote:WHAT RESIDENTS THINK
In August 2000, we asked 3,700 residents of existing 20 mph zones what they thought of the scheme, 546 replied (15 per cent).
— Over 25 per cent of respondents said that they walked or cycled more since the scheme was introduced.
Smaller traffic volumes.
I don't know whether the balance is cause or correlation (or even coincidence). I know that it is quite easy to choose if you have a preconception or an agenda though.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
That's just erroneous. How likely is it that all parties are going to be stationary? Movement has to be involved for an object to collide yes. The speed at which the object, in this case a car, isn't always the cause for it's collision with another object.davis wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
I'm sorry but that is moronic.mybreakfastconsisted wrote:‘Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Some accidents happen because they simply couldn't be avoided regardless of speed. Some collisions happen at incredibly slow speed. Some accidents/collisions happen because you cannot see or predict the other persons actions.
What you are trying to do is rationalise every possible vehicle accident with some asinine logic and solution.
Imagine any accident you like. Now imagine all parties involved travelling at 0mph. The accident wouldn't happen, would it?
I'm not a massive shouty "All cars are evil" type, but you're doing your own argument no favours, DDD.
Once again,nobody's said speed is always the cause.
Why not set up your own thread called "Speed causes all accidents!" where you can tilt at windmills to your heart's content?
To which I'm saying that:Mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur.’
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Lower speeds would not help prevent all road accidents.
Why?
Not all road accidents are a result of speed/excessive speed and thus solved by driving slower.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
A few points that sprung to mind whilst reading the last few pages.
They wanted to introduce traffic calming on my road. There was an overwhelming vote against it, I went to the council meeting where they still tried to force it through in spite of an 81% response rate with only 2 residents surveyed in favour. One of the reasons quoted was that police will only enforce 20mph limits if traffic calming measures are in place.
Regarding the motorway speed limits (completely irrelevant whilst cycling) Italy has different speed limits for wet and dry conditions.
With respect to DDD's comment on driving at 80 to stop people tailgating him, that is a very Italian argument. My Dad was being driven from Milan to Verona in thick fog and his driver was driving as fast as he could, right up behind the car in front. Dad got nervous and asked the bloke to slow down, the answer was along the lines of if he slowed down the car behind would hit him. It's not uncommon to see pictures from that stretch of motorway when 300 cars have all piled into each other because they are all driving too close in fog.0 -
mybreakfastconsisted wrote:Typically within Hull, 20 mph zones have achieved reductions[106] in injury accidents of:
— Total accidents -56 per cent
— Killed & seriously injured accidents -90 per cent
— Accidents involving child casualties -64 per cent
— All pedestrian accidents -54 per cent
— Child pedestrian accidents -74 per cent.
It is estimated that at the end of 1999, 390 injury accidents had been prevented within the 20 mph zones which had been previously installed. 122 of these would have involved injuries to children.
I believe I've critiqued this study before because it cherry picks the years it takes data from to make it look better than it is (although I'm not going to disagree with the underlying trend.)
Actually, I think last time I looked at it I was irritated by the 'statistics'
I'm not convinced a self selected 10 - 40% is a good base. And most of it is opinions...Previous response rates to questionnaires have been between 10-40 per cent and typically:
— 80-100 per cent are in favour of 20 mph zones.
— 70-95 per cent are in favour of humps/cushions.
speed cushions are dangerous to cyclists. They make cars weave and in my experience cause funneling of cyclists either towards the doorzone or the centre of the road.In August 2000, we asked 3,700 residents of existing 20 mph zones what they thought of the scheme, 546 replied (15 per cent).
— Over 25 per cent of respondents said that they walked or cycled more since the scheme was introduced.
so 75% don't walk or cycle more, or possibly actually walk or cycle less?— 25 per cent of respondents felt that there was less traffic since the 20 mph zone had been installed.
so 75% thought there was more traffic, or no difference. How accurate is 'felt'.
Etc..FCN 9 || FCN 50
