Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

pinno · May 2023

briantrumpet said:
Meanwhile in France, the reduction in speed limits on main roads from 90kmh to 80kmh is credited with reducing fatalities by 12%, with no impact on traffic flows.

https://www.onisr.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-08/Cerema-EvaluationV80-Juillet2020-V2_ENG.pdf

The impact of the measure corresponds to a 12% decrease in the number of deaths on the considered network, the network excluding urban areas and motorways, compared to the rest of the French road network (with an estimated error of 3.6%). For the 18 months after the implementation of the measure, where the data are final, a decrease of 331 deaths on the considered network is to be observed, compared to the reference period 2013-2017. Taking into account the months of January and February 2020, where data are estimated, the decrease in the number of deaths amounts to 349 over 20 months.

In terms of traffic, the Cerema observatory did not note any impact on traffic flow caused by the measure. Indeed, no additional platoons were created, nor was there a reduction in the time between vehicles following each other. On the other hand, an average increase in travel time of 1 second per kilometre was calculated, using a
comparative analysis of a history of floating vehicle data over a period of three months in 2017 and 2019.

The measure has not yet fully achieved its intended effects. In December 2019, 58% of light vehicle drivers were still driving at speeds above 80 km/h, and 35% of these were between 80 and 90 km/h. The literature indicates that speeding below 10 km/h is mainly perceived by road users as not very dangerous and reprehensible, even though it plays a significant role in French road deaths.

You mean that the French drive like nutters?:

France, population: 67.75M. Number of road fatalities: 2900 (2022)
Germany, population: 83.2M. Number of road fatalities: 2782 (2022).

..despite the autobahn.

briantrumpet · May 2023

pinno said:

briantrumpet said:
Meanwhile in France, the reduction in speed limits on main roads from 90kmh to 80kmh is credited with reducing fatalities by 12%, with no impact on traffic flows.

https://www.onisr.securite-routiere.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2020-08/Cerema-EvaluationV80-Juillet2020-V2_ENG.pdf

The impact of the measure corresponds to a 12% decrease in the number of deaths on the considered network, the network excluding urban areas and motorways, compared to the rest of the French road network (with an estimated error of 3.6%). For the 18 months after the implementation of the measure, where the data are final, a decrease of 331 deaths on the considered network is to be observed, compared to the reference period 2013-2017. Taking into account the months of January and February 2020, where data are estimated, the decrease in the number of deaths amounts to 349 over 20 months.

In terms of traffic, the Cerema observatory did not note any impact on traffic flow caused by the measure. Indeed, no additional platoons were created, nor was there a reduction in the time between vehicles following each other. On the other hand, an average increase in travel time of 1 second per kilometre was calculated, using a
comparative analysis of a history of floating vehicle data over a period of three months in 2017 and 2019.

The measure has not yet fully achieved its intended effects. In December 2019, 58% of light vehicle drivers were still driving at speeds above 80 km/h, and 35% of these were between 80 and 90 km/h. The literature indicates that speeding below 10 km/h is mainly perceived by road users as not very dangerous and reprehensible, even though it plays a significant role in French road deaths.
You mean that the French drive like nutters?:

France, population: 67.75M. Number of road fatalities: 2900 (2022)
Germany, population: 83.2M. Number of road fatalities: 2782 (2022).

..despite the autobahn.

I think it gets worse the closer to Italy you get. It's actually got better since my first proper time in France (1995), but they are indeed still a bit nuts in the SE - or at least a resistant proportion of them.

That said, I'm surprised more don't get killed in 'my' area, given the nature of many of the roads and lack of armco barriers.

rjsterry · May 2023

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:
The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.

Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.

UK has safer roads than all those listed here.

What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.

Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.

Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.

Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.

Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?

Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?

Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.

Etc etc.

Tedious.
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDs
BB is right.

If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.

Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?

I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.

Compare to:

Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.

Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.

Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.

Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.

Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.

--------------------------------

If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.

Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.

It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.

A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing.
🤣 Outstanding argument.
I think you've won a different argument to the one I've made RJS, but I had a look at some figures anyway.

Let's start with the economic cost of cancer. Google tells me it's about £18Bn a year.

Cost to the economy of road traffic accidents, about £3.5Bn, of which about 12% are speed related, so about £400M.

I'm not sure, but I think the current road policing budget is about £400M, and the cost of NHS cancer treatment is about £5Bn.

So the question is, how much of the road policing budget is spent on speeding enforcement? I would guess a lot more than 12%, in which case, on the face of it you may find that we are over prioritising this sort of spending in comparison to cancer treatment.

It's about £5M.

First.Aspect · May 2023

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:
The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.

Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.

UK has safer roads than all those listed here.

What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.

Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.

Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.

Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.

Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?

Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?

Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.

Etc etc.

Tedious.
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDs
BB is right.

If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.

Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?

I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.

Compare to:

Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.

Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.

Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.

Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.

Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.

--------------------------------

If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.

Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.

It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.

A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing.
🤣 Outstanding argument.
I think you've won a different argument to the one I've made RJS, but I had a look at some figures anyway.

Let's start with the economic cost of cancer. Google tells me it's about £18Bn a year.

Cost to the economy of road traffic accidents, about £3.5Bn, of which about 12% are speed related, so about £400M.

I'm not sure, but I think the current road policing budget is about £400M, and the cost of NHS cancer treatment is about £5Bn.

So the question is, how much of the road policing budget is spent on speeding enforcement? I would guess a lot more than 12%, in which case, on the face of it you may find that we are over prioritising this sort of spending in comparison to cancer treatment.
It's about £5M.

You are going to have to show working, because that sounds like a Daily Mail sort of statistic to me. 1.25% of the road policing budget spent on speeding enforcement. Really?

kingstongraham · May 2023

pinno said:

kingstongraham said:

pinno said:

Attitudes change driving habits not laws.

I'd say the laws changed driving habits regarding wearing seatbelts and not drink driving.
Sure but those laws are common sense.

They are viewed as such now, because etc

rick_chasey · May 2023

My whole point is why physically allow cars to go over the limit and so put the onus on police to decide if it’s worth catching speeders.

Just make it as compulsory as seat belts that they can’t go over 70 or whatever the limit is. Job done.

Will be even easier to spot the speeders then.

Will be even easier still with electric cars as they all need software to run anyway

rjsterry · May 2023

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:
The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.

Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.

UK has safer roads than all those listed here.

What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.

Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.

Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.

Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.

Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?

Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?

Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.

Etc etc.

Tedious.
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDs
BB is right.

If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.

Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?

I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.

Compare to:

Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.

Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.

Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.

Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.

Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.

--------------------------------

If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.

Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.

It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.

A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing.
🤣 Outstanding argument.
I think you've won a different argument to the one I've made RJS, but I had a look at some figures anyway.

Let's start with the economic cost of cancer. Google tells me it's about £18Bn a year.

Cost to the economy of road traffic accidents, about £3.5Bn, of which about 12% are speed related, so about £400M.

I'm not sure, but I think the current road policing budget is about £400M, and the cost of NHS cancer treatment is about £5Bn.

So the question is, how much of the road policing budget is spent on speeding enforcement? I would guess a lot more than 12%, in which case, on the face of it you may find that we are over prioritising this sort of spending in comparison to cancer treatment.
It's about £5M.
You are going to have to show working, because that sounds like a Daily Mail sort of statistic to me. 1.25% of the road policing budget spent on speeding enforcement. Really?

I just googled it. Sounds quite reasonable to me given that transport as a whole is a small part of overall policing and speeding is a smaller part of that.

First.Aspect · May 2023

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:
The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.

Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.

UK has safer roads than all those listed here.

What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.

Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.

Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.

Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.

Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?

Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?

Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.

Etc etc.

Tedious.
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDs
BB is right.

If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.

Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?

I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.

Compare to:

Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.

Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.

Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.

Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.

Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.

--------------------------------

If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.

Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.

It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.

A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing.
🤣 Outstanding argument.
I think you've won a different argument to the one I've made RJS, but I had a look at some figures anyway.

Let's start with the economic cost of cancer. Google tells me it's about £18Bn a year.

Cost to the economy of road traffic accidents, about £3.5Bn, of which about 12% are speed related, so about £400M.

I'm not sure, but I think the current road policing budget is about £400M, and the cost of NHS cancer treatment is about £5Bn.

So the question is, how much of the road policing budget is spent on speeding enforcement? I would guess a lot more than 12%, in which case, on the face of it you may find that we are over prioritising this sort of spending in comparison to cancer treatment.
It's about £5M.
You are going to have to show working, because that sounds like a Daily Mail sort of statistic to me. 1.25% of the road policing budget spent on speeding enforcement. Really?
I just googled it. Sounds quite reasonable to me given that transport as a whole is a small part of overall policing and speeding is a smaller part of that.

Seems implausibly low to me.

rjsterry · May 2023

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

First.Aspect said:

rick_chasey said:

pinno said:
The thing about driving (especially in urban areas) is that it can be extremely frustrating. Add more restrictions and it gets worse. I think that leads to aggressive behaviour.
When travelling south in Europe, I have always preferred the Autobahn where there is not much speed restriction.
When they flash their lights, they are letting you in/change lanes.
In France, if they flash their lights it's 'get out of the way'. I've had French drivers tailgate me at 80mph.
So where there is no speed limit, the drivers behave sensibly and where there is a speed limit, they behave like nutters. Anyway, the French have this 2 tier speeding fine system where the first tier results in a financial penalty only and the well off drive like lunatics and just pay the fines.
Attitudes change driving habits not laws.

Lets all have id cards, black boxes, photo ID for voting and highly restrictive protesting laws and live in a f*cking dystopia.

UK has safer roads than all those listed here.

What good reason is there to drive over the limit?
To a point freedom includes the freedom to make unwise choices.

Speed limits are to protect others from your behaviour. They are enforced more strictly where one person is most likely to affect a other by breaking them. They are barely enforced at all where one person is likely to kill themselves by breaking them, but unlikely to involve others.

Yes there is a cost involved to your family and the public if you hit a tree at speed, but you can say the same for chocolate, smoking or alcohol. And, quite frankly the same applies to descending at speed on a road bike. Strictly, is this quite possibly furious cycling, and if it is and you commit this offence in the countryside with no one around, is it enforced? No. If go at full speed down the Royal Mile in August buzzing gormless tourists as went though, I'd get stopped.

Rictopia, where everything is controlled, doesn't appeal to me.
Why have the rules if you won't enforce them?
Not interested iif this is going to be one of those threads where you ask the same thing repeatedly with minor variations.

Do you have pedals with reflectors on them? Do ypu have a fixed rear reflector? If not do you ever cycle at night?

Have you every made contact with your mobile when driving, even to put it somewhere out of the way without using it?

Have you ever parked in a not return within two hours slot and come back after less than two hours? Have you ever parked on a yellow line, or used a bus lane.

Etc etc.

Tedious.
Some of that eg bike pedals is an argument that the law should change. Same is true of ripping CDs
BB is right.

If it’s sensible not to enforce a law, the issue is the law.

Law should be enforced to the letter and if that is wrong change the law.
What will you do in the meantime, with respect to the laws that you personally don't agree with? Comply to the letter? Ignore because they aren't enforced? Campaign for change? Join the anti-pedal reflector alliance? Or start the People's Popular Furious Cyclists Front?

I get the physics of speeding, but possibly not its importance in the grand scheme of things, given the ca. 1800 fatalities pa.

Compare to:

Suicide ca. 3k deaths pa.

Influenza ca. 12k deaths pa.

Heart disease ca 20k deaths pa.

Stroke ca. 38k deaths pa.

Cancer, all causes, ca. 170k deaths pa.

--------------------------------

If you have £10k per person to spend on absolutely everything, how much would you spend on enforcing speeding offences? And how much on cancer treatment? Bearing in mind that every £ you spend on enforcing speeding offences is one less £ spent on cancer treatment.

Policy is much more complicated than virtue signalling.
This is such nonsense. Spending on speed enforcement is roughly one thousandth of that on cancer treatment. It's not even a rounding error in the scale of government spending.
You have just completely made my point for me, thank you.

It is a tiny spend in comparision because speeding is comparatively small problem. Its only a factor in a fraction of the 1800 road deaths, even.

A grown up must at some point figured this out and decided that outrage about people doing 80mph is nothing more than hand wringing.
🤣 Outstanding argument.
I think you've won a different argument to the one I've made RJS, but I had a look at some figures anyway.

Let's start with the economic cost of cancer. Google tells me it's about £18Bn a year.

Cost to the economy of road traffic accidents, about £3.5Bn, of which about 12% are speed related, so about £400M.

I'm not sure, but I think the current road policing budget is about £400M, and the cost of NHS cancer treatment is about £5Bn.

So the question is, how much of the road policing budget is spent on speeding enforcement? I would guess a lot more than 12%, in which case, on the face of it you may find that we are over prioritising this sort of spending in comparison to cancer treatment.
It's about £5M.
You are going to have to show working, because that sounds like a Daily Mail sort of statistic to me. 1.25% of the road policing budget spent on speeding enforcement. Really?
I just googled it. Sounds quite reasonable to me given that transport as a whole is a small part of overall policing and speeding is a smaller part of that.
Seems implausibly low to me.

🤷🏻‍♂️ Just the figure I found. It could be 10 times that and still be trivial.

monkimark · May 2023

Don't traffic cops mostly drive around catching whatever offence they see.
Very rarely do I see a dedicated radar gun type operation and I commute 20 miles each way into London daily (I think I've seen one this year).

Stevo_666 · May 2023

monkimark said:
Don't traffic cops mostly drive around catching whatever offence they see.
Very rarely do I see a dedicated radar gun type operation and I commute 20 miles each way into London daily (I think I've seen one this year).

Mobile camera vans are not operated by cops, they usually employ support staff to do it.

Your route may not be one of those where they think they can catch the most people, especially if you're going in and out of London in rush hour.

monkimark · May 2023

They could catch dozens at Tibbets Corner, there are very occasionally radar guns there in the morning and evening.

First.Aspect · May 2023

Just reading the review of the cannondale on the main website.

I'm intrigued at how a seat post can be made more aerodynamic by making it narrower, but wheels and tyres are made more aerodynamic by making them wider.

morstar · May 2023

First.Aspect said:
Just reading the review of the cannondale on the main website.

I'm intrigued at how a seat post can be made more aerodynamic by making it narrower, but wheels and tyres are made more aerodynamic by making them wider.

Isn’t the wheel width about optimising the tyre shape and performance?

I do find aerodynamics an interesting area though. Ever since Lemond won the TT in 89, I was surprised that so many other obvious aero benefits were not pursued until the last few years.

However, I now look at these huge squared off tubes and find it genuinely surprising that they are the cutting edge of aero. I’m not disputing they are, it’s just not intuitive. Again with wider tyres, always feel slow to me but…

First.Aspect · May 2023

To my laymans mind, a Kamm tail is easy enough to understand. Creating smoother surface transitions is also easy to understand.

Increasing frontal area to achieve this isn't.

So I personally think that the tail is wagging the dog a bit, because creating bikes that are savagely stuff and horrible to ride forced the trend to wider tyres, and wider rims have followed. That's not quire the as wider is better, per se.

Because I paid attention in school to how springs work in series and parallel, I've never been convinced that super stiff frame is the way to go. In which case, do you actually need 32mm tyres to ride on the road? And are they actually compromising the benefits of the super stiff torture device you are riding, by acting as the weak spring in a series?

But lemmings.

rick_chasey · May 2023

Is it not also about pushing the air away from the spokes?

Not so easy to do on a narrower wheel

morstar · May 2023

First.Aspect said:
To my laymans mind, a Kamm tail is easy enough to understand. Creating smoother surface transitions is also easy to understand.

Increasing frontal area to achieve this isn't.

So I personally think that the tail is wagging the dog a bit, because creating bikes that are savagely stuff and horrible to ride forced the trend to wider tyres, and wider rims have followed. That's not quire the as wider is better, per se.

Because I paid attention in school to how springs work in series and parallel, I've never been convinced that super stiff frame is the way to go. In which case, do you actually need 32mm tyres to ride on the road? And are they actually compromising the benefits of the super stiff torture device you are riding, by acting as the weak spring in a series?

But lemmings.

You echo my own thoughts on the whole super rigid bike now needs soft tyres.

I just thought everybody would knock that thought process down in flames as it’s not what the marketing says. Nobody wants to hear their 5k bike isn’t really fit for purpose. Which imho they’re not if you’re searching for ways to make the ride tolerable.

Back to aerodynamics, I Have read about Kamm tails before but to my eye they are not even kamm tails anymore as they are cut off at the widest diameter. They seem more like half tubes to me. I’m sure I could do more reading on what constitutes a Kamm tail but I’m not going to.

Like I say, not disputing the wind tunnel and cfd work, just surprising that some of the shapes used are actually aero.

rick_chasey · May 2023

morstar said:

First.Aspect said:
To my laymans mind, a Kamm tail is easy enough to understand. Creating smoother surface transitions is also easy to understand.

Increasing frontal area to achieve this isn't.

So I personally think that the tail is wagging the dog a bit, because creating bikes that are savagely stuff and horrible to ride forced the trend to wider tyres, and wider rims have followed. That's not quire the as wider is better, per se.

Because I paid attention in school to how springs work in series and parallel, I've never been convinced that super stiff frame is the way to go. In which case, do you actually need 32mm tyres to ride on the road? And are they actually compromising the benefits of the super stiff torture device you are riding, by acting as the weak spring in a series?

But lemmings.

You echo my own thoughts on the whole super rigid bike now needs soft tyres.

I just thought everybody would knock that thought process down in flames as it’s not what the marketing says. Nobody wants to hear their 5k bike isn’t really fit for purpose. Which imho they’re not if you’re searching for ways to make the ride tolerable.

Back to aerodynamics, I Have read about Kamm tails before but to my eye they are not even kamm tails anymore as they are cut off at the widest diameter. They seem more like half tubes to me. I’m sure I could do more reading on what constitutes a Kamm tail but I’m not going to.

Like I say, not disputing the wind tunnel and cfd work, just surprising that some of the shapes used are actually aero.

I'm no engineer, but I shall play devil's advocate.

Isn't the stiffness about power transfer, and so softer tyres for more comfort is the trade off for improved power transfer? (rather like F1. Suspension stiff enough to knock your fillings out but remarkably soft/low pressure tyres considering).

And rather like how F1 cars have big endplates on their wings to push air away from the wheels, I suspect the wider tyres are also there to push the air away from the revolving spokes which must be an aero nightmare.

I guess in an ideal world they're almost so flared that they push some of the air away from the legs but I suspect there's not enough real-estate on the wheels to do that.

With the seatpost issue above; there's nothing behind it so there's no need to push air away from less aero areas, so presumably then thinnest is best.

morstar · May 2023

The stiffness thing makes perfect sense…
On perfect roads.

The latter being the bit that a non-TDF rider doesn’t encounter.

In real riding conditions, there is a curve. Somewhere on which is a point where the stiffness becomes detrimental due to the discomfort induced and vibrations having a negative impact on speed.

But then it is the whole horses for courses thing. It’s perfectly possible to outbike yourself in just the same way you can drive a track car round the local suburb. I accept the difference is less pronounced with a pushbike but it’s still there.

But, if people want the pros have…

pblakeney · May 2023

I wonder if most* people buying those aero bikes have considered the least aero part of the equation, themselves?

*Does not apply to race fit racers.

rick_chasey · May 2023

pblakeney said:
I wonder if most* people buying those aero bikes have considered the least aero part of the equation, themselves?

*Does not apply to race fit racers.

I'm no Moser by any stretch but I do try to get as low as my amateur core will allow. I definitely cringe when you see larger lad on a Venge or aeroroad and they're sitting at 40 degrees because their belly is in the way.

First.Aspect · May 2023

Think you are right about the spokes, but I'm sure it is a trade off.

You aren't right about F1. The choice of tyres is based simply on regulations, which for the last generation of 14 inch wheels was an anachronism. The selection of pressure is about grip.

In an ideal world they would have super stiff and predictable tyres, because far more control is possible with suspension systems, even the "dumb" ones they are restricted to.

Yes, stiffness is about power transfer, but a human being rides a bike. I can accept that to a point BB stiffness and chainstay stiffness is important. But having said that, look at other sports. Why are springy running shoes and elastic tracks faster? Surely you get better power transfer if everything is stiff?

The answer (I think) is that it is more compatible with the runner's body, which is fairly elastic. Since there's an effectively immeasurably small hysteresis in the materials involved, the flex in the ground and the shoe is recovered.

My own perception riding is that my overly stiff bike is that it is less natural, and adds sharper peaks and troughs to pedaling, particularly out of the saddle. I find a bit more spring helps me get the cranks around. In addition, my old school ti bike handles way, way better than my fairly modern Cervelo. I liken it to the supple but stiff suspension in my BMW vs the big balloon tyres and choppy ride of every SUV I've ever driven - (other than a 1/3 ton Velar we got as a courtesy with air suspension).

Fwiw there's a similar thing in rowing. Big boats need to be stiff, because they are cut open cylinders and want to twist. For small boats, and singles in particular, this is far far less of an issue, but they are normally built the same. This leads to stiff fast boats that are impossible to actually row. A Canadian company then came along which made shells that are 3 plies thick with no core, but a very stiff rigger across the top. They are quite flexible along the length of the boat.

The sculling community still can't get its head around the fact these are just as fast, and you hear people say they flex. So what? You are sitting on water, which isn't stiff.

This is all a bit hand wavy I know. Makes me wish I'd done engineering.

pangolin · May 2023

Not sure you can compare running really ^

You are not bouncing off anything ~170 times a minute on your bike.

rick_chasey · May 2023

I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if there hadn't been so much speed progress in pro-bikes.

FWIW I remember back in the late 90s when the first carbon bikes came out and riders found them unrideable because they were so stiff > which goes to your argument.

Then when I was paying attention to it, in the 00s, manufacturers kept talking about the advantage of carbon was they could build in stiffness in specific parts of the bikes and compliances in other areas where power transfer was less important but comfort was blah blah.

pblakeney · May 2023

rick_chasey said:
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if there hadn't been so much speed progress in pro-bikes.
...

I'm not arguing whether or not there has been progress in bike design but if simply using speed as a measurement then improved training methods, recovery, position, nutrition, etc, etc. have to be taken into consideration.

morstar · May 2023

rick_chasey said:
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if there hadn't been so much speed progress in pro-bikes.

FWIW I remember back in the late 90s when the first carbon bikes came out and riders found them unrideable because they were so stiff > which goes to your argument.

Then when I was paying attention to it, in the 00s, manufacturers kept talking about the advantage of carbon was they could build in stiffness in specific parts of the bikes and compliances in other areas where power transfer was less important but comfort was blah blah.

But that’s the pros. The pros should be on super stiff race machines while generally riding on ‘better’ quality roads.

The same calculations do not apply directly to an amateur on terrible roads running his tyres wider and lower because his bike is totally unforgiving.

First.Aspect · May 2023

pangolin said:
Not sure you can compare running really ^

You are not bouncing off anything ~170 times a minute on your bike.

Why can't you compare?

It is like a religion.

First.Aspect · May 2023

pangolin said:
Not sure you can compare running really ^

You are not bouncing off anything ~170 times a minute on your bike.

Why can't you compare?

It is like a religion.

First.Aspect · May 2023

rick_chasey said:
I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if there hadn't been so much speed progress in pro-bikes.

FWIW I remember back in the late 90s when the first carbon bikes came out and riders found them unrideable because they were so stiff > which goes to your argument.

Then when I was paying attention to it, in the 00s, manufacturers kept talking about the advantage of carbon was they could build in stiffness in specific parts of the bikes and compliances in other areas where power transfer was less important but comfort was blah blah.

I'd have more sympathy if this was the only thing that had changed.

I don't know if you've noticed, but some manufacturers are putting elastomer and designing flex back in to headsets etc.

morstar · May 2023

Pro gear is also totally optimised for 25-35mph speeds.
An amateur focussed setup optimised for 18-28 may be quite different and far more appropriate.

Seemingly trivial things that intrigue you

Comments

Categories