No wonder cyclists are hated

[Ming the Merciless]

Well if you look at 30 mph roads where vulnerable road users will very much be found, you see the same percentage of drivers are still speeding, still increasing the danger to the vulnerable.

 

[Alex321]

While an average might make it look like things are okay, it doesn’t take into account the variance in speed. The same facts you looked at showed that 44% of drivers speed on motorways. Thus expecting 25% of drivers to speed in a 20 mph zone is not exceptional.

That wasn't what was expected. They expected the average speed of free-flowing traffic to fall from 31 to 26 mph. i.e the average speed would be 25% above the limit, not that 25% of drivers would break the limit.

 

[Alex321]

You need to take into account of variations from average when discussing a non average scenario.
Congested areas lower the average speed.
For example, the average speed of traffic in central London is 7.1mph. M5 at J2 is 26.7mph. Those area drag the average down while quieter areas with excessive speeds raise the average.

That is why they specifically only took the average in free-flowing traffic. The overall average, taking account of congestion and jams and lower limits through roadworks etc. will be way lower.

 

[Alex321]

And so what?? Motorways are our safest roads - despite the massive speeds - and the driving speeds on them do not affect the safety of vulnerable road users.
Can we talk about something relevant?

p.s. there are no cyclists on motorways - hated or loved!!!

Your comment has less relevance than what you were complaining about.

 

[Pblakeney]

That is why they specifically only took the average in free-flowing traffic. The overall average, taking account of congestion and jams and lower limits through roadworks etc. will be way lower.

That's still just how averages work. It's no better than claiming half the people are of below average intelligence.

 

[Alex321]

That's still just how averages work. It's no better than claiming half the people are of below average intelligence.

Rubbish.

You clearly don't understand the concept of what the "average speed in free flowing traffic" means.

And saying what is the average is NOTHING like stating the (obvious) fact that almost 50% will be below (or above) it.

 

[DaveReading]

And saying what is the average is NOTHING like stating the (obvious) fact that almost 50% will be below (or above) it.

The latter may or may not be the case, depending on which of the 3 types of average you are talking about.

It's true if you mean the median (by definition).

It's unlikely to be true if you're talking about the mode or the mean (the latter being the most common form of average).

 

[Pblakeney]

Rubbish.

You clearly don't understand the concept of what the "average speed in free flowing traffic" means.

And saying what is the average is NOTHING like stating the (obvious) fact that almost 50% will be below (or above) it.

Exactly! So if the average is just below 70mph and we know some go much less then there are some going much higher.
Anyway....The golden rule is/was +10%+2. So for 20mph that is 24mph, or +20%. An extra 1mph to give 25% is hardly a huge extreme.

 

[Alex321]

Exactly! So if the average is just below 70mph and we know some go much less then there are some going much higher.

Yes, obviously. But it does tend to indicate there are probably more people driving under the limit than over it - which is also what the 45% of cars exceeding the limit says (and 8% over it by 10mph or more).

Your initial statement was:
"Ever tried driving at 70mph on the quieter sections of the M6?
Okay, not 25% but that's only because it is a high bar. Excessive speeding is the norm."

My anecdotal experience, and the official statistics from the link provided by Ming say that no, excessive speeding is not the norm.

Anyway....The golden rule is/was +10%+2. So for 20mph that is 24mph, or +20%. An extra 1mph to give 25% is hardly a huge extreme.

That "golden rule" is the speed at which you will usually be "done" for speeding. So yes, they are expecting the average speed to be above the level where people will be getting speeding tickets. And the expectation was 26, not 25 - I've been saying 25% because I couldn't be bothered with the fractions.

 

[DaveReading]

Exactly! So if the average is just below 70mph and we know some go much less then there are some going much higher.

Or a lot going only slightly higher.

 

[Time Waster]

Actually as horses and cycles were around long before cars they are using our infrastructure, that's why they have to pay to use it

Actually pedestrians were around before horses were ridden so horse riders and cyclists are borrowing pedestrian infra so my point still applies, we are using the infra created for other users.

Of course that assumes all roads are on the lines of previous routes and that they were actually built for horses and not the carts in the first instance of their existence. Also, there are routes that are newer and were built for motor vehicles too. So many pedantic points to be made here that you are possibly better to accept that roads are for motor vehicles by modern design and the space at the sides of them are for pedestrians. within that we are the interlopers that do not fit the designed for users. I mean what came first, roads for cycles or roads for carts and carriages then later the horseless carriage?

Whatever the true history and your views on this the reality is that modern roads are part of the planning process for motor vehicles. Pavements at the side of the roads for pedestrians. Cyclists have been left to take what is permitted to them. Usually long after those routes were already "owned" by other users. That is real world situation.

 

[Time Waster]

Yes we do, it’s called roads.

It is not specifically for cyclists with their needs in the design. We can use them but they are not our infrastructure designed for our needs and safety in mind. For that you really have to visit cycle friendly nations on the continent. Belgium and Netherlands do great cycling specific infrastructure. The Belgian number node system is absolutely great for visitors unfamiliar to the area. Of course the Netherlands took it on and most think it came from there.

 

[Pblakeney]

I mean what came first, roads for cycles or roads for carts and carriages then later the horseless carriage?

In the UK paved roads for cyclists came before paved roads for horseless carriages. This information is available on the internet.
https://www.cyclinguk.org/cycle/roads-built-cars

 

[Ming the Merciless]

It is not specifically for cyclists with their needs in the design. We can use them but they are not our infrastructure designed for our needs and safety in mind.

They are, it just that motorised vehicles for which these roads were not designed, are allowed on them. It’s the the motorised vehicle that is the anomaly.

 

[Binky]

Arguing about which came first irrelevant now. It's pretty obvious roads these days are designed and built for motorised vehicle use.

If there was a nationwide, good, purposebuilt cycle path system then it wouldn't be an issue. What is issue is vehicles, cyclists, horses and in some cases pedestrians all share same space so conflict occurs at times. Cycle paths as they exist at present are often badly maintained and or in busy areas cars park in them so any cyclists using them are forced to divert either around them into traffic or on pavement area.