Police object to Southwark’s 20 mph speed limit plans - Includes Pedal Cycles!

[GrumpyGregry]

It'd still be a rather unpleasant experience.

I don't doubt it. But I don't doubt that being hit by a car at the same speed would be considerably more than merely unpleasant.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Very true. For a comparison I play rugby and the difference between hitting a 12st guy and an 18st guy is absolutely massive. One you can barely notice and the other can knock the wind out of you massively. That's only a 50% increase in mass but the difference is huge.
Now compare that with the 900% mark up from bike to car and how anyone could imagine that it wouldn't make any difference is mad. My maths isn't fantastic but wouldn't a bike need to be going at motorway speeds to have the same effect as a car at 25mph

115kg bloke running into a tackle at 7 metres a with a stationary tackler = 2793 Joules
76 Kg guy same situation = 1862 Joules

but velocity is more important than mass; counterintuitively. If our twelve stone winger ups a gear and hits 20mph (9 metres per second) as he hits you? 3078 joules. More KE than the big lad. Of course, in the oval ball game big and fast is what you fear!

 

[J.Primus]

115kg bloke running into a tackle at 7 metres a with a stationary tackler = 2793 Joules
76 Kg guy same situation = 1862 Joules

but velocity is more important than mass; counterintuitively. If our twelve stone winger ups a gear and hits 20mph (9 metres per second) as he hits you? 3078 joules. More KE than the big lad. Of course, in the oval ball game big and fast is what you fear!

Big, fast and bony knees is what keeps me up at night

 

[Kookas]

Why would cyclists need a speedo any more than say a driver needs an alcohol breathalyser to be under the limit?

So you're saying cyclists shouldn't cycle at all? Because surely, the only way to know for certain you're under the limit is to not drink at all before driving.

Also, the speed limit is something people travel at, when they can. People don't usually drink right until they're just below the limit.

 

[Markymark]

So you're saying cyclists shouldn't cycle at all? Because surely, the only way to know for certain you're under the limit is to not drink at all before driving.

Also, the speed limit is something people travel at, when they can. People don't usually drink right until they're just below the limit.

No I'm saying that a lack of speedo is no reason not to have a limit for cycling. As soon as anyone says there could be a speed limit for cyclist someone pipes up saying it could never happen as bikes don't have speedos. I'm saying that's nonsense as there are many limits in law for which you are not obliged to have a measure, ie drink driving. I'm not saying there aren't other reasons for not having limits but a lack of a speedo is not one of them.

Quite how you infer the rest of your post from mine is beyond me.

 

[Tim Hall]

Also, the speed limit is something people travel at, when they can.

Sadly this is too true. "It's a limit, not a target" should be emphasised more when learning to drive.

 

[Mile195]

[QUOTE 3178179, member: 45"]Speed is a factor in all collisions.[/QUOTE]
Technically yes, you are quite correct! What I meant to say was "excess speed".

 

[PK99]

[QUOTE 3178691, member: 45"]I thought so. It's a simple omission, but one that is often intentional.

Inappropriate speed also explains it well.[/QUOTE]

And a cyclist travelling at 20plus in a 20 limit would be inappropriate.

 

[glenn forger]

That aside, there's the well known statistic that speed is only a factor in 5% of accidents..

That's a well known made up statistic by the ABD, a pro speeding lobby group. It's nonsense and dishonest.

 

[glenn forger]

http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1.html

Please to be not posting pro speeding lies.

 

[Mile195]

Hang on. Brazil has 200 million inhabitants (or is it 300 million ?) The road infrastructure is completely different. It's not possible to draw any valid comparisons.

Yes the death rate is low on the UK roads. But we're still killing over 1500 people a year. That is not acceptable, especially the proportion of that figure which is pedestrians and cyclists. Let's try another ridiculous comparison. Did I hear that 8 pedestrians were killed in vehicle incidents on Dutch roads one year. That puts us to shame, even allowing for the lower population over there.

Another point. Studies have shown that reducing speed limits to 20mph reduces KSI stats by a statistically significant amount.

Why wouldn't we want to do that ?

It wasn't really a comparison. Just topical...

From my point of view though it doesn't make any odds to me whether they stick a 20 or 30 limit down many London roads. They just put one on Camberwell New Road a little while ago, and during rush hour it's nose-to-tail gridlock anyway. Nothing moves faster than walking pace.

As for the New Cross One Way system, my issue there isn't with speed (again, it moves at a snails pace at peak times), but with 2 major roads joining into 2 narrow lanes. On my journey to work there are so many sets of lights to stop for I never get above 20 for very long anyway, and if I'm on the motorbike I rarely get beyond second gear.

All that aside though, if I was going to get hit by a lorry/car/bicycle/dozy pigeon, I'm sure I would prefer it if I got hit at 20 instead of 30 so I guess that's what the general thinking on it is, and that's fair enough.

 

[stowie]

Technically yes, you are quite correct! What I meant to say was "excess speed".

This term is a really rather subjective. The 5% study is bandied around by the "safe speed" lobby, but it doesn't really tell the whole story. Firstly, the study has this number as breaking the speed limit as a factor in all accidents. If one looks at fatal accidents, then breaking the speed limit is a factor in 12%. Going too fast for the conditions was a factor in another 10% of all accidents, and 14% of those ending in a fatality. Suddenly the numbers about excess speed causing accidents don't like nearly so rosy.

 

[glenn forger]

It's a rubbish statistic that, rather than being "well known" has in fact been roundly criticised, it's based on a misinterpretation of TRL323. It's worthless self justification by idiots who like to speed.

 

[Mile195]

It's a rubbish statistic that, rather than being "well known" has in fact been roundly criticised, it's based on a misinterpretation of TRL323. It's worthless self justification by idiots who like to speed.

It's also been well used in numerous newspapers, mostly low-quality tabloids, which is probably why it's in my head...

...And I should just like to point out that if it was a low-quality tabloid, I was either buying it for discounted Thorpe Park tickets, or the free DVD... not as an authoratative analysis on causes of road traffic accidents within the United Kingdom!

 

[glenn forger]

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sp...&safe=off&start=0&tbs=ctr:countryUK|countryGB

Third link demolishes the myth, one tabloid link is eight years old. What's that saying, a lie goes halfway round the world while the truth is still lacing its boots..