GrumpyGregry
Here for rides.
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.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.It'd still be a rather unpleasant experience.
115kg bloke running into a tackle at 7 metres a with a stationary tackler = 2793 JoulesVery 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!
Why would cyclists need a speedo any more than say a driver needs an alcohol breathalyser to be under 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.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.
Also, the speed limit is something people travel at, when they can.
That aside, there's the well known statistic that speed is only a factor in 5% of accidents..
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 ?
Technically yes, you are quite correct! What I meant to say was "excess speed".
It's also been well used in numerous newspapers, mostly low-quality tabloids, which is probably why it's in my head...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.