Speeding...

[Randochap]

I'd rather be hit by a car at 30mph than a bike to be honest.

No you wouldn't ... and I've got pictures to prove it if you need any more convincing.

 

[Randochap]

My suspicion is that the majority of KSIs are caused by stupid inattentive driving, rather than speed, or indeed, alcohol.

That's probably a safe bet, slomo, but put lack of skill (or more often overestimation) and inattention together with speeding and you have a deadly combination.

Quite often all of these liabilities are driven in combination.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I wouldn't like to be hit by either at 30mph.

cars are bigger and heavier and more massive but are designed with the possibility of hitting someone in mind and newer ones at least are built to spread the impact and allow the victim to crumple more safely onto the vehicle. bikes and the 12 odd stone of person riding them aren't.

you might as well say its safe to have a microwave oven full of bricks fired at you at 30 mph as be hit by a bike.

also on the mass v impact thing. I've had my foot run over by a car and the same one stood back onto by a woman with heels on - I'll take the car anyday! I can do a passable stigmata impression with the damage stiletto lady did to me, and that was just stepping back off a bus she didn't want, bikes are similar in that all of the mass is concentrated to a very small point of impact and all of the force drives through it multiplying the damage many times over.

If you believe the adverts, a big cause of killing drivers is rear seat passengers without seatbelts hitting them - you get hit by a bike at 30, your heads will be colliding at 30.

They've both got the potential to do serious damage to you.

 

[mangaman]

I wouldn't like to be hit by either at 30mph.

cars are bigger and heavier and more massive but are designed with the possibility of hitting someone in mind and newer ones at least are built to spread the impact and allow the victim to crumple more safely onto the vehicle. bikes and the 12 odd stone of person riding them aren't.

you might as well say its safe to have a microwave oven full of bricks fired at you at 30 mph as be hit by a bike.

also on the mass v impact thing. I've had my foot run over by a car and the same one stood back onto by a woman with heels on - I'll take the car anyday! I can do a passable stigmata impression with the damage stiletto lady did to me, and that was just stepping back off a bus she didn't want, bikes are similar in that all of the mass is concentrated to a very small point of impact and all of the force drives through it multiplying the damage many times over.

If you believe the adverts, a big cause of killing drivers is rear seat passengers without seatbelts hitting them - you get hit by a bike at 30, your heads will be colliding at 30.

They've both got the potential to do serious damage to you.

Wow - 2nd contender for most ludicrous post on these fora (most of us
are cycling plus refugees)

We now have a microwave oven full of bricks thrown at you at 30 mph as a new comparison ( I dread to think of what is to come).

It's not hard, honestly.

Bikes (unless in extremre situations - eg pro-cyclists / the bottom of a hill /a strong tailwind )- rarely reach 30 mph if ever . Cars find it hard to even stick to this.

In a practical mode - bikes are much more manouverable than cars over a few metres, and are obviously a lot narrower. Whch is why so few peds suffer KSIs from bikes compared to cars.

Ped/Bike collisions are therefore much rare than ped / car collisions.

As for throwing microwaves full of bricks, I think you've lost the plot a bit there?

 

[John the Monkey]

cars are bigger and heavier and more massive but are designed with the possibility of hitting someone in mind and newer ones at least are built to spread the impact and allow the victim to crumple more safely onto the vehicle. bikes and the 12 odd stone of person riding them aren't.

Genuine question - how much of the impact force do you think those crumple zones dissipate? Is it enough to mitigate the fact that the car weighs between a third and half a tonne (at a guess)?

Seriously?

 

[John the Monkey]

Bear in mind, the average driver concentrates for about 20 minutes in every driving hour.

Which means that stopping them speeding would reduce the damage that their inattention could do though, surely?

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Wow - 2nd contender for most ludicrous post on these fora (most of us
are cycling plus refugees)

We now have a microwave oven full of bricks thrown at you at 30 mph as a new comparison ( I dread to think of what is to come).

It's not hard, honestly.

Bikes (unless in extremre situations - eg pro-cyclists / the bottom of a hill /a strong tailwind )- rarely reach 30 mph if ever . Cars find it hard to even stick to this.

In a practical mode - bikes are much more manouverable than cars over a few metres, and are obviously a lot narrower. Whch is why so few peds suffer KSIs from bikes compared to cars.

Ped/Bike collisions are therefore much rare than ped / car collisions.

As for throwing microwaves full of bricks, I think you've lost the plot a bit there?

Granny pop the egg in your mouth and inhale slightly, don't forget to breathe through your nose and don't get the egg stuck in your throat


Go a few pages back and someone posted the similarities between a bike and a car hit at 30mph and got slated for it rather blindly IMHO. - none of the common sense conditions, that I'm well aware of and that you helpfully point out to me, were given

Please accept my profuse apologies for simply reading what was written and the rather naive 'being hit by a bike won't hurt' responses and responding to them.

The bricky microwave is an analogy for the weight of person and bike - I really don't fancy either hamering into me at the quoted 30mph.

but if you really think a 12 odd stone person and various pointy bits of bike hitting you at 30mph can't do a lot of damage then it's not me thats lost the plot

that it doesn't happen often is a testament to our collective riding skills & road sense and I'd suggest the fact that deep down even the naysayers know that crashing into someone at any appreciable speed will hurt.

 

[swee'pea99]

Say what you like, you won't find *me* standing in the way of a sack full of microwave ovens travelling at 30 MPH.

Have to say I'm less tolerant of the OP doing 39 in a 30 than I would be of him doing, say, 78 in a 60 (the same proportional excess) because 30 limits tend to apply where there are soft & squidgy people around, including some small & impulsive ones, and some very small, furry and staggeringly stupid ones.

AFAIC, speeding on a big wide road in good road conditions may be illegal by the letter of the law, but done carefully and considerately it's not necessarily either dangerous or inconsiderate (it can be the exact opposite - if you're on a big, clear, open A road and everyone's - perfectly sensibly - doing 70, doing 60 can be a way to wind people up and make them more likely to do stupid things).

I can't think of any circumstances where exceeding 30 in a 30 zone is not, simply, indefensible. Pay up & don't do it again.

 

[Over The Hill]

Genuine question - how much of the impact force do you think those crumple zones dissipate? Is it enough to mitigate the fact that the car weighs between a third and half a tonne (at a guess)?

Seriously?

They are designed to crumple when another car hits them or the car hits a wall or whatever. I do not think a cyclist or ped will crumple a cars crumple zone.

Some thoughts -

Bike hits ped at 30, ped takes full force of body and is hit by sharp and penetrating object (bike).

Car hits ped at 30, ped takes very limited amout of the force as most is deflected (rather like a snow plough or cow catcher on a train). Car will hit legs first and throw ped onto smooth bonnet and windscreen area (cars designed to minimise damage to ped in such cases). So force is spread out quite a lot into two impacts and is mainly targetted at leg area where less damage is usually done.

As long as the object (car or bike) weighs as much or more than the ped it does not matter how much more the car weighs. It is the force on impact that is the key. As soon as the weight is as much as the ped then the ped does not stop the force.

So if you were hit by a one ton car it would be no different to being hit by the same car filled with a ton of bricks (=2 ton car).

The force being transferred is down to the weight of the ped only. So a ped with a heavy rucksack on will be damaged more when hit than one without as it takes a greater force to deflect the ped.

 

[swee'pea99]

What if the car was full of microwave ovens?

 

[Over The Hill]

I agree that speeding in a built up area is worse, but then out of towns we have miles of 60mph country lanes that drivers tend to go too fast along.

Also you are limiting the issue to a car hitting something. That is only the start. It is also inconsiderate to speed as your car makes much more noise doing 7O than it does at 50. Many people live around ring roads and other main roads that have been plonked next to them. The have to live with you screaming along at 70 all day and night when at 50 you would be more considerate to them.

This is particularly true when people are out and about at 4.30 am and think nothing else is on the road and so they can speed. They forget some of us are trying to sleep.

 

[Over The Hill]

[quote name='swee'pea99']What if the car was full of microwave ovens?[/QUOTE]

The driver would be OK for a hot lunch if he got peckish.

 

[mangaman]

[quote name='swee'pea99']What if the car was full of microwave ovens?[/QUOTE]

With or without bricks?

 

[mangaman]

Granny pop the egg in your mouth and inhale slightly, don't forget to breathe through your nose and don't get the egg stuck in your throat

Sorry - I don't understand this bit

Go a few pages back and someone posted the similarities between a bike and a car hit at 30mph and got slated for it rather blindly IMHO. - none of the common sense conditions, that I'm well aware of and that you helpfully point out to me, were given

Please accept my profuse apologies for simply reading what was written and the rather naive 'being hit by a bike won't hurt' responses and responding to them.

The bricky microwave is an analogy for the weight of person and bike - I really don't fancy either hamering into me at the quoted 30mph.


but if you really think a 12 odd stone person and various pointy bits of bike hitting you at 30mph can't do a lot of damage then it's not me thats lost the plot

Obviously it would hurt, as would a microwave. The point is neither bikes or microwaves reach these speeds under normal circumstances - cars do

that it doesn't happen often is a testament to our collective riding skills & road sense and I'd suggest the fact that deep down even the naysayers know that crashing into someone at any appreciable speed will hurt.

I agree - that's what I said. Cars hit peds much more often than bikes do.

That's why I think it's unhelpful to deflect the thread to ludicrously rare scenarios, away from someone driving at 39 in a 30 which I assume you agree is very dangerous?

Back on topic - definitely you deserve points on your licence for that.

 

[Wigsie]

[quote name='swee'pea99']What if the car was full of microwave ovens?[/QUOTE]

If there was a bike on the roof rack you'd be seriously f*cked with all those sharp pointy bits to hit you when youre flying through the air.