Imagine we're going to introduce speed limits for bikes. First of all we'd have to put speedometers
on every bike. They'd have to be visible at night
- at present most aren't, probably because it would use too much power. And bicycle mechanics would
have to be officially sanctioned to calibrate them. Lots of installations are wildly inaccurate -
just look at some of the average speeds posted on alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent.
On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:50:13 +0000, Trevor Barton wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 07:47:20 +0000, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 00:16:17 +0000, Trevor Barton <
[email protected]> wrote in message
>> <
[email protected]>:
>>
>>>So bikes, which comprise far less than 1 in 28 of total traffic, account for 1 in 28 of total
>>>injuries? Mmmm, how safe is that then?
A better example might have bean pedestrian deaths due to collisions with cyclists. Off the top of
my head it runs at <10 a year, compared to 1000 or so pedestrian deaths due to collisions with motor
vehicles. When you correct for the fact that a disproportionate amount of motor vehicle miles are on
pedestrian-free roads - I'm pretty sure bikes come out ahead - but are not harmless.
>> Not comparing like with like. This includes, for example, accidents on shared-use paths. The
>> opportunities for conflict between ped and cyclist are much greater.
>
> But the number of bikes is that much less, and according to you (and at "normal" bike speeds I
> agree) the injuries caused by bikes are so much less. I don't know what the relavent numbers are,
> but there still seems to be a disproportionate number of cycle related pedestrian injuries. I
> don't think the numbers neccessarily show what you intended them to show.
>
>>>Sadly, you (and I) have strayed from the initial reason for my irritation at this thread: the
>>>fact that some here, yourself included ISTR, felt that being on a bike justified knowingly
>>>exceeding the speed limit required for cars *simply* because the law doesn't apply to bikes.
>>
>> No, in my case if I did so it would be because I pose much less danger than a car at the same
>> speed, and that my level of awareness is affected by the fact that a fast-moving cyclist is at
>> much greater personal risk in a collision than a fast-moving motorist.
>
> And Paul Smith argues that because he is apparently an advanced driver his level of awareness and
> skill is that much greater than many other motorists, and that that given him a right to travel at
> a speed that *he* sees fit. How can you argue against his position; you are making your own
> judgment about your own skills and capabilities as a bike rider in exactly the same manner as he
> does for his driving skills.
>
> Your argument is that because you are less likely to cause (or have) an accident on a bike, and
> if you do you are less likely to cause serious injury, so you should be able to exceed the speed
> limit for cars if you feel it's appropriate, and anyway the speed limit doesn't apply to you so
> it's irrelevant, anyway. PS's argument is that he is more capable than many road users because
> he's an excellent driver, and so is less likely to cause an accident, and so he should be able
> to exceed the speed limit in his car, but unfortuantely the law says he can't, so let's change
> the law.
>
>>>You can argue all you like about the relative dangers of a bike compared with a car; I disagree
>>>with many of the arguments you put forward, but ces't la vie.
>>
>> Ye canna' change the laws of physics ;-)
>>
>> Also note in my orogonal reply I said "might."
>
> Perhaps that should have been "orthogonal"
>
>>>The point still remains that if you on your bike exceeding the 30 mph speed limit outside my
>>>house happen to run into my 7 year old daughter you are going to kill her or do her a serious
>>>injury.
>>
>> I very much doubt that I would kill her, and I doubt even more that you would find me doing 30mph
>> - on bike or in car - on a road where there are children about.
>
> How do you know she's about? Because you saw her? Are you suggesting somehow that there are always
> warnings about that there might be a kid on the road ahead of you?
>
>> I also very much doubt that any collision would occur because, as has been repeatedly pointed
>> out, the cyclist is narrower, and it is easier for a cyclist to move sideways by the margin
>> necessary to avoid someone in the road.
>
> But Paul Shithead is a skilled and experienced driver. He also doubts that any collision would
> occur, because he's skilled enough to avoid one. Why are your skills and judgment so much better
> than his?
It's not a matter of skills and judgment. The other day, I followed a taxi through a crossing
(lights on green) at the speed limit that was 20mph. I was about 20 feet behind the taxi, and as
soon as it cleared the crossing lots of pedestrians started to cross the road from both sides. I
managed to steer a course between them but there wasn't much space. Had I been driving a car, I
would have hit at least two people - one on each side. Of course, had I been driving a car all those
people wouldn't have stepped out a few feet in front of me.
>>>The fact that it may or may not be less severe than that done by a car is *absolutely* not
>>>relevant. You will be just as culpable as a car driver. Presumably, though, you'd feel less so,
>>>because you feel you have physics, and the letter of the law, on your side.
>>
>> Ludicrous. If I ever hit anyone on my bike I would feel no less cuplable than if I hit them in my
>> car. For the low-down on just how responsible and culpable drivers can feel see Helen's "lost for
>> words" thread below.
>
> No. For a low down on how one driver feels, perhaps. I wont attempt to argue that that person is
> unique, because they're not. You do nothing at all for the justification of your arguments by
> holding out the bad examples of motoring behaviour and saying "Look at this person, aren't all
> motorists a bunch of bastards?" You could equally point out all the cases of domestic violence
> around the country and point out "Look at that person, aren't all men bastards?" or "look at that
> rejected assylum seeker, aren't all assylum seekers scrounging bastards?". It doesn't make for a
> balanced argument. And without a balanced argument you risk putting yourself into the same pot as
> P Shithead.
>
> I've just worked out what the numbers at the start of this post mean. Given that there are far
> less bikes than cars, and also given that the bike numbers show injuries on "shared use" paths,
> they show that bike riders on shared use paths are not being careful enough to avoid injuring
> their less well protected path sharers.
IMO it's not possible to ride on a shared path safely. People are just too unpredictable - they
sidestep without warning; kids run about; they won't keep to the left - or are pedestrians meant to
walk on the RHS of the pavement? I can never remember. I've even seen people walk into one another -
no vehicles involved. Replace one of these inconsiderate pedestrians with an inconsiderate cyclist
going at 8mph and instead of an 'excuse me', both parties may end up in hospital.
I was hit once by a cyclist whilst walking on the pavement - he emerged from behind a brick wall at
little more than walking pace.
> This must mean that they're all a buch of unfeeling bastards who out to have their goolies
> sandpapered. Hmmm, that sounds familiar.
Lots of cyclists are... I think it's a disease of the young - round here all cyclists (to a first
approximation) are students. The same people as can't get car insurance for less than a grand a year
because of their statistical propensity to recklessness.
Obviously I don't consider myself an inconsiderate cyclist (who does)... When I used to ride on shared-
use paths regularly, it was because it took me a while to twig just how dangerous they are and think
about all the unexpected ways in which accidents can happen. If I cycle through the park, I try to
pass pedestrians by 3 feet - more if I'm going faster.
