Sustrans Blues

Chris Malcolm said:

Let me know when they get round to having a good membership section.

Can't help, I'm a bad member.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Call me Bob said:

I'm currently a bit conflicted on this topic. The group consensus in
urc seems overwhelmingly anti speeding, a stance with which I agree.
However, we (sorry, don't mean to tar you all with same brush)
occasionally get a little bit smug and gleeful about the fact that the
speed laws don't apply to us, and crack the odd joke about setting off
cameras with impunity.

That's probably because for most of us most of the time the thought of
being able to reach the speed limit and set of the cameras is a fantasy.
For a car its actually very easy to do most of the time.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

MJ Ray said:

when it opens direct routes which would not otherwise exist. It's a
shame that the NCN-more-direct and the NCN-far-away-from-cars routes
aren't marked differently somehow.

Other info I miss in the Sustrans maps is about the road surface. It
tells me if a route is onroad or not, but not if it is a smooth hard
surface or a bog or a rocky path. I don't mind the odd bit of
non-tarmac when we're on a tour, but I do mind pushing through a muddy
field...

Roos

Call me Bob said:

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 13:37:58 +0100, Paul Boyd <[email hidden]> wrote:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

I'm pondering this because the other day on the 'bent I was doing
55mph in a 50mph zone and my conscience has been pricking at me ever
since. The damn thing is insisting I'm being hypocritical, and that
it's as anti social for me to be traveling at excessive speed as it is
for drivers of motor vehicles.

<snip to bring two bits together>

Quoted message said:

But what counts as excessive speed on a bike? It didn't feel excessive
to me, but then that way lies the Paul Smith argument.

May I suggest that you certainly did feel it was excessive, but the bit
of you which thought that only got a look in retrospectively after the
excitement had died down. The problem with the "I'll judge what is a
safe speed" argument is that you would make different assessments of
safety at different levels of excitement generated by the very thing you
are trying to judge - your speed. With a small amount of positive
feedback you end up going far too fast as your upper limit becomes sheer
terror, and not even that if you're a thrill seeking type.

Quoted message said:

The law doesn't require us to, but should we adhere to the speed limit
anyway just because it's the right thing to do? I'd love to know where
others stand on this issue.

On your specific issue, I'd certainly do that bit a little slower in
future. You've established you've got a conscience, and probably aren't
a danger to other road users if you listen to it, even if sometimes only
after the event. If a significant number of cyclists manage to have
serious enough accidents of the type that warrants a speed limit for
cycling, you'll still have to make your own judgements, as whatever
speed limit is chosen will be too high in some circumstances.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage

Tony Raven <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

MJ Ray said:

Google Maps tells me my web browser is not supported. Putting the ll
into streetmap points at a street not on the NCN Route. Where is it?

Just follow NCN 1 from the train station out towards Sandringham and you
will find it.

I cycle it fairly often. I really can't think where you're
describing. There are a couple of narrows, a junction with poor
signs and a sharp bend after a bridge in that village, but that's
about as bad as I remember. Maybe the one you're thinking of has
been fixed?

Quoted message said:

The route runs along, crosses and then continues along a busy road

Edward Benefer Way

Quoted message said:

and then turns left into a side street.

Hall Lane

Quoted message said:

The example will unfold in front of your wheels shortly thereafter.

I doubt it. When did you last see it?

--
MJR/slef

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>, MJ

Ray (') said:

[CTC] answers consultations, campaigns for an urban speed limit
so low that cyclists will break it

As the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists, that's simply irrelevant.

[...]

I feel the limits should be (now there's another debate) the maximum safe
speed for the road, not just an artificial barrier for motor vehicles.
If cyclists can safely go faster than the speed limit, it brings the
limit into disrepute, just like having perfectly fine roads closed to
cycles brings those limits into disrepute.

Sane road laws for all!
--
MJR/slef

MJ Ray said:

Ian Smith <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

MJ Ray said:

I see you silently cut out all the other utilitarian benefits.

No, I EXPLICITLY highlighted the FIRST thing you chose to highlight.
I said that was exactly what I was commenting on. You quoted me
saying that - no 'silently' involved.

You did cut out the rest of the paragraph without marking it.

I think you're having trouble with comprehension.

I SAID THAT THE FIRST THING YOU SAID WAS XYZ

Got that? The FIRST thing.

An extraordinarily DUMB person might think that when I said "the first
thing you said" I actually meant that it was the only thing you said,
but anyone capable of coherent thought should be able to deduce that
if there was something labelled as FIRST then there were other things
too. This is fairly basic english comprehension.

It is certainly completely invalid to claim that, having identified
that what I was commenting on was teh FIRST thing you said, I was
silently cutting out oither things. It's hard to imagine any way of
making it more obvious that I cut out other things than to
specifically say I was commenting on only the FIRST thing.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

in message <[email hidden]>, MJ

Ray (') said:

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>,

MJ Ray (') said:

[CTC] answers consultations, campaigns for an urban speed limit
so low that cyclists will break it

As the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists, that's simply
irrelevant.

[...]

I feel the limits should be (now there's another debate) the maximum
safe speed for the road, not just an artificial barrier for motor
vehicles. If cyclists can safely go faster than the speed limit, it
brings the limit into disrepute, just like having perfectly fine roads
closed to cycles brings those limits into disrepute.

The energy in a collision is mass times velocity squared. Suppose a
bicycle, with rider, weighing 100Kg total, crashes at 50Km/h, does that
pose more, or less risk to the community than a car weighing (with
occupants) 2000Kg crashing at 11.18Km/h?

Trick question. The answer, of course, is that they have exactly the same
amount of kinetic energy, so they pose exactly the same risk.

Quoted message said:

Sane road laws for all!

So I think you'll cheerfully agree that in places where cars are allowed
to do 11.18Km/h, bicycles should be allowed to do 50Km/h, and that in
places where cars are permitted to travel at 40Km/h, bicycles should be
permitted to do 178Km/h?

If not, why not?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; IE 3 is dead, but Netscape 4 still shambles about the earth,
;; wreaking a horrific vengeance upon the living
;; anonymous

MJ Ray said:

Ian Smith <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

MJ Ray said:

Ian Smith <[email hidden]> [...]
> Bing a member of my local cycle forum and asking the local highway
> authority what they are doing about them, mainly.

So you just talk and write to the highways guys about it?

Are you suggesting I should borrow a bulldozer and remove them
myself? What do you suggest doing other than talking to the people
that are legally empowered to do something about them? [...]

It would be better to ask the local authorities "can we do Y about X?"
or even "what can we do to fix problem X?" rather than just ask what
they are doing about problems. Offer to help fix it if you could.

You are making rather a lot of assumptions about how much other people
are doing. It may come as a shock to you, but it is just about
possible that people other than you are actively involved in things
that benefit cyclists.

Your apparent assumption that everyone else is just sitting around on
their arses whinging is, at beast, grating and irritating. It doesn't
do the cause you seem to think you are defending any good at all, in
my opinion.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

in message <[email hidden]>, Call me Bob

(') said:

Paul Boyd said:

Quoted message said:

No, cyclists cannot be done for breaking the speed limit as the
limits apply to *motorised* vehicles.

Quoted message said:

That all seemed fairly unanimous! I'll have to try to work up to being
able to break the speed limits again :-)

I'm currently a bit conflicted on this topic. The group consensus in
urc seems overwhelmingly anti speeding, a stance with which I agree.
However, we (sorry, don't mean to tar you all with same brush)
occasionally get a little bit smug and gleeful about the fact that the
speed laws don't apply to us, and crack the odd joke about setting off
cameras with impunity.

I'm pondering this because the other day on the 'bent I was doing
55mph in a 50mph zone and my conscience has been pricking at me ever
since. The damn thing is insisting I'm being hypocritical, and that
it's as anti social for me to be traveling at excessive speed as it is
for drivers of motor vehicles.

I've just posted this in more detail on another twig of this thread, but,
in summary, you would have to be doing 178Km/h (110mph) on a bicycle to
have as much kinetic energy as an ordinary saloon car doing 40Km/h
(25mph).

The justification for speed laws is the danger you pose to others. You
pose far less danger to others on a bicycle at any speed you can
reasonably manage than any car driving normally on any public road. So I
think your conscience can rest a bit.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; when in the [censored], the wise man plants courgettes

Simon Brooke said:

The energy in a collision is mass times velocity squared. Suppose a
bicycle, with rider, weighing 100Kg total, crashes at 50Km/h, does that
pose more, or less risk to the community than a car weighing (with
occupants) 2000Kg crashing at 11.18Km/h?

Excuse the pedanticism, but don't you mean *1/2* mass times velocity
squared?

Quoted message said:

Trick question. The answer, of course, is that they have exactly the same
amount of kinetic energy, so they pose exactly the same risk.

Quoted message said:

Sane road laws for all!

So I think you'll cheerfully agree that in places where cars are allowed
to do 11.18Km/h, bicycles should be allowed to do 50Km/h, and that in
places where cars are permitted to travel at 40Km/h, bicycles should be
permitted to do 178Km/h?

If not, why not?

Because a cyclist traveling 4 times as fast as a motor vehicle has 1/4
as much time as the motor vehicle operator to identify, evaluate and
respond to any potentially hazardous situation, and because most motor
vehicles are much more able to avoid such hazardous situations by
braking or maneuvering around them.

mark

Simon Brooke said:

in message <[email hidden]>, MJ

Ray (') said:

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

in message <[email hidden]>,
MJ Ray ([email hidden]'😉 wrote:
> [CTC] answers consultations, campaigns for an urban speed limit
> so low that cyclists will break it
As the speed limit doesn't apply to cyclists, that's simply
irrelevant.

[...]

I feel the limits should be (now there's another debate) the maximum
safe speed for the road, not just an artificial barrier for motor
vehicles. If cyclists can safely go faster than the speed limit, it
brings the limit into disrepute, just like having perfectly fine roads
closed to cycles brings those limits into disrepute.

The energy in a collision is mass times velocity squared. Suppose a
bicycle, with rider, weighing 100Kg total, crashes at 50Km/h, does that
pose more, or less risk to the community than a car weighing (with
occupants) 2000Kg crashing at 11.18Km/h?

Trick question. The answer, of course, is that they have exactly the same
amount of kinetic energy, so they pose exactly the same risk.

Quoted message said:

Sane road laws for all!

So I think you'll cheerfully agree that in places where cars are allowed
to do 11.18Km/h, bicycles should be allowed to do 50Km/h, and that in
places where cars are permitted to travel at 40Km/h, bicycles should be
permitted to do 178Km/h?

If not, why not?

This is purely a bit of devil's advocate here, but this logic would lead
to a higher speed limit for light cars than heavy cars, then vans,
lorries etc.

The numbers for the calculation for me, my bike and my car would mean I
would have the same KE as my car at 40Km/h if I travelled at just over
122Km/h on my bike - that's a light car and a heavy rider with no
luggage. Two clydesdales on a tandem would need to go 90Km/h to achieve
the same KE as Kylie in a Lotus Elise at 40Km/h. OK, I'll stop playing
with the new Google spreadsheet now...

--

JimP

" " - John Cage

Simon Brooke said:

So I think you'll cheerfully agree that in places where cars are allowed
to do 11.18Km/h, bicycles should be allowed to do 50Km/h, and that in
places where cars are permitted to travel at 40Km/h, bicycles should be
permitted to do 178Km/h?

If not, why not?

Because kinetic energy isn't a particularly good way of assessing risk?
If you're hit by a bike, car, van or lorry, I expect the pain you feel
will have more to do with the speed they're travelling at rather than
their kinetic energy, particularly for the heavier vehicles.

I guess that once the mass of the vehicle exceeds a certain percentage
of the "collidee's" mass, then speed tends to dominate rather than mass
in the 'risk' equation. I don't know what that percentage is, though.

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 18:28:59 GMT, mark <[email hidden]> said
in <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Because a cyclist traveling 4 times as fast as a motor vehicle has 1/4
as much time as the motor vehicle operator to identify, evaluate and
respond to any potentially hazardous situation, and because most motor
vehicles are much more able to avoid such hazardous situations by
braking or maneuvering around them.

The lowest road speed limit is 20mph. I don't think I've ever managed
80mph on a bike, although it can be done. For a couple of hundred
yards, anyway. As long as you are superhuman and ride a fully-faired
Varna Diablo.

You also fail to take into account the fact that a bike is around 1/4
the width of a car. And I dispute the statement that a car is more
manoeuvrable - cars are notoriously resistant to very rapid changes in
direction.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Russell Fulker said:

Simon Brooke said:

So I think you'll cheerfully agree that in places where cars are allowed
to do 11.18Km/h, bicycles should be allowed to do 50Km/h, and that in
places where cars are permitted to travel at 40Km/h, bicycles should be
permitted to do 178Km/h?

If not, why not?

Because kinetic energy isn't a particularly good way of assessing risk?

Debatable.

Quoted message said:

If you're hit by a bike, car, van or lorry, I expect the pain you feel
will have more to do with the speed they're travelling at rather than
their kinetic energy, particularly for the heavier vehicles.

But the kinetic energy formula is the best way (for speeds not
approaching the speed of light) to calculate the speed changes that two
bodies will go through in a collision, less whatever factor is involved
in imperfect elasticity of said bodies.

Quoted message said:

I guess that once the mass of the vehicle exceeds a certain percentage
of the "collidee's" mass, then speed tends to dominate rather than mass
in the 'risk' equation. I don't know what that percentage is, though.

Its not a percentage, it's a square factor, and it's in the KE formula.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage

in message <[email hidden]>, mark

(') said:

Simon Brooke said:

The energy in a collision is mass times velocity squared. Suppose a
bicycle, with rider, weighing 100Kg total, crashes at 50Km/h, does
that pose more, or less risk to the community than a car weighing
(with occupants) 2000Kg crashing at 11.18Km/h?

Excuse the pedanticism, but don't you mean *1/2* mass times velocity
squared?

If you use metric units, yes. A constant is only needed when you
introduce particular units, though, and the precise constant will depend
on the unit system.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Trick question. The answer, of course, is that they have exactly the
same amount of kinetic energy, so they pose exactly the same risk.

Quoted message said:

Sane road laws for all!

So I think you'll cheerfully agree that in places where cars are
allowed to do 11.18Km/h, bicycles should be allowed to do 50Km/h, and
that in places where cars are permitted to travel at 40Km/h, bicycles
should be permitted to do 178Km/h?

If not, why not?

Because a cyclist traveling 4 times as fast as a motor vehicle has 1/4
as much time as the motor vehicle operator to identify, evaluate and
respond to any potentially hazardous situation, and because most motor
vehicles are much more able to avoid such hazardous situations by
braking or maneuvering around them.

Fair point.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Morning had broken, and there was nothing left for us to do
but pick up the pieces.

Jim Price said:

Russell Fulker said:

Simon Brooke said:

So I think you'll cheerfully agree that in places where cars are allowed
to do 11.18Km/h, bicycles should be allowed to do 50Km/h, and that in
places where cars are permitted to travel at 40Km/h, bicycles should be
permitted to do 178Km/h?

If not, why not?

Because kinetic energy isn't a particularly good way of assessing risk?

Debatable.

Quoted message said:

If you're hit by a bike, car, van or lorry, I expect the pain you
feel will have more to do with the speed they're travelling at rather
than their kinetic energy, particularly for the heavier vehicles.

But the kinetic energy formula is the best way (for speeds not
approaching the speed of light) to calculate the speed changes that two
bodies will go through in a collision, less whatever factor is involved
in imperfect elasticity of said bodies.

Quoted message said:

I guess that once the mass of the vehicle exceeds a certain percentage
of the "collidee's" mass, then speed tends to dominate rather than
mass in the 'risk' equation. I don't know what that percentage is,
though.

Its not a percentage, it's a square factor, and it's in the KE formula.#

What would you rather be hit by?

- a 1000kg vehicle travelling at 30 m/s
- a 1000000kg vehicle travelling at 1 m/s

Personally, I'd take my chances and opt for the one with the higher KE.

Shirley, once its mass exceeds a certain value, adding any more to it
isn't going to significantly increase the amount of damage it does?

Jim Price said:

Russell Fulker said:

Simon Brooke said:

So I think you'll cheerfully agree that in places where cars are allowed
to do 11.18Km/h, bicycles should be allowed to do 50Km/h, and that in
places where cars are permitted to travel at 40Km/h, bicycles should be
permitted to do 178Km/h?

If not, why not?

Because kinetic energy isn't a particularly good way of assessing risk?

Debatable.

Although my knitting needle travelling at way less than a meter each second
and weighing (with me behind it) only a few tens of kg would do you far more
damage than my 1 ton car travelling at the same speed.

The whole argument is flawed anyway, by the presumption that it's all right
to risk other's well being by riding inappropriatly fast on a bike because
at least it's not a car and it'll do them far less damage if you do
unfortunately end up hitting them. Because, of course, speed limits don't
apply to bikes, so that's all right then.

--
Nobby Anderson

MJ Ray said:

I doubt it. When did you last see it?

Last summer. The problem is here:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Q27632D3D on the turn off Hall Lane down
the alleyway.

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Russell Fulker said:

Jim Price said:

Russell Fulker said:

Simon Brooke wrote:
>
> So I think you'll cheerfully agree that in places where cars are
> allowed
> to do 11.18Km/h, bicycles should be allowed to do 50Km/h, and that in
> places where cars are permitted to travel at 40Km/h, bicycles should be
> permitted to do 178Km/h?
>
> If not, why not?

Because kinetic energy isn't a particularly good way of assessing risk?

Debatable.

Quoted message said:

If you're hit by a bike, car, van or lorry, I expect the pain you
feel will have more to do with the speed they're travelling at rather
than their kinetic energy, particularly for the heavier vehicles.

But the kinetic energy formula is the best way (for speeds not
approaching the speed of light) to calculate the speed changes that
two bodies will go through in a collision, less whatever factor is
involved in imperfect elasticity of said bodies.

Quoted message said:

I guess that once the mass of the vehicle exceeds a certain
percentage of the "collidee's" mass, then speed tends to dominate
rather than mass in the 'risk' equation. I don't know what that
percentage is, though.

Its not a percentage, it's a square factor, and it's in the KE formula.#

What would you rather be hit by?

- a 1000kg vehicle travelling at 30 m/s
- a 1000000kg vehicle travelling at 1 m/s

Personally, I'd take my chances and opt for the one with the higher KE.

The one with the higher KE couldn't hit me unless I was trapped on the
road (or tied across the railway line?), in which case, assuming equal
bluntness of object, I'd opt for the one with the lower KE. It would be
academic as both would kill me in a head on collision I could not escape.

The range of speeds and masses in your question is not representative of
the range which one would expect to encounter on a road. I was once
involved with a project which involved moving a 600 tonne structure on a
UK road, but that was considered a lot less extreme than the idea of
moving it as fast as 1m/s, as if it got out of control at such a speed
the damage would be huge.

Here's another example of two things with the same amount of KE:
- a 100g bullet travelling 1000Km/h
- a 1000Kg vehicle travelling 10Km/h
Which would you rather be hit by?

The difference in these examples is the difference between being crushed
and pierced.

I did point out that this was debatable, didn't I.

Quoted message said:

Shirley, once its mass exceeds a certain value, adding any more to it
isn't going to significantly increase the amount of damage it does?

Tell that to the guys who design ordinance for the US millitary if you
want to see straight laced people laugh uncontrollably. If they could
economically produce a material heavier that depleted uranium they'd
make their bullets from it.

--

JimP

" " - John Cage