Is Speed Dangerous?
- Thread starter Biged
- Start date
Yes I can imagine the pavements, hundreds of thousands of miles of them, very few if any pedestrians. Most of Britain is not London, many of the towns are only pedestrian congested on a few town centre roads. Most pavements are usually completely unused, just check Google Earth.
That's true Mike, since the British lost the use of their legs for more than 100 paces and grew wheels instead, pavements have become almost always deserted. However, I don't think 15 mph is practical as a limit because there are still the odd pedestrians who can pop out of concealed gateways suddenly, children especially. Maybe 8 mph would be ok, allowing almost instantaneous stopping in such events.
Hi
The mobility scooters for road use being sold can do 24 MPH not legally . I had one in th local park run over my dog it went so fast
Frank
The mobility scooters for road use being sold can do 24 MPH not legally . I had one in th local park run over my dog it went so fast
Frank
I guess that 'pavements' began in order to allow pedetrians to walk avoiding the horse dung. There is no longer any need for them for that purpose. We still build new roads with footpaths on both sides of the road, even though we know they will hardly be used.
Cyclists are in danger on the roads, pavements are generaly 5 to 6 feet wide, an unecessary extravagance unless people are exceptionally fat. If there are pavements each side of the road, that is up to 12 foot of carriageway specially reserved for the odd walker.
It is illogical.
As a child, I grew up in a country district without footpaths. We just knew that you could not run out of the front garden without taking care.
I cannot see any reason for not painting a line down the centre of the footpath to separate pedestrians and cyclists.
Cyclists are in danger on the roads, pavements are generaly 5 to 6 feet wide, an unecessary extravagance unless people are exceptionally fat. If there are pavements each side of the road, that is up to 12 foot of carriageway specially reserved for the odd walker.
It is illogical.
As a child, I grew up in a country district without footpaths. We just knew that you could not run out of the front garden without taking care.
I cannot see any reason for not painting a line down the centre of the footpath to separate pedestrians and cyclists.
I go a little further Mike, I'd like to see the on-road painted bike lanes scrapped, pavements widened to largely include that space and then that divided into pedestrian and bike lanes. That would put the kerbstones between bikes and cars and increase bike space without seriously inconveniencing walkers.
i agree but you would probably get the whole car parked in as opposed to half of it. Defitely the way forward though
A road near me has had that done, the problem was when the road narrows the pavement shrinks, there's not enough room to cycle on the pavement and no dropped kerb to get back on the road. The result is I end up cycling along a road that's been made more dangerous in the name of cycling safety. It's a Sustrans route though so changes for the sake of it are expected.
A road where this has been done slightly better is Cable Street in london, part of the cycle superhighways and often photographed as what a bike lane should look like. It's great until cyclists use it, then you find out there's no room to overtake so you have to slow right down or ride down the narrowed road.
Last edited:
That's the key. But when pavements in turn are divided up without a physical division between walkers and cyclists, walkers walk all over the cycle part.
As has been mentioned, 15mph is far too fast on any shared pathway, even if there are not many pedestrians. Anyone who has children will know that their movements cannot be predicted or controlled entirely and 15mph gives little time for avoidance while being fast enough to cause nasty injuries.
Sometimes the unimpeded fast transit of a cyclist doesn't override all other considerations
There is a shared use pavement/cycle route in/out of my village and I won't use it. As most of it is going past houses there is a huge danger from cars sticking their noses out of driveways before the driver can see if a cyclist is coming. Even riding at 10mph presents a serious chance of diving over someone's car bonnet in some places.
I stick firmly to the road in this case I'm afraid. I'd much rather use a cycle route when available, but I'm not going to do it if it puts myself and others in danger. To be honest I don't like shared use routes unless they are (a) really wide and (b) clearly separated and marked. Even then I'd rather not as people tend to meander across into the cycle lane. Cyclists share more in common with other road users, so I'd rather that part of the road is dedicated to a cycle lane and the pavement is just for pedestrians.
I stick firmly to the road in this case I'm afraid. I'd much rather use a cycle route when available, but I'm not going to do it if it puts myself and others in danger. To be honest I don't like shared use routes unless they are (a) really wide and (b) clearly separated and marked. Even then I'd rather not as people tend to meander across into the cycle lane. Cyclists share more in common with other road users, so I'd rather that part of the road is dedicated to a cycle lane and the pavement is just for pedestrians.
Not always, pedestrians stay well away from this one. It's busy so the peds quickly learn to respect it like a road.
The question was, "Is speed dangerous?"
Well, one can play with words and offer an explanation as to why speed in itself may not be dangerous but anyone actually believing that possibility could be in for a major shock one day.
When I was a kid, at the Ideal Home exhibition or something similar back in the early '60s, there was a road safety stand, the sponsors of which I really cannot recall. Because there were growing calls for mandatory seat belts in an effort to reduce the carnage on our roads, the sponsor had set up a short, narrow-gauge railway track a couple of feet off the ground. There was a tiny little carriage affair with two seats, seatbelts and a set of buffers at the end of the track. the carriage was given a gentle push, sufficient to let it roll down the slope before colliding with the buffers.
From memory, the total length of the rig was probably no more than a family car and it looked a really innocuous piece of kit. I tried it. I knew what was coming as I'd seen lots of others do it before me but I have to tell you, I still got a real fright!
According to the people running the stand, the terminal velocity on impact with the buffers was 7mph. I know; it sounds nothing but without that seat belt, I would have been catapulted out of the carriage. Some years later, I survived a car crash at 30mph but ended up on the floor of the front passenger seat. Even after that, I resisted the wearing of a seat belt until the legislation arrived. I have never liked the idea of compulsion in such matter; education, yes but compulsion no.
I would imagine that many of those who advocate higher speed as some kind of safety element in certain circumstances......given the right stretch of road....used judicially and all the rest....etc, etc, etc......have never actually come to a dead stop in an impact with something solid. It's not like falling off a bike or dropping a motor cycle when you've just misjudged that bend in slippery conditions where you may be lucky and not hit anything solid while still travelling quickly.
So, for me, there aren't two sides to the story. The answer to the question is clear. Speed is dangerous. At what point it becomes so may vary but my experience at 7mph convinced me. Ayrton Senna was a racing god in my book and might have still been around today had he been less determined to "push the envelope" as they say today. Richard Hammond had loads of experience of fast cars and fast bikes long before he came to grief when he left the track a few years ago in that rocket-type contraption. That he survived is testament to the cockpit strength and safety harness developed for and worn by all speed freaks simply because they know from experience that speed is dangerous!
Donald Campbell knew a thing or two about fast driving on both land and water yet he came unstuck. There's a list of racing drivers I could mention who would still be alive today had they just been a bit slower. There's another list of pilots, many of them test pilots, who lost their lives in the pursuit of speed. Think IOM and there's another list. Some of them were good; some were particularly fast and some were just amateurs taking it just beyond their ability though they didn't discover that till it was too late!
Now, the question again was, "Is speed dangerous?" Too damned right it is!
Regards,
Indaalo
Well, one can play with words and offer an explanation as to why speed in itself may not be dangerous but anyone actually believing that possibility could be in for a major shock one day.
When I was a kid, at the Ideal Home exhibition or something similar back in the early '60s, there was a road safety stand, the sponsors of which I really cannot recall. Because there were growing calls for mandatory seat belts in an effort to reduce the carnage on our roads, the sponsor had set up a short, narrow-gauge railway track a couple of feet off the ground. There was a tiny little carriage affair with two seats, seatbelts and a set of buffers at the end of the track. the carriage was given a gentle push, sufficient to let it roll down the slope before colliding with the buffers.
From memory, the total length of the rig was probably no more than a family car and it looked a really innocuous piece of kit. I tried it. I knew what was coming as I'd seen lots of others do it before me but I have to tell you, I still got a real fright!
According to the people running the stand, the terminal velocity on impact with the buffers was 7mph. I know; it sounds nothing but without that seat belt, I would have been catapulted out of the carriage. Some years later, I survived a car crash at 30mph but ended up on the floor of the front passenger seat. Even after that, I resisted the wearing of a seat belt until the legislation arrived. I have never liked the idea of compulsion in such matter; education, yes but compulsion no.
I would imagine that many of those who advocate higher speed as some kind of safety element in certain circumstances......given the right stretch of road....used judicially and all the rest....etc, etc, etc......have never actually come to a dead stop in an impact with something solid. It's not like falling off a bike or dropping a motor cycle when you've just misjudged that bend in slippery conditions where you may be lucky and not hit anything solid while still travelling quickly.
So, for me, there aren't two sides to the story. The answer to the question is clear. Speed is dangerous. At what point it becomes so may vary but my experience at 7mph convinced me. Ayrton Senna was a racing god in my book and might have still been around today had he been less determined to "push the envelope" as they say today. Richard Hammond had loads of experience of fast cars and fast bikes long before he came to grief when he left the track a few years ago in that rocket-type contraption. That he survived is testament to the cockpit strength and safety harness developed for and worn by all speed freaks simply because they know from experience that speed is dangerous!
Donald Campbell knew a thing or two about fast driving on both land and water yet he came unstuck. There's a list of racing drivers I could mention who would still be alive today had they just been a bit slower. There's another list of pilots, many of them test pilots, who lost their lives in the pursuit of speed. Think IOM and there's another list. Some of them were good; some were particularly fast and some were just amateurs taking it just beyond their ability though they didn't discover that till it was too late!
Now, the question again was, "Is speed dangerous?" Too damned right it is!
Regards,
Indaalo
I remember that ramp device too Indalo. To be fair though it wasn't a true reflection of a road situation since all road situations have absorption, whereas that device had a very solid unforgiving stop.
The Road Research laboratory made this point some years ago about the difference between vehicle meeting speeds in accidents and the actual speed experienced by the body after absorption was taken into account. The gulf between the two figures is huge.
The Road Research laboratory made this point some years ago about the difference between vehicle meeting speeds in accidents and the actual speed experienced by the body after absorption was taken into account. The gulf between the two figures is huge.
Your argument is so flawed I hardly know where to begin. It fails to take anything other than speed into account. Accidents on the road and the resulting seriousness of any injuries are a combination of many factors including speed.
Clearly, injuries sustained from an accident at 10mph are likely to be less serious than the same type of accident at 20mph but it does not logically follow that speed in itself is dangerous.
If I cycle around a large, busy roundabout at 10mph less than the prevailing traffic speed I am at a significantly higher risk of accident than if I can keep pace with the traffic.
If I move from a slip road onto a busy motorway at 30mph less than the traffic is moving there are good odds of causing an accident. That, after all, is why entry slip roads exist; so you can get up to the correct speed to join the motorway safely.
Inappropriate speed is dangerous, and by that I mean inappropriately low or high.
Clearly, injuries sustained from an accident at 10mph are likely to be less serious than the same type of accident at 20mph but it does not logically follow that speed in itself is dangerous.
If I cycle around a large, busy roundabout at 10mph less than the prevailing traffic speed I am at a significantly higher risk of accident than if I can keep pace with the traffic.
If I move from a slip road onto a busy motorway at 30mph less than the traffic is moving there are good odds of causing an accident. That, after all, is why entry slip roads exist; so you can get up to the correct speed to join the motorway safely.
Inappropriate speed is dangerous, and by that I mean inappropriately low or high.
I shall hazard a guess here Peasjam that you refer to my posting in which case, I would point out the fact that the OP made no reference to anything other than speed. Moreover, regardless of whether or not my argument is flawed, shouldn't you be clear in your position?
If the premise had been to do with appropriate v inappropriate speed in a variety of different situations, I may have couched my response slightly differently but the simple question was, "Is speed dangerous?" That was the question I answered; not a different question so I hope that's clear.
At the outset of my piece, I said the following:
Having made that point, I'm not sure I understand your difficulty with my argument nor where exactly my assertion is flawed. I don't really want the thread to become bogged down in semantics but I did endeavour to answer the question one way or the other rather than shilly-shally by saying something like, "Well, yes and no."
I think you need to credit all readers here with understanding appropriate speed and its application but, forgive my repetition, that wasn't the question.
The question is similar to, "Is lightning dangerous?" or "Is swimming with sharks dangerous?" The similarity lies in the fact that, while it may be possible to get away with exposure to potential danger in all those activities, one day it may all go wrong, which was the point I was making when I remarked about being in for a major shock.
If I may refer to another part of your last posting:
Perhaps I don't understand but doesn't that mean speed in itself IS dangerous? That would seem the logical conclusion to be drawn from that simple statement if indeed any conclusion can be drawn.
Consistency in argument is very important if one wishes to appear credible but I haven't seen much of that in the position you have adopted in response to the question posed at the outset.
Regards,
Indalo
Earlier in this thread we concluded that speed is dangerous if used inappropriately.
With speed, problems begin when either you hit something, or something hits you. This can be brought about by you hitting a slow or stationary object whilst you are travelling at high speed. Or conversely, a high speed object can hit you whilst you are stationary or travelling slowly. What we are saying is that it is the speed differential between you and whatever [you hit / hits you] that counts.
It therefore has to follow that if:
1) There is a very low probability of you colliding with something (deserted straight open road, no street furniture, wide run off areas etc), then higher or lower speeds are both safe.
2) There is a very high probability of collision (busy town centre with lots of pedestrians, traffic and street furniture), then higher speed are un-safe.
3) You are travelling at 8 mph on a busy narrow road whilst traffic is passing you at 40 mph, slow speed is unsafe. (safer to be travelling closer to the flow of traffic, less speed differential)
Or, in other words, recognise the situation that you are in and use speed to, first minimise the danger, and secondly, minimise your journey time.
So, is speed dangerous? That question can't be answered for the reasons stated. What can be said though is that a speed differential between person and object collided with is dangerous. The greater that differential, the greater the danger. We should always be looking to reduce the differential in order to stay safe.
With speed, problems begin when either you hit something, or something hits you. This can be brought about by you hitting a slow or stationary object whilst you are travelling at high speed. Or conversely, a high speed object can hit you whilst you are stationary or travelling slowly. What we are saying is that it is the speed differential between you and whatever [you hit / hits you] that counts.
It therefore has to follow that if:
1) There is a very low probability of you colliding with something (deserted straight open road, no street furniture, wide run off areas etc), then higher or lower speeds are both safe.
2) There is a very high probability of collision (busy town centre with lots of pedestrians, traffic and street furniture), then higher speed are un-safe.
3) You are travelling at 8 mph on a busy narrow road whilst traffic is passing you at 40 mph, slow speed is unsafe. (safer to be travelling closer to the flow of traffic, less speed differential)
Or, in other words, recognise the situation that you are in and use speed to, first minimise the danger, and secondly, minimise your journey time.
So, is speed dangerous? That question can't be answered for the reasons stated. What can be said though is that a speed differential between person and object collided with is dangerous. The greater that differential, the greater the danger. We should always be looking to reduce the differential in order to stay safe.
Last edited:
If people riding bikes don't have the nous to ride appropriately for the prevailing traffic and weather conditions, not to mention the inconsistent road surfaces, they shouldn't be allowed out of the house.
Just as an aside, I had a front tyre on my car suffer immediate deflation last year while in first gear negotiating a rubbish-strewn and poorly surfaced car park. Low speed meant no-one was injured and only a replacement tyre was required. Had the piece of material embedded in the sidewall not have fully penetrated the tyre until I was at motorway speed 5 minutes later, I hate to think what the consequences might have been. Speed!
Indalo
Just as an aside, I had a front tyre on my car suffer immediate deflation last year while in first gear negotiating a rubbish-strewn and poorly surfaced car park. Low speed meant no-one was injured and only a replacement tyre was required. Had the piece of material embedded in the sidewall not have fully penetrated the tyre until I was at motorway speed 5 minutes later, I hate to think what the consequences might have been. Speed!
Indalo
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
