Speeding cyclists
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/Content/News/story.asp?datetime=21+Feb+2004
+11%3A28&tbrand=ENOnline&tCategory=NEWS&category=News&brand=ENOnline&itemi
d=NOED21+Feb+2004+11%3A28%3A48%3A113
or
"Danger warning to speeding cyclists
February 21, 2004 11:28
CITY cyclists have been warned not to risk their lives hurtling down Grapes
Hill trying to set off the speed camera.
The warning follows reports that people have been reaching breakneck speeds
descending the steep hill, in the hope that they can cross the 30mph barrier
and get a flash from the camera.
The cameras are designed to catch motorbikes and mopeds as well as cars and so
would be triggered by pedal bikes travelling at more than 30mph.
But because the bikes do not have license plates the riders cannot be fined and
traced.
Despite the reports of people trying, Bryan Edwards, Norfolk Casualty Reduction
Partnership, said he was not aware that the camera had yet flashed any
cyclists.
But he warned them it was still an offence to exceed the speed limit on a bike
and that they were putting themselves in great danger.
He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the Road
Traffic Act, just like you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.
"All I would say is that they would be exceptionally stupid to do those speeds
down Grapes Hill. You would risk life and limb on a pushbike. It sounds like an
accident waiting to happen.
"Cyclists are perhaps one of the most vulnerable of road users and they have no
protection around them."
Inspector Jeff Anderson, from Central Area Road Policing, said: "Norfolk
Constabulary would discourage cyclists from pursuing such a stupid activity
which could result in a serious collision injuring both the cyclist and other
road users. The speed camera has been situated on Grapes Hill in order to
prevent such collisions."
The camera was installed in July 2003 in an effort to prevent accidents as
traffic approaches the busy crossroads at the bottom.
In the three years before it was put up, there had been 56 accidents on Grapes
Hill, eight resulting in death or serious injury.
Mr Edwards said that the road had been made safer by the camera."
Whilst I think any cyclist deliberately trying to set off the speed camera is a
fool, it would be "interesting" to see what would happen if they took a cyclist
to court for *speeding* as described by the RTA as opposed to the furious
pedalling or pedalling furiously - or whatever the correct offence is...
Cheers, helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
Paul - xxx
> Whilst I think any cyclist deliberately trying to set off the speed
> camera is a fool, it would be "interesting" to see what would happen
> if they took a cyclist to court for *speeding* as described by the
> RTA as opposed to the furious pedalling or pedalling furiously - or
> whatever the correct offence is...
Now there's a challenge ... ;)
--
Paul
Helen Deborah Vecht
> Despite the reports of people trying, Bryan Edwards, Norfolk Casualty
> Reduction
> Partnership, said he was not aware that the camera had yet flashed any
> cyclists.
> But he warned them it was still an offence to exceed the speed limit
> on a bike
> and that they were putting themselves in great danger.
> He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the Road
> Traffic Act, just like you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.
Oh dear! He really doesn't know, does he?
> "All I would say is that they would be exceptionally stupid to do
> those speeds
> down Grapes Hill. You would risk life and limb on a pushbike. It
> sounds like an
> accident waiting to happen.
Nah, Grapes Hill is smooth and wide. 30mph could be FUN!...
> "Cyclists are perhaps one of the most vulnerable of road users and
> they have no
> protection around them."
Quite. They wouldn't try if there was any other traffic...
> Inspector Jeff Anderson, from Central Area Road Policing, said: "Norfolk
> Constabulary would discourage cyclists from pursuing such a stupid activity
> which could result in a serious collision injuring both the cyclist
> and other
> road users. The speed camera has been situated on Grapes Hill in order to
> prevent such collisions."
Hmmm... Idon't think there are speed cameras on East Heath Road in
Hampstead. I've done 38mph there...
> The camera was installed in July 2003 in an effort to prevent accidents as
> traffic approaches the busy crossroads at the bottom.
Anyone with sense would slow down long before the crossroads.
> In the three years before it was put up, there had been 56 accidents
> on Grapes
> Hill, eight resulting in death or serious injury.
How many involved cyclists? EMWTK.
> Mr Edwards said that the road had been made safer by the camera."
> Whilst I think any cyclist deliberately trying to set off the speed
> camera is a
> fool, it would be "interesting" to see what would happen if they took
> a cyclist
> to court for *speeding* as described by the RTA as opposed to the furious
> pedalling or pedalling furiously - or whatever the correct offence is...
Quite!
> --This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
> to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune
> h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$
--
Helen D. Vecht: helen...@zetnet.co.uk
Edgware.
Ian Smith
<waffly...@aol.comcomcom> wrote:
> But he warned them it was still an offence to exceed the speed limit
> on a bike and that they were putting themselves in great danger.
>
> He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under
> the Road Traffic Act, just like you can be drunk in charge of a
> pushbike.
Yet more proof that the powers-that-be are often at least as ignorant
as the Daily Mail.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Tony Raven
>
> Yet more proof that the powers-that-be are often at least as ignorant
> as the Daily Mail.
>
And the powers-that-be in this case is the Norfolk Casualty Reduction
Partnership which comprises
- Norfolk County Council Planning & Transportation Department,
- Norfolk Constabulary,
- Norfolk Magistrates Court,
- The Highways Agency
- Crown Prosecution Service (Norfolk Branch).
Oh dear
Tony.
Zog The Undeniable
> CITY cyclists have been warned not to risk their lives hurtling down Grapes
> Hill trying to set off the speed camera.
Where? Where?
My record freewheeling naughtiness was 48mph in a 30 zone...sadly no
camera. And it isn't illegal, although I'm sure there's some 19th
century law aimed at horse riders which you can be charged under.
Didn't some guy get done in Cambridge a few years ago for "riding
furiously" at 20mph? That's cruising speed for people on racing bikes!
Going up to the North Pennines in April. I reckon I should be able to
join the 100km/h (62.14mph) club coming off Killhope Moor :-)
Zog The Undeniable
Just spotted this:
> He said: "It is a motoring offence"
Hehe - anyone see the flaw in his logic?
MSeries
Maybe we should have a u.r.c meet early one Sunday morning at the top of
Grapes Hill and all of us give it a go ! Wheres Killhope Moor ? BTW My all
time fastest speed was 56 mph descending the Col du Tourmalet during L'Etape
du Tour in '94. 49 in the UK on Holme Moss. Maybe by the time I'm 40 I can
join the 100 Club.
David Hansen
waffly...@aol.comcomcom (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote
this:-
>He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the Road
>Traffic Act, just like you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.
It would indeed be interesting to see him make a fool of himself
with such a prosecution.
>"All I would say is that they would be exceptionally stupid to do those >speeds down Grapes Hill.
Though he presumably thinks it fine to travel at such speeds in a
motorised vehicle.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
andrew
<super snip>
> He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the
Road
> Traffic Act, just like you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.
A cycling mate of mine who is still in the plod & former traffic officer
assures me that the speed limit only applies to motorised vehicles & not to
cycles.
And as for drunk in charge it is only in the opinion of the arresting
officer, you can't be breathalysed or get points on / loose your car
license.
--
Andrew
"Look laddie, if you're in the penalty area and aren't quite sure what to do
with the ball, just stick it in the net and we'll discuss all your options
afterwards."
gavin
"andrew" <andrew...@NOSPAMTAhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4037c81f$0$23460$afc3...@news.ukonline.co.uk...
>
> And as for drunk in charge it is only in the opinion of the arresting
> officer, you can't be breathalysed or get points on / loose your car
> license.
This is interesting. A few years ago when I lived near Andover, I was
stopped by the police on my bike. I had just come from the pub and had had a
few. I was advised to get off the bike and push it home. Otherwise he
would arrest me for drink driving. The policeman claimed I could lose my
driving licence.
I complied - I did not want to push my luck. I am interested that this
warning seems not to be based on law.
Gavin
Vincent Wilcox
>
> This is interesting. A few years ago when I lived near Andover, I was
> stopped by the police on my bike. I had just come from the pub and had had a
> few. I was advised to get off the bike and push it home. Otherwise he
> would arrest me for drink driving. The policeman claimed I could lose my
> driving licence.
Even if you didn't have one?
>
> I complied - I did not want to push my luck. I am interested that this
> warning seems not to be based on law.
>
It's a threat to get you to comply and not be arsey lest you
lose your licence. Better to comply than to argue the toss.
vernon levy
NW Durham near Stanhope. You'll have been pretty close to it on the C2C.
Vernon
Sue
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers <waffly...@aol.comcomcom> writes
>
>http://tinyurl.com/2mngt
>
>Whilst I think any cyclist deliberately trying to set off the speed camera is a
>fool,
Oh, come on - we've all had a go, haven't we?
With our club jersey on? And the phone number of our mate who works at
the police speed traps office ready on our mobile so we could ask him to
grab the picture for us?
Perhaps the location mentioned in the article isn't suitable for this
activity, but there are lots of speed cameras in places that are.
BTW I wasn't successful, I think you need a proper road bike.
--
Sue ];(:)
Simian
>
> He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the Road
> Traffic Act, just like you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike."
Ah, an idiot. Perhaps he should examine the the word 'motoring' in its
relation to bicycles.
> "All I would say is that they would be exceptionally stupid to do those speeds
> down Grapes Hill. You would risk life and limb on a pushbike. It sounds like an
> accident waiting to happen."
In my youth I remember being dead chuffed to have finally broken the 50mph
barrier going from Biggin Hill down to Bromley Common. On average, it used
to take me 45 minutes to get from my house to the airport, and 12 to get back.
Happy days...
> Whilst I think any cyclist deliberately trying to set off the speed camera is a
> fool, it would be "interesting" to see what would happen if they took a cyclist
> to court for *speeding* as described by the RTA as opposed to the furious
> pedalling or pedalling furiously - or whatever the correct offence is...
Hmmm, if my MTB didn't have what seems to be a terminal velocity of 35mph, I
think I'd quite enjoy setting off speed cameras. I think the offence is actually
"wanton and furious cycling", or something like that.
Simian
> "andrew" <andrew...@NOSPAMTAhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>> officer, you can't be breathalysed or get points on / loose your car
>> license.
>
> This is interesting. A few years ago when I lived near Andover, I was
> stopped by the police on my bike. I had just come from the pub and had had a
> few. I was advised to get off the bike and push it home. Otherwise he
> would arrest me for drink driving. The policeman claimed I could lose my
> driving licence.
>
> I complied - I did not want to push my luck. I am interested that this
> warning seems not to be based on law.
It's one of those urban legend things - you can't lose your driving licence
for being drunk in charge of a bicycle, tho you can be fined quite a large
number of notes for it - 2500, iirc.
MSeries
Is it the one out of Stanhope to the moor, where the Rookhope wagonway meets
the road. I missed the turn in Rookhope, some other cyclists were stood in
front of the sign, and ended up riding up that very steep hill out of
Stanhope.
Vincent Wilcox
> On 21 Feb 2004 16:40:41 GMT someone who may be
> waffly...@aol.comcomcom (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote
>
>
>
> Though he presumably thinks it fine to travel at such speeds in a
> motorised vehicle.
>
Of course because we all know that motorised vehicles are
inherently safer and controllable at those speeds... Ring,
ring, hello, no im driving down the hill., what, yes, no
terrible hangover, how are you feeling ...
Gonzalez
I have been prosecuted twice (and found innocent twice) of being drunk
in charge of a bicycle.
There was much hilarity in court during the first case where the
police officer described driving at speeds of up to 25mph through the
back streets of Greenwich to catch me. The magistrate (a fantastic
old buffer with a spotted bow tie) asked the prosecutor if she
expected him to believe that Mr *Gonzalez* could cycle like the
*Yellow Jersey* in the Tour de France and still be drunk.
The prosecutor replied that "Some people cycle better when they've had
a few drinks."
The magistrate turned to me and said, "What do you have to say to
that, Mr *Gonzalez*"
I replied that the prosector has seen to many Carling Black Label
adverts and believed that beer refreshed the cyclists other beers
couldn't reach.
The magistrate puffed himself up and said, "NO! No! no! Mr
*Gonzalez*. That is quite wrong! It wasn't Carling Black Label. It
was Heineken.
Vincent Wilcox
Stunner. Ive oft wondered whether I would TT faster if I
mounted a can of guiness on the end of the aero bars.
David Hansen
<gav...@spamhotmail.com> wrote this:-
>I was advised to get off the bike and push it home. Otherwise he
>would arrest me for drink driving. The policeman claimed I could lose my
>driving licence.
It is bullshit, a tactic the police often use.
Just zis Guy, you know?
in message <NH9aaNJo...@mashtub.demon.co.uk>:
>I wasn't successful, I think you need a proper road bike.
Which camera, Sue? I might give it a try on the 'bent ;-)
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
JohnB
>
> <super snip>
> > He said: "It is a motoring offence and you can be prosecuted under the
> Road
> > Traffic Act, just like you can be drunk in charge of a pushbike.
>
> A cycling mate of mine who is still in the plod & former traffic officer
> assures me that the speed limit only applies to motorised vehicles & not to
> cycles.
>
> And as for drunk in charge it is only in the opinion of the arresting
> officer, you can't be breathalysed or get points on / loose your car
> license.
Last year I was knocked off my bike by a moron on a roundabout who
overtook me then immediatelty turned left, when I was heading straight across.
An ambulance and the police were called.
The police insisted I took a breath test and told me it was now
Hampshire police's policy to _always_ breathalise cyclists in accidents
(they also tested the van driver).
I gained the very clear impression that if I refused i would be taken
off to the police station and that it would do my case no good.
John B
Tony Raven
>
> Oh, come on - we've all had a go, haven't we?
> With our club jersey on?
>
Better wrapped in some kitchen foil to ensure a good metal reflector for the
radar to bounce off.
Tony
Tony Raven
>
> Last year I was knocked off my bike by a moron on a roundabout who
> overtook me then immediatelty turned left, when I was heading straight
> across. An ambulance and the police were called.
>
> The police insisted I took a breath test and told me it was now
> (they also tested the van driver).
>
> I gained the very clear impression that if I refused i would be taken
> off to the police station and that it would do my case no good.
>
As a non-motorist the police have no powers to take a breath test. The police
only have the powers to demand a test if you were driving, or attempting to
drive, a motor vehicle and you either had an accident or committed a moving
traffic offence. There are no laws on the level of alcohol for non-motorists
and no right to demand a breathalyser test without consent.
The relevant section of the law can be found at
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880052_en_2.htm#mdiv6
However it is an arrestable offence under Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872
to be drunk whilst in charge on any highway or other public place of any
horse, cattle, pig, sheep, carriage, motor vehicle, trailer, bicycle or steam
engine. £200 fine or 1 month. In Scotland I believe it is the Licensing
(Scotland) Act 1903.
Under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 there are also now on the spot
£40 fines in some areas for public drunkenness.
Section 30 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:"A person who, when riding a
cycle on a road or other public place, is unfit to ride through drink or drugs
(that is to say, is under the influence of drink or a drug to such an extent
as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle) is guilty of an
offence." Fine £1000.
So strictly you could have refused but they had plenty of alternatives to hit
you with if you were really drunk.
Laws in Scotland may be different ;-)
Tony
Simon Proven
I did that to avoid the Stanhope Common route. It's quite
steep!
David Off
I was surprised to trip a speed camera one day descending a steep
hill... on my rollerblades. Now that is bloody dangerous. I would have
loved to have seen the photo!
30mph on a bike is not that fast...hell I can get near to that on the
flat on a 10 mile TT. These people need to live a bit.
Just zis Guy, you know?
message <40389F4F...@here.com>:
>The police insisted I took a breath test and told me it was now
>Hampshire police's policy to _always_ breathalise cyclists in accidents
>(they also tested the van driver).
This is, as Tny says, illegal. On the other hand, if you were sober,
WTF? It's another nail in the driver's coffin.
Unless of course they decided it was "just an accident" and cutting
left across a cyclist does not fall far below the standards expected
of a competent driver...
JohnB
>
> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:23:43 +0000, JohnB <nos...@here.com> wrote in
> message <40389F4F...@here.com>:
>
> >The police insisted I took a breath test and told me it was now
> >Hampshire police's policy to _always_ breathalise cyclists in accidents
> >(they also tested the van driver).
>
> This is, as Tny says, illegal. On the other hand, if you were sober,
> WTF? It's another nail in the driver's coffin.
I fully support the introduction of breath tests for cyclists and of
course I had not been drinking otherwise I would not have been cycling.
I took teh test because of the veiled threat that I wouldn't get home in
time for tea.
However, what does concern me is how such 'policies' can just be
introduced without going through the correct legal channels. I'm sure
that when the breath test laws were intoduced for motorists that they
were fully debated and then enacted by Parliament.
Yet when in comes to similar issues that relate to cyclists they can be
called 'policies' and simply introduced by the police.
OK, in this instance I agree with the policy, but the method of
introduction I find quite unpalateable.
What 'policy' will be next?
John B
Just zis Guy, you know?
message <4038CA90...@here.com>:
>what does concern me is how such 'policies' can just be
>introduced without going through the correct legal channels.
With you on that. I suggest some letters, and getting in touch with
the CTC.
Tony Raven
> message <4038CA90...@here.com>:
>
>> what does concern me is how such 'policies' can just be
>> introduced without going through the correct legal channels.
>
> With you on that. I suggest some letters, and getting in touch with
> the CTC.
>
Or write to the Chief Constable asking whether this is policy as it does not
appear to have any legal authority. Then at least they might take notice and
change policy.
Tony
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
<c1aoun$1gd1il$1...@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>> With you on that. I suggest some letters, and getting in touch with
>> the CTC.
>Or write to the Chief Constable asking whether this is policy as it does not
>appear to have any legal authority. Then at least they might take notice and
>change policy.
Who else do you think the letters would have been addressed to? ;-)
Tony Raven
> <ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
> <c1aoun$1gd1il$1...@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>
>>> With you on that. I suggest some letters, and getting in touch with
>>> the CTC.
>
>> Or write to the Chief Constable asking whether this is policy as it does
>> not appear to have any legal authority. Then at least they might take
>> notice and change policy.
>
> Who else do you think the letters would have been addressed to? ;-)
>
The CTC?
Tony
Just zis Guy, you know?
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote in message
<c1aqbe$1d96mr$1...@ID-178940.news.uni-berlin.de>:
>>>> I suggest some letters, and getting in touch with the CTC.
>>> Or write to the Chief Constable
>> Who else do you think the letters would have been addressed to? ;-)
>The CTC?
Inviting them to write to the CTC? Can't think why that didn't occur
to me! ;-)
JohnB
That's been done and at the moment I'm in the "we'll get back to you" phase.
In other words when they've thought up a reason for the over-zealousness
of their Mr Plod.
John B
vernon levy
> Is it the one out of Stanhope to the moor, where the Rookhope wagonway
meets
> the road. I missed the turn in Rookhope, some other cyclists were stood in
> front of the sign, and ended up riding up that very steep hill out of
> Stanhope.
on the C2C climbing out of Nenthead you'd ordinarily take a left turn to
Allenheads before reaching the Killhope Summit and Killhope Moor on the
A689. The whole
area; Tynedale and Weardale has some great challenging roads thar are quite
lightly used. Looking at the road maps of the area has go my yearning for a
few days riding and camping in the area.
Vernon
MSeries
>> Is it the one out of Stanhope to the moor, where the Rookhope
>> wagonway meets the road. I missed the turn in Rookhope, some other
>> cyclists were stood in front of the sign, and ended up riding up
>> that very steep hill out of Stanhope.
>
> on the C2C climbing out of Nenthead you'd ordinarily take a left
> turn to Allenheads before reaching the Killhope Summit and Killhope
> Moor on the A689.
Ah the A689, stay on it travelling East and you'll end up in Hartlepool :-)
The whole
> area; Tynedale and Weardale has some great challenging roads thar are
> quite lightly used. Looking at the road maps of the area has go my
> yearning for a few days riding and camping in the area.
Mmm, a possibility for Easter maybe, instead of the Dales.
W K
"Zog The Undeniable" <g...@hhh.net> wrote in message
news:c1873s$eej$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers wrote:
>
> > CITY cyclists have been warned not to risk their lives hurtling down
Grapes
> > Hill trying to set off the speed camera.
>
> Where? Where?
>
> My record freewheeling naughtiness was 48mph in a 30 zone...sadly no
> camera.
"Parbold hill" near wigan has a 15% slope, a 30 limit and a speed camera.
Of course, you probably have to do at least 35mph, and probably 38mph to set
it off, and thats if its actually active.
I've never managed to do more than 30 past it, as its got a slight bend.
A cyclists radar reflectivity isn't going to be too good either, and the
spokes will be giving radar reflections at all sorts of speeds - apparently
they have to have several consistent speeds (over fractions of a second mind
you) before they flash.
B.G. Finlay IT Services
: On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:52:24 +0000, Sue <SP...@blackhole.invalid> wrote
: in message <NH9aaNJo...@mashtub.demon.co.uk>:
: >I wasn't successful, I think you need a proper road bike.
: Which camera, Sue? I might give it a try on the 'bent ;-)
You normally come across as pro camera Guy. If this road has a bad
accident history and it requires a camera why is it OK for you to
cycle along there fast enough to set it off? Even if the limit doesn't
apply to bikes surely it's still dangerous?
Blair.
David Martin
<hyag...@tesco.net> wrote:
> A cyclists radar reflectivity isn't going to be too good either, and the
> spokes will be giving radar reflections at all sorts of speeds - apparently
> they have to have several consistent speeds (over fractions of a second mind
> you) before they flash.
Time to take home that small radar reflector from the yacht... Or those
square cake tins, or...
..d
Colin Blackburn
wrote:
The Rookhope incline (the wagonway) is as steep as the road option,
Crawleyside Bank, but a damn sight rougher. If you are on a road bike then
the Bank is the better option, though the gated road from Rookhope to
Stanhope gets you off the main road.
Colin
--
Colin Blackburn
It is a fantastic area, I'm lucky enough to live in the north Pennines.
There are some very nice quiet roads and some great hills. Take care
though on the roads that directly connect places like Stanhope and Hexham,
Stanhop and Consett, etc as these can be narrow, winding and with lots of
dips yet they are fast with a lot of dangerous overtaking from car drivers.
Colin
--
Colin Blackburn
wrote:
> vernon levy wrote:
> The whole
>> area; Tynedale and Weardale has some great challenging roads thar are
>> quite lightly used. Looking at the road maps of the area has go my
>> yearning for a few days riding and camping in the area.
>
>
> Mmm, a possibility for Easter maybe, instead of the Dales.
If anyone is cycling in that area and they fancy stopping for a cuppa at
my place (on a small road between Blanchland and Rookhope) then just let
us know by email beforehand and if I'm in you'd be most welcome to stop
by. I should also promote the White Monk tearooms down in Blanchland as a
stop---though avoid summer weekends.
Colin
--
David Nutter
> It is a fantastic area, I'm lucky enough to live in the north Pennines.
> There are some very nice quiet roads and some great hills. Take care
> though on the roads that directly connect places like Stanhope and Hexham,
> Stanhop and Consett, etc as these can be narrow, winding and with lots of
> dips yet they are fast with a lot of dangerous overtaking from car drivers.
Also, when I was last up there, Northumbrian Water goons erecting temporary
traffic lights & digging big holes in inconvenient places.
Regards,
-david
MSeries
Yes, the second time I did C2C we took the wagonway, many riders found it
too much and walked.
--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely.
http://www.mseries.freeserve.co.uk
MSeries
Thats a kind offer. Cheeers.
Trevor Barton
> See
>
> http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/Content/News/story.asp?datetime=21+Feb+2004
> +11%3A28&tbrand=ENOnline&tCategory=NEWS&category=News&brand=ENOnline&itemi
> d=NOED21+Feb+2004+11%3A28%3A48%3A113
>
> or
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2mngt
>
> "Danger warning to speeding cyclists
I've read most of this thread and frankly I've rarely been as unimpressed
by the hypocrisy of some of the views here. Somehow it's acceptable
to exceed the speed limits or ride drunk, if you're on a bike, but not
so if you're in a car? How? If you run into a pedestrian at 35mph on
a bike you may indeed not be *as likely* to kill or seriously injure them
as you are in a car, but you are *likely* to. The only saving grace
is that you are just as *likely* to do the same to yourself in the
process.
How can you people pretend to assume the moral high ground, as many of
you do when it comes to using the road, when you display these sorts
of attitudes? Of course, there is no direct *law* that says you can't
speed on a bike, but how does that make it right? There may be relatively
few KSI as a result of being on the pedestrian end of a bike, but then
there are relatively few bikes. How can some of you argue with the
next tosspot or Smith from u.r.t than comes on here arguing that there
should be less speed cameras when you lot seem to think it's a game to
try to set them off, just because you can't be prosecuted?? What you
*are* doing is reinforcing that argument that speed cameras are only
there to restrict the freedom of motorists to drive at whatever speed
they like - because they don't apply to you, you feel you have the
right to cycle at any speed you like.
Quite frankly, all you lot are doing is reinforcing any arguments anyone
might have for legislating on bikes. There is absolutely no reason,
technical or otherwise, that bikes and bike riding can't be subject to
the same set of (speed, drink-riding) laws as motorised traffic and
drivers. There is already plenty of legislation - it would take only a
small change to require all new bikes to have a fitted, functional,
properly calibrated speedo, and be required to use it.
--
Trevor Barton
Tony Raven
>
> What's the stopping distance for a bicycle at 30mph?
About 30m (based on 0.4G deceleration) cf 23m for a car (according to the
Highway Code)
Tony
Dave Larrington
whatsoever to do with him...
--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
James Annan
>
> I've read most of this thread and frankly I've rarely been as unimpressed
> by the hypocrisy of some of the views here. Somehow it's acceptable
> to exceed the speed limits or ride drunk, if you're on a bike, but not
> so if you're in a car? How?
Same way as it's ok to exceed the speed limits on foot, or walk/run when
drunk. Unless you'd like to outlaw them too?
James
Dave Larrington
> I would be interested to know the locations of speed cameras where you
> think is safe for cyclists to exceed the camera's trigger speed...
There's one about here:
Not too much of a problem to reach the speed at which it ought to go off
when cruising merrily down the bus lane. It's never gone off for me though.
Dave Larrington
> Going up to the North Pennines in April. I reckon I should be able to
> join the 100km/h (62.14mph) club coming off Killhope Moor :-)
I managed 64.5 mph there once, but that was on a part-faired recumbent. I
reckon most bikes would top out at around 50-55. Last time I was there I
only hit 70 km/h coz it was raining. :-(
2LAP
Surely there is far too much variability in bikes to be able to give a
decent value for stopping distance even when ground conditions are the
same. Imagine stopping on an MTB with disk brakes and compare that to a
racing bike or a fixed with front brake.
--
Tony Raven
They should all be able to reach the sort of decelleration as the limit is
usually the rear wheel lifting, not the brakes not being good enough. See
Sheldon Brown on braking for chapter and verse
Tony
Dave Kahn
> Gonzalez wrote:
> > The magistrate puffed himself up and said, "NO! No! no! Mr
> > *Gonzalez*. That is quite wrong! It wasn't Carling Black Label. It
> > was Heineken.
>
> Stunner. Ive oft wondered whether I would TT faster if I
> mounted a can of guiness on the end of the aero bars.
Best to squeeze the can gently in a vice to give it an oval cross section.
--
Dave...
Tony Raven
>
> I've read most of this thread and frankly I've rarely been as unimpressed
> by the hypocrisy of some of the views here. Somehow it's acceptable
> to exceed the speed limits or ride drunk, if you're on a bike, but not
> so if you're in a car? How? If you run into a pedestrian at 35mph on
> a bike you may indeed not be *as likely* to kill or seriously injure them
> as you are in a car, but you are *likely* to. The only saving grace
> is that you are just as *likely* to do the same to yourself in the
> process.
>
I think you have well and truly grasped the wrong end of the stick. First,
doing 30mph is for most of us, hills aside, more a fantasy than reality but
its always nice to speculate and pretend. Second we are talking about matters
of law not practice. I would always advocate riding or driving at a speed
that is safe for the circumstances and that does not mean at the speed limit.
Its just that legally there is no cap on bicycle speeds giving you freedom to
go faster than the speed limit while cars are legally required not to exceed
it - provided circumstances are appropriate. Finally on your injury point, a
bicycle doing 30mph probably has the same injury potential as a car doing
10mph (based on a 100kg to 1000kg ratio) with much greater potential of
injury to the cyclist than the motorist if there were an accident.
Tony
Alan Braggins
>On 21 Feb 2004 16:40:41 GMT someone who may be
>waffly...@aol.comcomcom (dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote
>
>>"All I would say is that they would be exceptionally stupid to do those >speeds down Grapes Hill.
>
>Though he presumably thinks it fine to travel at such speeds in a
>motorised vehicle.
Is it really likely that a spokesman for the Norfolk Casualty Reduction
Partnership thinks it is fine to speed past a camera in a motorised vehicle?
David Hansen
ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote this:-
>Is it really likely that a spokesman for the Norfolk Casualty Reduction
>Partnership thinks it is fine to speed past a camera in a motorised vehicle?
The bod was complaining about cyclists doing 30mph. Presumably
thinks it fine to travel at such speeds in a motorised vehicle.
--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.
Tony Raven
> You are unlikely to exceed any speed limit on foot, and you could be
> prosecuted if your actions unjured somebody by running anyway, and it
> is illegal to be drunk in a public place, even if you are sat down.
>
But the definition of "drunk" is much more intoxicated than the alcohol limit
for driving. Or are you suggesting that people should not be out on the
streets after more than a pint or so.?
Tony
Tony Raven
> On 23 Feb 2004 13:22:07 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be
> ar...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Alan Braggins) wrote this:-
>
>> Is it really likely that a spokesman for the Norfolk Casualty Reduction
>> Partnership thinks it is fine to speed past a camera in a motorised
>> vehicle?
>
> The bod was complaining about cyclists doing 30mph. Presumably
> thinks it fine to travel at such speeds in a motorised vehicle.
I think he was complaining about them doing more than 30mph actually
Tony
Trevor Barton
Part of the discussion was about the law, but much of it was about various
people bragging about trying to set speed cameras off. If you replace
the words "bike" with "car" and "riding" with "driving" you'll get a
completely different flavour of the conversation.
I can "speculate and pretend" about driving my car at it's maximum speed
limit. Not all the conversation was about speculation, many of the
contributors were telling us how they try do set them off. You say "hills
aside", but it's on hills that most of those discussing setting off
speed cameras were trying to do it.
Even Paul Shithead does not advicate driving at a speed that *he* would
consider inappropriate for the conditions, as I believe he has said
a number of times. How many of you prople who think it's acceptable
to deliberately ride above the speed limit, just because *you* think
it's approriate for the circumstances, believe PS has the right to
drive above the speed limit when *he* thinks it's appropriate?
What's more, just because the law does not currently cap bycycle speed
limits does not make it morally defensible to knowingly break limits.
Finally, I knew someone would have to bring up the specious argument about
the injury potential of a car being so much more than that of a bike. There
are several flaws in that argument. Firstly, although their mass is
considerably different, there's a hell of a lot more pointy bits on
a bike to injure a pedestrian. Secondly, given the same distance and
speed, a car is both more likely to stop, and considerably more manoeverable
under heavy braking. Thirdly, if that argument held any merit whatsoever,
then I could just as easily argue that a Nissan Micra ought to be allowed
to travel faster under the same conditions as a Volvo estate.
So no, I don't think I have grasped the wrong end of the stick. Some
people here are quite happy to apply double standards, as long as they
are the ones on the benifiting end of their application.
--
Trevor Barton
David Martin
"Gareth A." <gar...@nospamplease-attrill.co.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:04:02 +0900, James Annan
> <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> it
> is illegal to be drunk in a public place, even if you are sat down.
No it isn't. The offence is Drunk AND disorderly. You have to be both at the
same time. Just drunk in public is not an offence. Drunk in charge of a
bicycle (or a pig, horse, cow, steam engine and so on) on the public highway
is an offence.
..d
Tony Raven
>
> Thirdly, if that argument held any merit whatsoever,
> then I could just as easily argue that a Nissan Micra ought to be allowed
> to travel faster under the same conditions as a Volvo estate.
>
It does sort of Apart from built up areas, the speed limit is graded between
trucks over 7.5tons and cars with progressively lower limits as the vehicle
gets heavier. For example on a single carriageway its 40mph for goods
vehicles over 7.5 tons, 50mph for goods vehicles under 7.5 tons, buses and
cars towing trailers, 60mph for cars and motorcyles and unlimited for bicycles
Tony
Dave Larrington
> I wonder why the camera was installed...
Seems a strange place to put one, if you ask me. I don't recall ever having
seen an accident there, whereas I /have/ encontered several further south on
that stretch of the A10.
[Not Responding]
>"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:23:43 +0000, JohnB <nos...@here.com> wrote in
>> message <40389F4F...@here.com>:
>>
>> >The police insisted I took a breath test and told me it was now
>> >Hampshire police's policy to _always_ breathalise cyclists in accidents
>> >(they also tested the van driver).
>>
>> This is, as Tny says, illegal. On the other hand, if you were sober,
>> WTF? It's another nail in the driver's coffin.
>
>I fully support the introduction of breath tests for cyclists and of
>course I had not been drinking otherwise I would not have been cycling.
>I took teh test because of the veiled threat that I wouldn't get home in
>time for tea.
>
>However, what does concern me is how such 'policies' can just be
>introduced without going through the correct legal channels. I'm sure
>that when the breath test laws were intoduced for motorists that they
>were fully debated and then enacted by Parliament.
>Yet when in comes to similar issues that relate to cyclists they can be
>called 'policies' and simply introduced by the police.
>
>OK, in this instance I agree with the policy, but the method of
>introduction I find quite unpalateable.
>
>What 'policy' will be next?
>
Earlier in this thread I was about to repeat sage advice given to me
once; never argue with a copper even if he is utterly wrong. Getting
arsey and clever nearly always ends in trouble.
But to see informal heavy handedness (and the veiled threats necessary
to get compliance) being officially sanctioned as policy is very
worrying.
On the one hand, of course, it is only policy and not law. On the
other, I know just how easy it for the police to make your life
miserable if they choose.
[Not Responding]
Reminds me of one of the ABD website pages moaning that x% of
pedestrian motor victims had more than the driving legal limit blood
alcohol.
Getting peds off the streets after 1 pint seemed to be precisely their
aim.
David Hansen
Responding]" <not_res...@dev.null.invalid> wrote this:-
>Earlier in this thread I was about to repeat sage advice given to me
>once; never argue with a copper even if he is utterly wrong. Getting
>arsey and clever nearly always ends in trouble.
Being right is not the same as "being arsey and clever". If one does
not stand up to bullies they just get worse.
James Hodson
<d.m.a....@dundee.ac.uk> wrote:
>No it isn't. The offence is Drunk AND disorderly.
I thought being drunk and incapable was the offence.
James
vernon levy
> Yes, the second time I did C2C we took the wagonway, many riders found it
> too much and walked.
>
I walked up Crawleyside, a heavily laden 12 speed bike was just too much for
a relatively recent returnee to cycling to cope with.
I must get out there again. In my feckless youth I regularly used to sleep
out in the shooting lodges with pals and several cases of ale on Stanhope
Moor and be amazed at the glow from Consett lighting up the night sky. To
have seen Consett when everything had a red tinge from the steelworks was an
experience never to be forgotten.
David Hansen
you know?" <outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote this:-
>>Or write to the Chief Constable asking whether this is policy as it does not
>>appear to have any legal authority. Then at least they might take notice >>and change policy.
>
>Who else do you think the letters would have been addressed to? ;-)
MP. I would use the line, "who makes the law, you or the officials
that are supposed to enforce it?"
David Hansen
<ju...@raven-family.com> wrote this:-
>I think he was complaining about them doing more than 30mph actually
The bod is complaining about the speed cyclists are doing down the
hill now. He also says that the camera has not yet been activated by
a cyclist. Therefore he must be complaining about them going at
30mph, or "just creeping over" that speed.
James Annan
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:04:02 +0900, James Annan
> <still_th...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> You are unlikely to exceed any speed limit on foot,
It's unlikely on a bike too. The question was, how is it acceptable?
> and you could be
> prosecuted if your actions unjured somebody by running anyway,
Same as when you are on a bike, and there is the additional 'pedalling
furiously' option for cyclists to worry about.
> and it
> is illegal to be drunk in a public place, even if you are sat down.
So drunk cycling is already illegal, but with a higher limit ('drunk'
not just over the drink-drive limit).
So it does indeed appear that cycling is more strictly controlled than
walking, and less so than driving, which seems broadly reasonable in
light of the danger it poses to others.
James
Just zis Guy, you know?
IT Services) wrote in message <c1cffp$e8m$1...@dux.dundee.ac.uk>:
>: Which camera, Sue? I might give it a try on the 'bent ;-)
> You normally come across as pro camera Guy. If this road has a bad
>accident history and it requires a camera why is it OK for you to
>cycle along there fast enough to set it off? Even if the limit doesn't
>apply to bikes surely it's still dangerous?
E=1/2mv^2.
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
Trevor Barton
> On 23 Feb 2004 09:00:41 -0000, bgfi...@dux.dundee.ac.uk (B.G. Finlay
> IT Services) wrote in message <c1cffp$e8m$1...@dux.dundee.ac.uk>:
>
>>: Which camera, Sue? I might give it a try on the 'bent ;-)
>
>> You normally come across as pro camera Guy. If this road has a bad
>>accident history and it requires a camera why is it OK for you to
>>cycle along there fast enough to set it off? Even if the limit doesn't
>>apply to bikes surely it's still dangerous?
>
> E=1/2mv^2.
No, that's specious. It assumes, unreasonably, that v is the initial
velocity when the impact occurs (ie noone braked) and also that all the
kinetic energy of the impactor is imparted to the impactee, and also
that the damage to a pedestrian is not influenced by the pointy bits
on a bike, or the relatively "pedestrian friendlier" fronts of modern
cars. Note I use the expression "pedestrian friendlier" somewhat tounge
in cheek, and in a relative, not absolute sense.
The last two points are important. In any collision between a car and
a pedestrian, most of the energy is retained by the car - witness that
the car's velocity is little affected by an impact with a pedestrian.
On the other hand, it only takes a tiny bit of that energy to injure or
kill a pedestrian. A 1 tonne car travelling at about 50kph has a KE of
about 100MJ. A 5g bullet travelling at 500m.s-1 has about 0.6MJ, and
that's certainly enough to kill you, eh? A bike travelling at 50kph
with a fat bastard on it so it weighs 100kg has about 10MJ. You work
it out.
Bikes have pointy bits. Trauma is a function of both energy and
pressure. Place 20kG on top of a flat board, lie on the floor and
put the board on your chest. Mmmm, no big deal. Now place a 6" nail
pointing downwards in the middle of the board, and do the same thing.
Oops, nice little hole in your chest.
E=1/2mv^2 is not an argument for exceeding the speed limit on a bike.
If I had a choice between being hit by a car at 20mph or a bike at
the same speed, it'd be the car any day. Well, assuming that is, I
didn't have any other choice ;) Of course, if I had the same warning
of the impact, withing bounds I'd be better off with the bike because
it's narrower and I'm more likely to be able to avoid it by jumping out
of the way, but that's *still* not an argument for knowingly speeding
on a bike.
--
Trevor Barton
DavidR
>
> If I had a choice between being hit by a car at 20mph or a bike at
> the same speed, it'd be the car any day. Well, assuming that is, I
> didn't have any other choice ;)
Even a direct hit is below the waist. Above the waist the rider must be
softer than a windscreen.
> Of course, if I had the same warning
> of the impact, withing bounds I'd be better off with the bike because
> it's narrower and I'm more likely to be able to avoid it by jumping out
> of the way,
...and the rider has more sideways room...
...and the rider has more incentive not to hit you.
Below 20mph I can outbrake any car. 30mph plus is admittedly less easy
(though at that speed I am unable to make a comparison using a flat road).
> but that's *still* not an argument for knowingly speeding
> on a bike.
True.
Graeme
news:t2jk30pdjsgs5loqb...@4ax.com:
> Getting peds off the streets after 1 pint seemed to be precisely their
> aim.
>
Yep, get them back in their cars where they belong!
Graeme
[Not Responding]
<SENDdavi...@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:42:59 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
>you know?" <outloo...@microsoft.com> wrote this:-
>
>>>Or write to the Chief Constable asking whether this is policy as it does not
>>>appear to have any legal authority. Then at least they might take notice >>and change policy.
>>
>>Who else do you think the letters would have been addressed to? ;-)
>
>MP. I would use the line, "who makes the law, you or the officials
>that are supposed to enforce it?"
Found on web, half remembered and url forgotton.
Some research on blood alcohol level of crash victims:
most drunk (on average); pedestrians,
next most drunk; car passengers,
next: car drivers,
most sober by quite a margin; cyclists.
can't find it again. Damn.
Trevor Barton
> "Trevor Barton" <t...@tmjabarton.Xplus.com> wrote
>>
>> If I had a choice between being hit by a car at 20mph or a bike at
>> the same speed, it'd be the car any day. Well, assuming that is, I
>> didn't have any other choice ;)
>
> Even a direct hit is below the waist. Above the waist the rider must be
> softer than a windscreen.
>
>> Of course, if I had the same warning
>> of the impact, withing bounds I'd be better off with the bike because
>> it's narrower and I'm more likely to be able to avoid it by jumping out
>> of the way,
>
> ...and the rider has more sideways room...
... And a hellofa lot less manoeverability ...
> ...and the rider has more incentive not to hit you.
You would do less to avoid hitting a pedestrian when in a car than
when on a bike??
> Below 20mph I can outbrake any car. 30mph plus is admittedly less easy
> (though at that speed I am unable to make a comparison using a flat road).
I'm not sure you can. Below 20mph braking times are quick either way (to
a halt) Reaction times are liable to be very very significant as they are
a fixed period irrespective of speed, ie at 70mph the reaction time is
only a small proportion of the total *time* to a halt, whereas at 20mph
they are far more significant. At 70 they make a far more significant
difference to the *distance* required to stop.
>
>> but that's *still* not an argument for knowingly speeding
>> on a bike.
>
> True.
Quite.
--
Trevor Barton
Simon Brooke
('t...@Xisotek.co.uk') wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:06:45 -0800, DavidR wrote:
>> "Trevor Barton" <t...@tmjabarton.Xplus.com> wrote
>>>
>>> If I had a choice between being hit by a car at 20mph or a bike at
>>> the same speed, it'd be the car any day. Well, assuming that is, I
>>> didn't have any other choice ;)
>>
>> Even a direct hit is below the waist. Above the waist the rider must be
>> softer than a windscreen.
>>
>>> Of course, if I had the same warning
>>> of the impact, withing bounds I'd be better off with the bike because
>>> it's narrower and I'm more likely to be able to avoid it by jumping out
>>> of the way,
>>
>> ...and the rider has more sideways room...
>
> ... And a hellofa lot less manoeverability ...
Don't think so. I'm pretty confident an average bike at 20mph can out-turn
an average car at 20mph. Certainly on my mountain bike at 20mph I can
negotiate bends I couldn't negotiate in a car at all.
Think about it, if you're leaning your bike at 45 degrees through a bend
you're sustaining 1g laterally. A bike on any reasonable surface can do
this. The number of cars which can handle a 1g turn without spinning out is
pretty limited. Maybe a Lotus Elise, but nothing less.
--
si...@jasmine.org.uk (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; in faecibus sapiens rheum propagabit
Trevor Barton
I'm sure that that is correct given sufficient warning. However I'd
suggest that you can start a car turning far faster than you can a
bike at 20 mph. You only have to turn the wheel to the side, and it
turns immediately at its maximum g.
On a bike, you have to lean and steer, and the rate of turn builds up
relatively slowly - in fact no faster than the time it takes your centre
of mass to drop (in the case of 45 degrees) to sqrt(2) of its straight
line height. If you want to retain control of the bike, it's a lot longer
than that.
It's the initial rate of turning that's the issue, not the maximum
sustainable steady state rate.
It is possible to move the wheels of a bike significantly sideways very
quickly, for example to avoid a pothole. However, in those circumstances
your centre of mass goes pretty well in a straight line, and you have
to bring the wheels back under it again pretty sharpish, or you end up
looking a bit silly.
--
Trevor Barton
James Annan
> Bikes have pointy bits.
[...]
> If I had a choice between being hit by a car at 20mph or a bike at
> the same speed, it'd be the car any day.
Then you are a fool. All this nonsense about 'pointy bits' ignores the
fact that the vast bulk of the energy/momentum is carried by the soft
squidgy rider. The 'pointy bits' will only do any real damage if they
are pushed into you by the mass of the rider, which is just about
theoretically possible but hardly a likely scenario. An impact with a
car at 20mph has a significant chance of _killing_ you.
James
James Annan
>>...and the rider has more sideways room...
>
>
> ... And a hellofa lot less manoeverability ...
>
Than a car? What planet are you on? If a pedestrian is in the middle of
the cariageway, then a car won't be able to miss them whatever it does,
whereas a bike has a choice of which side to pass on.
>>Below 20mph I can outbrake any car. 30mph plus is admittedly less easy
>>(though at that speed I am unable to make a comparison using a flat road).
>
>
> I'm not sure you can. Below 20mph braking times are quick either way (to
> a halt) Reaction times are liable to be very very significant as they are
> a fixed period irrespective of speed,
The fixed period is very different for moving a foot from accelerator to
brake, than for pulling a brake lever which is already under the fingers.
James
Trevor Barton
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>
>
>> Bikes have pointy bits.
> [...]
>> If I had a choice between being hit by a car at 20mph or a bike at
>> the same speed, it'd be the car any day.
>
> Then you are a fool.
Yeah, whatever.
Clive George
news:slrnc3mhm...@sheep.isotek.co.uk...
> I'm sure that that is correct given sufficient warning. However I'd
> suggest that you can start a car turning far faster than you can a
> bike at 20 mph. You only have to turn the wheel to the side, and it
> turns immediately at its maximum g.
>
> On a bike, you have to lean and steer, and the rate of turn builds up
> relatively slowly - in fact no faster than the time it takes your centre
> of mass to drop (in the case of 45 degrees) to sqrt(2) of its straight
> line height. If you want to retain control of the bike, it's a lot longer
> than that.
>
> It's the initial rate of turning that's the issue, not the maximum
> sustainable steady state rate.
You need to learn about countersteering and forced turns.
There's a brief mention in cyclecraft, but google is probably a better bet.
clive
Paul - xxx
When riding a 'bent, as Guy does, it is very likely that the mass of the
rider, when involved in a collision, needs to be taken into account.
Virtually all the pointy bits are very pointy and at the very front of a
'bent ... see Guys website photo's for confirmation, at the following link.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk/Web/public.nsf/Documents/Bike_Optima_Stinger?OpenDocument
IMHO, who really cares what speed cyclists actually travel at, so long as
they accept responsibilty for any outcome of their actions. Actually, apart
from the law, I guess the same could be said for vehicular drivers of any
persuasion .. ;)
--
Paul
(8(|) Homer rocks .. ;)
W K
"Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
news:2slrg1-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
> Think about it, if you're leaning your bike at 45 degrees through a bend
> you're sustaining 1g laterally.
Try 0.7g
> A bike on any reasonable surface can do
> this.
Extremely hairy.
> The number of cars which can handle a 1g turn without spinning out is
> pretty limited. Maybe a Lotus Elise, but nothing less.
what about 0.7g?
Alan Braggins
>On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:07:09 -0000 someone who may be "Tony Raven"
><ju...@raven-family.com> wrote this:-
>
>>I think he was complaining about them doing more than 30mph actually
>
>The bod is complaining about the speed cyclists are doing down the
>hill now. He also says that the camera has not yet been activated by
>a cyclist. Therefore he must be complaining about them going at
>30mph, or "just creeping over" that speed.
True. I agree with your point now.
Trevor Barton
>
> "Simon Brooke" <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:2slrg1-...@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk...
>
>> Think about it, if you're leaning your bike at 45 degrees through a bend
>> you're sustaining 1g laterally.
>
> Try 0.7g
Eh? 45 degrees is 1g down, 1G laterally, 1.4(14...)g resultant.
--
Trevor Barton
W K
I got the envelope out and you are correct.
OTOH this means a coefficient of friction of 1.
That makes it worse than an extremely hairy angle.
Where do you get 45 degrees from?
Tony Raven
>
> When riding a 'bent, as Guy does, it is very likely that the mass of the
> rider, when involved in a collision, needs to be taken into account.
> Virtually all the pointy bits are very pointy and at the very front of a
> 'bent ...
Don't forget that rotating sawblade, I mean chainwheel, stuck out the front to
deter those that might be tempted to get in the way ;-)
Tony
Trevor Barton
No, I don't. Having ridden a bike for going on 40 years, I'm well
aware of "countersteering and forced turns". Doing that is indeed
a faster way of starting a turn than simply lean and steer, but
it is still only a technique to speed up the displacement of mass
to the side of the wheels. It is *not* as fast as the immediate
effect of turning a steering wheel. But then, I'm a fool, so what
would I know?
> There's a brief mention in cyclecraft, but google is probably a better bet.
Why, thank you.
--
Trevor Barton
Trevor Barton
> Trevor Barton wrote:
>
>
>>>...and the rider has more sideways room...
>>
>>
>> ... And a hellofa lot less manoeverability ...
>>
>
> Than a car? What planet are you on? If a pedestrian is in the middle of
> the cariageway, then a car won't be able to miss them whatever it does,
> whereas a bike has a choice of which side to pass on.
Sigh. You're mistaking manoeuverability for something else. How wide is
this imaginary carriageway? Wy is the pedestrian in the middle? What
about, seeing as you like to use a single hypothetical situation, when the
pedestrian is near the edge, how many sides does the bike rider have to
go on then? What is there's a car coming the other way on the other
side of the road in this hypothetical situation, how many choices
has the bike rider then?
Oh, but of course I'm a fool, perhaps because I use the word manoeuverability
to describe how quickly a car or a bike can, err, manoeuver, rather than the
size of the gap it can fit through. Or perhaps you misunderstood because
I misspelled it?
>>>Below 20mph I can outbrake any car. 30mph plus is admittedly less easy
>>>(though at that speed I am unable to make a comparison using a flat road).
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure you can. Below 20mph braking times are quick either way (to
>> a halt) Reaction times are liable to be very very significant as they are
>> a fixed period irrespective of speed,
>
> The fixed period is very different for moving a foot from accelerator to
> brake, than for pulling a brake lever which is already under the fingers.
Is it really.
--
Trevor Barton
Just zis Guy, you know?
<t...@tmjabarton.Xplus.com> wrote in message
<slrnc3l58...@kangaroo.isotek.co.uk>:
>> E=1/2mv^2.
>No, that's specious. It assumes, unreasonably, that v is the initial
>velocity when the impact occurs (ie noone braked)
Not as such: both vehicles have brakes. It assumes that either
vehicle will have braked by the same amount (reasonable in the case of
my recumbent, which has Very Powerful Brakes). Use of the brakes by
the driver of a vehicle may also be influenced by the potential harm
to that driver in the event of a crash.
>and also that all the
>kinetic energy of the impactor is imparted to the impactee,
Not as such: conservation of momentum applies. In the case of the car
the vast disparity in mass is such that the velocity of both impactor
and impactee after collision is approximately the same as the mass of
the impactor beforehand; with a cyclist, mass being of the same order
of magnitude as the impactee, the acceleration applied to the impactee
will be lower, so injuries less likely to be serious.
Child pedestrians hospitalised due to collision with pedal cycles in
2002-2003: 105. Child pedestrians hospitalised due to collision with
cars in 2002-2003: 2,826.
>and also
>that the damage to a pedestrian is not influenced by the pointy bits
>on a bike, or the relatively "pedestrian friendlier" fronts of modern
>cars. Note I use the expression "pedestrian friendlier" somewhat tounge
>in cheek, and in a relative, not absolute sense.
Not as such: the car has a bumper at below knee height which
accelerates the upper body and head downward towards the bonnet. The
cyclist is more likely to strike a glancing blow (being much narrower)
>The last two points are important. In any collision between a car and
>a pedestrian, most of the energy is retained by the car - witness that
>the car's velocity is little affected by an impact with a pedestrian.
Not as such: conservation of momentum applies. As above, the
pedestrian will experience much more severe acceleration in collision
with the car.
>On the other hand, it only takes a tiny bit of that energy to injure or
>kill a pedestrian. A 1 tonne car travelling at about 50kph has a KE of
>about 100MJ. A 5g bullet travelling at 500m.s-1 has about 0.6MJ, and
>that's certainly enough to kill you, eh?
Logical flaw. There is a substantial difference between penetrating
bullets and blunt trauma.
>A bike travelling at 50kph
>with a fat bastard on it so it weighs 100kg has about 10MJ. You work
>it out.
Not as such: a car plus driver weighs about 15 times as much as a
cyclist plus bike, and is much wider, making collision more likely.
>Bikes have pointy bits. Trauma is a function of both energy and
>pressure. Place 20kG on top of a flat board, lie on the floor and
>put the board on your chest. Mmmm, no big deal. Now place a 6" nail
>pointing downwards in the middle of the board, and do the same thing.
>Oops, nice little hole in your chest.
Not as such: no bike I know of has pointy nail-like bits. At worst
you'll get a cut fromt he chainring, like I got when I ws run off the
road by Captain Clueless. Such cuts are rarely fatal.
>E=1/2mv^2 is not an argument for exceeding the speed limit on a bike.
Not as such: It is an argument for there being no speed limit to
exceed on a bike.
>If I had a choice between being hit by a car at 20mph or a bike at
>the same speed, it'd be the car any day.
Really? Very strange.
>Well, assuming that is, I
>didn't have any other choice ;) Of course, if I had the same warning
>of the impact, withing bounds I'd be better off with the bike because
>it's narrower and I'm more likely to be able to avoid it by jumping out
>of the way,
Give the man a peanut.
>but that's *still* not an argument for knowingly speeding
>on a bike.
No argument necessary: one cannot speed on a bike. The offence does
not exist.
Paul - xxx
Yup, and probably far less 'pedestrian friendly', if ever in a
vehicle/pedestrian collision, than the large flat bits of metal and plastic
that adorn the front of my 4 x 4 ... which seems to be one of the main
arguments bandied about regarding my main mode of family transport .. ;)
Clive George
news:9i8n309cushtusi9f...@4ax.com...
> Child pedestrians hospitalised due to collision with pedal cycles in
> 2002-2003: 105. Child pedestrians hospitalised due to collision with
> cars in 2002-2003: 2,826.
Those numbers don't look right to me. If they are right, then bikes are more
dangerous than cars.
cheers,
clive
James Annan
>
> Oh, but of course I'm a fool, perhaps because I use the word manoeuverability
> to describe how quickly a car or a bike can, err, manoeuver, rather than the
> size of the gap it can fit through. Or perhaps you misunderstood because
> I misspelled it?
The point is that the bike only has to manoeuver a few inches to avoid a
direct hit or a foot for a complete miss. That's barely a twitch of the
handlebars. A car driver has to wind the steering wheel around
laboriously to manage anything more than a gentle turn, and they have to
move the car several feet laterally to avoid a direct impact.
>>
>>The fixed period is very different for moving a foot from accelerator to
>>brake, than for pulling a brake lever which is already under the fingers.
>
>
> Is it really.
You don't really doubt this do you?
James
Just zis Guy, you know?
<t...@tmjabarton.Xplus.com> wrote in message
<slrnc3n83...@kangaroo.isotek.co.uk>:
>You're mistaking manoeuverability for something else.
I can't make my car move sideways by its entire width just by shifting
my body.
Just zis Guy, you know?
<cl...@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
<c1ga1v$ca8$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>:
>Those numbers don't look right to me. If they are right, then bikes are more
>dangerous than cars.
They are right, but remember that they include all children injured by
all bikes everywhere, while cars are mainly to be found on the road.
DavidR
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 01:06:45 -0800, DavidR wrote:
> > "Trevor Barton" <t...@tmjabarton.Xplus.com> wrote
> >> If I had a choice between being hit by a car at 20mph or a bike at
> >> the same speed, it'd be the car any day. Well, assuming that is, I
> >> didn't have any other choice ;)
> >
> > Even a direct hit is below the waist. Above the waist the rider must be
> > softer than a windscreen.
> >
> >> Of course, if I had the same warning
> >> of the impact, withing bounds I'd be better off with the bike because
> >> it's narrower and I'm more likely to be able to avoid it by jumping out
> >> of the way,
> >
> > ...and the rider has more sideways room...
>
> ... And a hellofa lot less manoeverability ...
Come again?
> > ...and the rider has more incentive not to hit you.
>
> You would do less to avoid hitting a pedestrian when in a car than
> when on a bike??
Who can tell? Although I have had a few "near pedestrian events" on the
bike, I cannot recall of any within the last 25 years whilst driving.
A recent experience was that I was approaching two student age women waiting
on the edge of the pavement. I moved to right of centre lane and mentally
prepared myself. They stepped off, I went for the brakes. One stopped while
the other continued so I steered between them (that space & maneouvreability
thing) . There was no possibility of stopping in time and certainly no space
to fit a car.
> > Below 20mph I can outbrake any car. 30mph plus is admittedly less easy
> > (though at that speed I am unable to make a comparison using a flat
> > road).
>
> I'm not sure you can.
Oh I can.
> Below 20mph braking times are quick either way (to
> a halt) Reaction times are liable to be very very significant as they are
> a fixed period irrespective of speed, ie at 70mph the reaction time is
> only a small proportion of the total *time* to a halt, whereas at 20mph
> they are far more significant. At 70 they make a far more significant
> difference to the *distance* required to stop.
Reaction time includes thought, hand or foot movement and vehicle brake lag.
The latter two are much, much faster on a bike. The bike can shed a couple
mph before the car has even started..
dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers
>my body.
>
>Guy
You need to consume more Big Mac type food, Guy ;-)
Cheers, helen s
--This is an invalid email address to avoid spam--
to get correct one remove dependency on fame & fortune
h*$el*$$e**nd***$o$ts***i*$*$m**m$$o*n**s@$*$a$$o**l.c**$*$om$$