20th April 2024, 10:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 20th April 2024, 10:08 PM by Master Raiden. Edited 2 times in total.)
@Uptight 534 Woah, that was a good response.
I don't really agree with the relative speed argument. I think the absolute speed difference is more important here.
A madman going 150 mph on a highway with a 60 mph speed limit is only 2.5x faster, but it is probably way more dangerous and any accident would likely result in a fatality.
Also about the reaction time, that also depends on absolute speed difference. Your vision is not limited by how slow you or the other person is going, so cyclists actually have more time to react to pedestrians than a car does to a cyclist.
In your example, the cyclist would be gaining on the pedestrian at 15-3=12 mph while a car would be gaining on a cyclist at 45-15=30 mph. So the cyclist has 2.5x longer to react to a pedestrian from the same distance.
I don't agree with narrowing roads. That just makes everything more dangerous. The penalties associated with breaking laws should deter people from speeding. Wider roads are much safer than narrow ones because they offer greater visibility and more room for error if an evasive maneuver is required.
I think, ultimately, everyone here agrees that things going at very different speeds should be separated. Pedestrians should ideally be separated from cyclists, and cyclists should ideally be separated from cars/trucks/buses.
(20th April 2024, 3:06 PM)Uptight 534 Wrote: Also cyclists travel way faster than pedestrians in relative speed (i.e., "bike vs pedestrian speed" is greater than "car vs bike" speed. Using the high end of the average walking speed of 4 MPH (6 KMH) and the low end of the average cycling speed of 12 MPH (19 KMH), we see that cycling is 3 times faster than walking. Let's take an average speed limit in a residential area of 35 mph (56 KMH) (chose this because from the table and personal experience, this seems to be the "average") and compare it to 12 MPH (19 KMH). The motorist is only 2.9 times faster than the cyclist, which is less than "Cyclist vs Pedestrian."
I don't really agree with the relative speed argument. I think the absolute speed difference is more important here.
A madman going 150 mph on a highway with a 60 mph speed limit is only 2.5x faster, but it is probably way more dangerous and any accident would likely result in a fatality.
(20th April 2024, 3:06 PM)Uptight 534 Wrote: FWIW, a 45 MPH (72 KMH) and 15 MPH (24 KMH) difference is 3 times and 15 MPH (24 KMH) vs 3 MPH (5 KMH) is 5 times. Bringing that walking speed down by one value really shows cycling on the sidewalk is more dangerous due to the "relative speed" difference (i.e., less time for people to react).
Also about the reaction time, that also depends on absolute speed difference. Your vision is not limited by how slow you or the other person is going, so cyclists actually have more time to react to pedestrians than a car does to a cyclist.
In your example, the cyclist would be gaining on the pedestrian at 15-3=12 mph while a car would be gaining on a cyclist at 45-15=30 mph. So the cyclist has 2.5x longer to react to a pedestrian from the same distance.
(20th April 2024, 3:06 PM)Uptight 534 Wrote: I find it weird you want more safety, but also advocating for removing painted bike lanes and making roads wider in downtowns for vehicles. Shouldn't we be keeping roads narrow to deter speeding, which will increase reaction time and decrease the severity of incidents?
I don't agree with narrowing roads. That just makes everything more dangerous. The penalties associated with breaking laws should deter people from speeding. Wider roads are much safer than narrow ones because they offer greater visibility and more room for error if an evasive maneuver is required.
I think, ultimately, everyone here agrees that things going at very different speeds should be separated. Pedestrians should ideally be separated from cyclists, and cyclists should ideally be separated from cars/trucks/buses.
![[Image: q2GRKUL.png]](https://i.imgur.com/q2GRKUL.png)