[photosbymark]

Well a lot can be said for being a good neighbor and sharing the road. But this thread isn't about how you feel. It is about calmly assessing a risk before you are in a situation where emotion can take over, and making decisions before the high emotion can make for a bad decision.

This principle is the exact reason the airlines have manuals for just about everything a pilot will have to do in his or her career and have strict procedures on what to do should X or Y happen. It is plain that when X happens do this, and its almost always the right one. It has been considered carefully, talked out by many as to what works and why, and then blessed by the powers that be. Now if situation X has something that makes another decision prudent, then the pilot has the authority to deviate, but they decision made without stress in a calm and considered environment is most often the correct one.

There can be legitimate disagreement as to what is the best choice for you as to whether you would rather be passed or go faster. You have to consider worst case, best case, most practical, conditions and a host of other variables. If someone made the decision that they were safer at the same speed as the traffic in the dry, would they still consider that decision the right one in a sprinkle? Would it change in a steady rain or a real downpour??

An old saying from my past career. If you don't manage the risks, they will manage you and that can hurt big time or not hurt at all. ie 6 feet under

[fleeter]

Originally Posted by photosbymark

Well a lot can be said for being a good neighbor and sharing the road. But this thread isn't about how you feel. It is about calmly assessing a risk before you are in a situation where emotion can take over, and making decisions before the high emotion can make for a bad decision.

This principle is the exact reason the airlines have manuals for just about everything a pilot will have to do in his or her career and have strict procedures on what to do should X or Y happen. It is plain that when X happens do this, and its almost always the right one. It has been considered carefully, talked out by many as to what works and why, and then blessed by the powers that be. Now if situation X has something that makes another decision prudent, then the pilot has the authority to deviate, but they decision made without stress in a calm and considered environment is most often the correct one.

There can be legitimate disagreement as to what is the best choice for you as to whether you would rather be passed or go faster. You have to consider worst case, best case, most practical, conditions and a host of other variables. If someone made the decision that they were safer at the same speed as the traffic in the dry, would they still consider that decision the right one in a sprinkle? Would it change in a steady rain or a real downpour??

An old saying from my past career. If you don't manage the risks, they will manage you and that can hurt big time or not hurt at all. ie 6 feet under

I completely agree. I think you are correct that everybody needs to consider the risks and possible outcomes, however, I think that it needs to be on a case-by-case basis.

Since this is an international forum, and peoples' experiences differ greatly, it's hard to come to a common consensus on an issue that is determined primarily by local practices and trends (and for that matter, can differ widely on your planned route to ride).

Now, I'm not trying to argue for argument's sake, I just wanted to put in my .02 on how I think an issue like this should be determined locally.

[LawMan]

Originally Posted by DrkAngel

Faster is Safer!
My Sister-in-Law just can't understand, why I feel that going faster, on a bicycle, is safer. "30 mph!" ... "You're gonna kill your self!". ...

I feel it necessary to prove that faster is safer. Let me try a mathematical approach.

First, let me qualify;
1. My riding is in an urban area and 95% of the streets-roads are 30 mph limit.
2. I ride on the right side of the road, going "with traffic", as is the legal method.

For ease of math - Let's figure a 10 mile trip, w/traffic @ 10 cars per minute.

At 10 mph -
60min x 10cars - 1/3 (for 1/3 speed of cars) = 400 cars passing you at 20mph.

At 20 mph -
30min x 10cars - 2/3 (for 2/3 speed of cars) = 100 cars passing you at 10mph.
AND, cars have twice the time to notice, and avoid, you!

At 30 mph -
20min x 10cars - 3/3 (for 3/3 speed of cars) = 0 cars passing you!

(Math is simplified - but "sound")

If you concede that most urban bike accidents are directly related to passing cars, then 20 mph would be (4 times safer than 10 mph) x (twice the time the, approaching, driver has to see biker) = 8 times safer @ 20 mph, compared to 10 mph!

A__hole factor! Everyone might agree that, possibly, 1 in 100 motorists are AHs toward bicyclists, (Conservative Estimate!), Going 10 mph you'll get passed by 4, only 1 @ 20 mph and at 30 mph you might never encounter 1.

EZip Engineering 101

WOW! I never realized that speed made such a difference!

Mind if I use your info to help get some upgrades approved?

[DrkAngel]

My entire thesis on the "Math of Speed" is based on the assumption that I can handle anything that shows up in front of me. I religiously keep my bikes, and myself, in best possible condition & tuned up.

No! I do not rely solely on myself. Being seen, and communicating intentions to others. is of great importance. My bikes are equipped with tail light, brake light, turn signals, Bright - Strobe headlight, with additional flashy red light on back of hat. Also in the development stage is a helmet with additional front Headlight-Strobe, to join, mounted rear flashy light and rear view mirror.

My addiction to Speed is for the purpose of minimizing the one factor that I have no control over ... passing vehicles and their drivers. As shown by my math, in my typical travels, this hazard is reduced by almost 90% by increasing speed, from 10 mph, to 20 mph.

For comparison purposes ...
That translates to an "incident", every year, compared to, once in a decade!

EZip Engineering 101

[BlazingPedals]

I'm not arguing for or against speed, but I should point out that your math only allows for hit-from-behind accidents. Only about 1 in 7 are of that type; most are right-hooks, left crosses, or cars coming out of a side street.

[funetical]

Originally Posted by BlazingPedals

I'm not arguing for or against speed, but I should point out that your math only allows for hit-from-behind accidents. Only about 1 in 7 are of that type; most are right-hooks, left crosses, or cars coming out of a side street.

I can attest to this.

[photosbymark]

Originally Posted by Grape Ape

No no no you have it backwards. They are traveling the same direction. So the net vehicle/bike impact speed is equal to the speed of the car - the speed of the bike. So bike going 10 mph and car going 30 impact speed is 20 mph. Bike going 20, car going 30 impact speed is 10. The issue here is that you on the bike should have swerved and went around the car.

Now the bad part is that if the car speed is above the bike speed then the vehicle/bike impact speed starts going up. If the bike is going 30 and car is going 50 then you are back into the 20mph impact speed but now you have the issue of 20 mph vehicle/bike net impact speed and the sudden bike acceleration issue then the bike road impact speed which will be close to initial vehicle impact speed . So if you are on a bike going 30 and get hit by a vehicle going 50 the vehicle impact is 20 mph and the ground impact is 50. So it will hurt just a little bit.

Now it may sound like a good deal but in truth the following is the worst possible scenario. Bike is going 30 mph car is going in the same direction at 30 mph. They hit each other. It sounds like it is a good deal but it is not. Such an accident will rip the space time continuum. The bike and vehicle will meld into a weird conglomeration of carbon fiber and hydroformed steel. Behind them a large black hole will form and start the implosion of the entire universe. Now if the conglomeration vehicle maintains a constant speed that is equal to the speed of the accident then the universe's implosion will occur at a time equal to actual time of the current universe's doom. If they slow down then the time for destruction will be in proportion to the loss of speed. Slower they go the faster the universe implodes. The only hope is for an increase in speed. Such an increase will lead time to reverse. The reversal will back time up to the point of the meld and the 1 will again be 2 and the wreck can be avoided to save the universe. So remember if it ever happens to you Stand up and crank up the speed.

At least I think how all that stuff works.

Well that is the closing rate, but NOT the impact speed. There will be a speed difference of 10 mph in the example, but your injuries won't be the injuries of a 10mph crash. The 30 mph car will hit the 20 mph bike and a couple of things are going to happen, neither of which is going to bring you a stop. First you are still going 20 and Mr. Newton say an object in motion will remain in motion in a steady state, unless acted upon by an outside force. That force is the impact with the car and you are likely to accelerate. Not only is your body already going 20, the car hitting you is going to cause you to speed up whether you are on the bike or not. Add to the equation the force of the impact of the collision of the car and it gets worse. You may not accelerate to the 30mph of the car, but I bet you will hurt bad enough to swear that you did. The type of hit will determine just how much speed is transferred from the car to the bike rider, but one thing is for sure. You won't slow down below 20 until like Mr. Newton say you are acted on again by another outside force. Translate that to you hit something. Then you stop.

The graph was interesting. How often do we actually ride a bike below 10mph?? Now closing rate is something to consider. F1 at one time had a rule that you had to be with in 107% of the pole speed to make the race to keep the closure rates for the slow cars down and get the moving chiccanes off track. Nascar has had problems like that at times.

You can assess the risk for yourself, but the faster you go the harder you hit. How you feel has nothing to do with that. Now with that fact in mind, how fast do you want to go?

[DrkAngel]

Any direct impact by a car will, (almost), instantly accelerate a biker to, (very near), the vehicle speed, regardless of biker speed, or direction.

Math based on rear impact, at various speeds

C=Car
B=Biker

3000lb C (30mph) vs 150lb B (stationary) = 30mph impact = 28.5mph result
Initial impact comparable to fall from roof of 3 story building, onto hard car
Damage=probable broken bones, severe internal & head injuries etc.

3000lb C (30mph) vs 150lb B (10mph) = 20mph impact = 29mph result
Initial impact comparable to fall from roof of 2 story building.
Damage=possible breaks, internal injuries, concussion etc.

3000lb C (30mph) vs 150lb B (20mph) = 10mph impact = 29.5mph result
Initial impact comparable to fall from roof of 1 story building.
Damage=possible sprains, bruises etc.

"Result" speed is for car & biker both.

EZip Engineering 101

[DrkAngel]

Sorry! ... slow connection ... accidental multiples. Is there any way to delete messages?
:<( ... ?

3000lb car @30mph could be completely stopped by head on collision with 150lb biker @600mph, (near Mach1)!

Sorry, ... got carried away by math, it can be fun, ... maybe not for that biker tho ...

EZip Engineering 101

[Chris516]

Originally Posted by DrkAngel

Faster is Safer!
My Sister-in-Law just can't understand, why I feel that going faster, on a bicycle, is safer. "30 mph!" ... "You're gonna kill your self!". ...

I feel it necessary to prove that faster is safer. Let me try a mathematical approach.

First, let me qualify;
1. My riding is in an urban area and 95% of the streets-roads are 30 mph limit.
2. I ride on the right side of the road, going "with traffic", as is the legal method.

For ease of math - Let's figure a 10 mile trip, w/traffic @ 10 cars per minute.

At 10 mph -
60min x 10cars - 1/3 (for 1/3 speed of cars) = 400 cars passing you at 20mph.

At 20 mph -
30min x 10cars - 2/3 (for 2/3 speed of cars) = 100 cars passing you at 10mph.
AND, cars have twice the time to notice, and avoid, you!

At 30 mph -
20min x 10cars - 3/3 (for 3/3 speed of cars) = 0 cars passing you!

(Math is simplified - but "sound")

If you concede that most urban bike accidents are directly related to passing cars, then 20 mph would be (4 times safer than 10 mph) x (twice the time the, approaching, driver has to see biker) = 8 times safer @ 20 mph, compared to 10 mph!

A__hole factor! Everyone might agree that, possibly, 1 in 100 motorists are AHs toward bicyclists, (Conservative Estimate!), Going 10 mph you'll get passed by 4, only 1 @ 20 mph and at 30 mph you might never encounter 1.

EZip Engineering 101

I agree 100%!!