CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
Given the very real situation we are in with regard to climate change and pollution, shouldn't we lower speed limits in order to reduce this
If I remember correctly, the 1973 oil crisis brought about the mandatory 55mph limit in the USA. But an oil embargo was instant; climate change is gradual bordering on imperceptible, and humans are legendarily poor at long term planning.
@ glasgow megasnake
The is a simple reason that speeding is not a taboo: done responsibly, it's absolutely fine.
It's absolutely fine ... until it isn't fine.
Even if you speed regularly, the chance of being in a catastrophic accident is low, so drivers assume it's not dangerous.
In reality, what they're doing each time they speed is buying a ticket in the crash lottery.
The fact their numbers haven't come up yet - and are unlikely to ever come up - doesn't change the fact it's not safe.
Stickman quoted the relevant stat: "Drivers who speed 20% of the time increase their risk of having an accident by 87%."
Just because that 1.87 is 1.87 x a very low number doesn't change the obvious correlation between speeding and crashes.
@gibbo: and when you have tens of millions of drivers speeding then it becomes certain that *someone* wins that lucky speeding crash lottery ticket every day.
I'd argue that many riders here like speed as a sensation or Strava stat.
Few boast of their journey being more comfortable - although with 'civilised' upright city bikes it's hard doing over 20mph.
Add in (legal) electric assist and you max at 16 without using your own unassisted energy or gravity.
Interestingly EV owners seem quite relaxed about slow travel. For them the A9 from Edin to Inverness could take 5 hours with a wee break to recharge car and driver.
Since av speed cameras went on A9 accidents have decreased too. Slow moving and fast moving vehicles don't mix so think that was right decision.
@stickman
and when you have tens of millions of drivers speeding then it becomes certain that *someone* wins that lucky speeding crash lottery ticket every day.
Multiple winners each day. Never a rollover.
In Thinking Fast and Slow (which everyone should read) there was something about how if we take a risky decision and it works out, we then completely lose sight of the fact that it was a risk in the first place. We never notice the near misses
"In Thinking Fast and Slow (which everyone should read)"
+1
I would go further, and suggest that people who knowingly speed do so again because of the psychological reward. If you break a rule on purpose, and there is no negative result, meaning you got away with it, the implicit reward means you feel a tiny bit better than you did before. You're beating the system, sticking it to the man, or something like that.
And if it is easy the first time, it will probably be easy the second time, and the third time, and the fourth time. The cumulative effect of tiny rewards is to embed behaviour that diverges from the original expected behaviour. Speeding, swearing at cyclists, driving through red lights.
When you reach the 853rd time, and you're speeding as usual, your expectation is for there to be no repercussion. Then a child runs out in front when you happen to be looking down at the phone and you realise your foot is caught under the brake pedal.
Even if you speed regularly, the chance of being in a catastrophic accident is low, so drivers assume it's not dangerous.
In reality, what they're doing each time they speed is buying a ticket in the crash lottery.
The fact their numbers haven't come up yet - and are unlikely to ever come up - doesn't change the fact it's not safe.
But surely on that basis you wouldn't eat chicken for dinner on the grounds that hundreds of people worldwide choke to death on the bones, but it would be ok to deliberately go skydiving without a parachute because hardly anybody does that so you only get one or two casualties a year.
Something that has a low risk of happening but when it does, has catastrophic results, isn't necessarily considered 'dangerous'. I might decide to go for a walk, but the risk of being hit by a meteorite doesn't make my actions reckless.
@stiltskin - the question is whose life is put at risk by your actions in each of those scenarios and when you choose to speed?
Close passes don't often kill cyclists; are you happy that drivers continue to close pass you on that basis?
Close passes don't often kill cyclists; are you happy that drivers continue to close pass you on that basis?
Interesting question: No I don't like close passes. On the other hand I also see a lot of people posting on the internet saying that the risks to cyclists are grossly over-exaggerated in the public mind and that cycling is in fact a very safe activity. This concentration on the dangers of cycling unecessarily puts people off. Ultimately I don't think cycling is 'dangerous' othewise I wouldn't have ridden 100,000-odd miles.
Incidentally, I'm not defending or condoning speeding. I am trying to answer the question the article in the OP poses: All I'm saying is that if your argument is that, if driving down a particular road, my chances of having an accident change from 1:50,000 to 1:30,000 it isn't terribly hard to see why most people wouldn't regard that as a terrible sin.
(Edit) - I guess the point is who is taking on the risk and whether they are doing so willingly.
@stiltskin, the close pass vs speeding thing is about perceived danger. A motorist in a modern car is very insulated, and feels subjectively safe. There are oodles of safety devices and features to make the motorist feel safe. The cyclist is not insulated from the outside world and thus feels less safe. The statistical probability of a collision has naff all to do with feelings.
Similarly, the subjective feeling of safety might make people more inclined to take risks (cf. helmet debate). Also it might make people less considerate of the safety of others: if they feel safe, they might assume their behaviour does not pose a danger to others even when doing something inherently risky like speeding, overtaking on blind corners, close passes, jumping red lights, etc.
Glasgow Megasnake I think you were looking for the ABD forum and found this one by mistake
Well there was the 50 mph cycle thread before would tend to think similar thinking to see if can do 50 mph on bike to see what can be done etc or if someone was seeing what could be done in car on motorway neither ideal for safety possibly.
@Calum, I think it was already found, as the poster appeared to quote/paraphrase liberally from this:
Let's be open to debate the issues without making it personal...
I'll freely admit that a younger version of myself shared @GM's view and I believe it to be a fairly prevalent opinion.
The question from the article is why isn't speeding taboo (in our society). I think the view shared helps us understand why a lot people think that it isn't a problem.
Doesn't mean we have to agree with that view. Life would be boring if we all thought the same...
I agree about perceived risk: When I am walking on the NEPN I don't like close passes from cyclists. Surely the logical progression for this is to have a speed limit on cycle paths and mandatory speed indicating devices on bikes?
The point I think I'm making here is that it should be possible (& indeed normal)to drive a car without referring to a speedo. I accept that you have to have speed limits, but ultimately that isn't what is keeping you and those around you safe. When Alliston killed the pedestrian in Old Street, it was taken that he was riding too fast. People weren't suggesting he was exceeding a speed limit or had any way of knowing if he had.
What are the panel's views on riding faster than 20mph on a bike in a 20mph limit. Obviously not illegal, but are there any taboos about that?
I haven't got time to write a long reply now (going out for a drive ;)), but just wanted to say I like driving and I like cycling. I try to do both safely and considerately. I don't think that sometimes breaking the speed limit is inconsistent with this.
Iirc only ~7% of RTAs have inappropriate/excessive (not necessarily illegal) speed as a contributory factor. I think there are bigger areas of driver behaviour that I would rather were taboos before speeding was. Personal opinion.
As I said before, just exploring why speeding isn't a taboo rather than arguing for it.
I've never seen the advanced driving page before...
I am very interested in other opinions about this and think it's a good and important debate. I hope to come away with an improved understanding of my own and other's thinking. Maybe I will even change my mind. I wrote this last paragraph just to address (what I saw as a gentle) the implication that I'm here to troll - i'm not! (Ok, maybe the comment about going out for a drive at the beginning of this post was pushing it a bit).
I 'know' that cycling a reclined bike at above 20mph is considered very anti-social as it is a 'less visible' vehicle. This probably applies to 'proper' bikes too but people are less likely to comment.
Each interest group castigates the other.
Drivers vs Cyclists vs Non-Conformist Cyclists
I don't have speedo on bike but I can see cars behind and know they are likely to be seeing 20mph+ if I am on 50 to 11 gearing.
If I am around dogs and children in park I would slow up though.
We are all full of contradictions and appreciate that @GM and other forumers genuinely want to debate this.
@glasgow megasnake - Contributory factors are regarded as the least reliable part of accident stats amongst road safety professionals. Even so, travelling too fast for the conditions or exceeding the speed limit was reported in 23% of fatal accidents (Reported Road Casualties Scotland 2016).
Some bad drivers like to pretend that speeding isn't that dangerous, and that accident rates don't really go down when speed limits are better enforced.
Other driver/rider error factors were reported in more crashes, but many of these errors would be less likely to lead to a crash if the driver/rider hadn't been trying to go as fast as they were.
(The A in abd doesn't stand for advanced.)
A more nuanced view from the IAM (the people who base their advanced driving on the police Roadcraft handbook). Not to be confused with abd who appear to be thinly disguised speed junkies for whom 'balance' is something you use when getting in and out of your car.
There's a lot to be said for smart limits, because if people obey them, they really help, but many drivers don't seem to appreciate they are there for safety and also to help reduce journey time by smoothing out congestion.
Sadly, in the UK, watch the behaviour of drivers entering a temporary 40mph limit indicated on a motorway gantry if they think there aren't any speed cameras around.
Even so, travelling too fast for the conditions or exceeding the speed limit was reported in 23% of fatal accidents.”
A bit of a rubbish stat to mix the 2 as cannot isolate, what if they added traveling too fast or speeding or wearing a hat. Would hats become taboo.
Hypothetically it may be speeding did not cause the death, or wearing a hat, it may be someone took a bend in a 30mph limit, travelling at 40mph and drove in to tree where the bend could not be taken above 20 mph, driving in an old mini which would have killed the driver at 30 mph or 40 mph.
Old Minis corner like they're on rails, so it would've taken the bend.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts