CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh

20 mph in South Edin - call Kaye tomorrow?

(45 posts)

No tags yet.


  1. SRD
    Moderator

    Random request from BBC radio Scotland for the Call Kaye show tomorrow in case anyone is interested (if so contact Emma at emma.clifford1@bbc.co.uk)

    As I mentioned, we’re asking the listeners - should all residential areas have a 20mph speed restriction?

    Obviously, Edinburgh recently became the first Scottish city to trial a 20mph zone over a whole area, spending £100k to slow motorists down. The Scottish Government says it hopes to use this trial to encourage other local authorities across Scotland to consider wider use of these zones.

    We’d like to speak to someone in Edinburgh about the new speed restrictions.
    Perhaps, they feel more comfortable with their kids out playing – or maybe they find it frustrating as a driver?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  2. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    Thanks. I hope it starts with the basics: a car travelling at 40mph has four times as much kinetic energy as a car travelling at 20mph, even though it is travelling only twice as fast (from the Cambridge Cycling Campaign) and that every caller takes that in. Not sure I'm the best person to call in with that as I'm no mathematician.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  3. Uberuce
    Member

    The telling one is that your entire braking distance at 20mph is the same as the distance it takes to go from 30 to 26mph.

    Hope this source is right.

    http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/speedscience.htm

    Posted 12 years ago #
  4. "Edinburgh recently became the first Scottish city to trial a 20mph zone over a whole area..."

    Which 'whole area' is that then Call Kaye? Are thos e'whole areas' save for streets that are 'important'?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  5. chdot
    Admin

    "I'm no mathematician"

    It's to do with squaring

    2x as fast 4x energy

    3x as fast 9x energy

    Posted 12 years ago #
  6. "Hope this source is right."

    My initial thought is... hmmmm.... (though a lot of that comes from having read some of Brake's stuff before. A lot is good, but like a counter to the IAM which has a lot of good stuff, they slip in some daft stuff).

    From a purely practical point of view they say the stopping distance from 20mph is 40ft; they say the stopping distance for 30mph is 75ft. Now if the entire 20mph stopping distance is the same as for 30-26mph then that leaves 35ft for the remaining 26mph to be scrubbed off, which is 5ft less than they say it takes to stop from 20mph...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  7. Ah, they're factoring in 10ft thinking time per 10mph above 20mph (with 10ft thinking time for 20mph).

    Posted 12 years ago #
  8. cb
    Member

    I'm sure some callers will also claim that 20mph zones increase fuel consumption. but the (German) study referenced here found the opposite:

    http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/Press/0212_Summary_of_arguments%20_for_20mph_updated%200812.pdf

    Posted 12 years ago #
  9. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    chdot: "It's to do with squaring"

    So a car at 30mph has 2.25 times the kinetic energy of a car going at 20mph?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  10. chdot
    Admin

    "I'm no mathematician"

    Yes.

    Speed kills.

    Or maybe it's the kinetic energy.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  11. steveo
    Member


    So the energy of a solid object is equal to half its mass (weight) multiplied by the square of its velocity.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  12. steveo
    Member

    Speed kills.

    Speeds fine, abrupt changes in velocity kills.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  13. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    So if that was graphed would it produce an exponential curve? And is that why it's impossible to reach the speed of light with a high-mass object? And does that account for the square in e=mc²?(Sorry to digress but I find this quite intesting).

    Posted 12 years ago #
  14. Darkerside
    Member

    Impossible to reach the speed of light with an any mass object. Stuff gets all excitingly relativistic around the speed of light anyway, so the regular Newtonian laws of motion (from which the KE one above is derived) don't hold.

    (Didn't check with Google so i might be spouting nonsense, but I'm reasonably confident I can still remember my A-Level physics...)

    Posted 12 years ago #
  15. amir
    Member

    "I'm no mathematician"

    Physics rather than maths (though some would say that physics is an application of maths).

    Posted 12 years ago #
  16. Darkerside
    Member

    And not quite on the exponential growth bit - it would display quadratic growth (ie something to the power two), but not exponential. Both are 'convex' functions (ie increasing by amounts that go up each step), but exponential is more dramatic.

    See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Exponential.svg, and pretend that the scale from 0-10 is velocity (ignore the vertical scale).

    Kinetic energy would be a line below the blue one, but of similar-ish shape. If it increased, exponentially with speed, it would be more like the green one.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  17. steveo
    Member

    Newtonian laws of motion (from which the KE one above is derived) don't hold.

    Though I'd say they're quite sufficient at the speed I travel :D

    And does that account for the square in e=mc²?(Sorry to digress but I find this quite intesting).

    I think so but I'm no physicist. C is the speed of light.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  18. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    Thanks for the explanation and the links to the graphs. I would have called those curves concave, like the climb up to Redstone Rig.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  19. Darkerside
    Member

    Having quickly checked my facts, exciting maths starts:

    Near the speed of light ('c') the KE equation above doesn't work, you need to use special relativity alternatives. This is because as you get close to c, time and distance start to do peculiar things, like slowing down. The energy of something of mass m travelling quickly at speed 'v' includes something called the Lorentz factor. If we cancel it out (and use sqrt for square root, we get:

    E = (mc^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

    When something is stationary, this gives us E=mc^2. If something with mass travelled at light speed though, we'd get:

    E = (mc^2)/sqrt(1-1) = (mc^2)/0 = inf

    Infitite energy would be unpopular, therefore anything with mass can't go at light speed.

    Exciting maths ends

    Posted 12 years ago #
  20. AKen
    Member

    I think you should go on Call Kaye, Darkerside. If anyone's in any doubt about 20mph zones then your concise but thorough discourse on special relativity will win them over.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  21. steveo
    Member

    Got to love this place, 20 mph to special relativity in 10 posts!

    Posted 12 years ago #
  22. It would be such a funny show hijack for it to become all about Einstein and whether he was right...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  23. AKen
    Member


    Posted 12 years ago #
  24. cb
    Member

    Oops, I think Aken's last post slipped into a wormhole.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  25. Cyclingmollie
    Member

    That would really be funny.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  26. From the end of the docum ent linked to by cb: "Claims that 20mph is expensive to enforce are misleading. The police are required to enforce the speed limit whatever it is – this is no different with 20mph."... Unless you're in Edinburgh of course.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  27. chdot
    Admin

    "
    Sally Hinchcliffe (@sallyhinch)
    08/01/2013 15:39
    I think that only on @CyclingEdin does a discussion on 20mph speed limits quickly become a seminar on relativity

    "

    True.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  28. chdot
    Admin

    "20 mph to special relativity in 10 posts!"

    That's slooow.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  29. steveo
    Member

    Its all relative...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  30. Tulyar
    Member

    Shows how long it was since you read the Highway Code - it includes a chart of stopping and thinking distances, and as already highlighted the dissipation of kinetic energy delivers a non linear result so the reason that you stop from 20 mph in the distance that you only slow to 26 mph from 30 mph is that you have dissipated the same amount of KE but have a load more to dissipate.

    Kaye should get Ben Hamilton Baillie to bring in some of the research.

    1) a couple of million years of extensive development (breeding) has delivered a human body which has a maximum operating speed of around 20mph (hard steady running) and can happily smack in to rocks and trees at this speed, and for a healthy body no bones will break and minimal internal damage will result (skull is IIRC at 30% of fracture capacity for a 20mph simple flat impact)

    2) this also relates to perceptive ability - above 22mph the ability to scan effectively the 120 degrees of forward vision diminishes and we require road markings and guidance systems as speeds increase. In experiments where all road signs and markings are removed the default speed drops to c.18mph as people negotiate their priority of passage.

    3) at 20mph the dynamic envelope of all vehicles is 'tighter' permitting for many roads, the addition of extra road 'lanes' or tighter spaces to roads to operate, releasing valuable urban land for more remunerative uses (ie development)

    Noise is lower, damage is lower, especially from larger vehicles, IIRC this is linked through a factor of 4 times the speed, so 1 speeding truck does as much damage as 100,000 speeding cars, and probably around 1bn cyclists.

    Pity I'm busy tomorrow down South

    Posted 12 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin