5 ms·
walking 3-4, scooter 10-15, cars 25-60. each is about 3x more than the previous. But it's a stupid comparison for safety. Colliding with a scooter will rarely
by randyrand 9y ago
walking 3-4, scooter 10-15, cars 25-60.
each is about 3x more than the previous.
But it's a stupid comparison for safety. Colliding with a scooter will rarely be fatal, regardless of the 3x. But cyclist often get killed.
- seanp2k2 9y agoSee also: https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/why-does-kinetic-energy-increase-quadratically-not-linearly-with-speed https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/535/why-does-kin... There's a LOT more energy being transferred into whatever the car hits both because it's going much faster and because it's much heavier.
- fiter 9y agoThe chance of collision should also be considered. Since intersection collisions are the same or worse for riding a bicycle on the sidewalk, we should consider overtaking while there is insufficient space which seems like it would be a strong function of extra space on either the road or the sidewalk and relative speeds. Im not sure why you listed 60 as I'm not really aware of any roads with such a limit that also reasonably expect bicycle traffic.
- jessaustin 9y agoAll the roads around my house have a 55 limit. If I didn't bike on them I wouldn't bike at all.
- fiter 9y agoWow. Is this Arizona?
- jessaustin 9y agoMissouri
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoArguing "Sure bikes will hit you, but it will rarely be fatal!" is not terribly convincing. Its reasonable for pedestrians to want bikes off the sidewalk. The chance of collision is far greater. I know its a hard statistic for bikes to swallow. There seems to be no winning for them. But that's my whole point.
- randyrand 9y agoso we're willing to kill people because we want to avoid bumps and bruises? Seems fucked up.