To all those on this forum that says speed doesn't kill

Ergates

unforeseen wrote: »

And the most famous of all. Flt Sgt Nicholas Alkemade 18,000ft without a parachute after bailing out of his Lancaster in March 1944.

Vesna Vulović has that beat - 33,000 ft after the airliner she was on was blown up mid flight.

shaun_from_Africa

Ergates wrote: »

Vesna Vulović has that beat - 33,000 ft after the airliner she was on was blown up mid flight.

See post #56!

Arklight

adonis wrote: »

Do you know what is it like around the schools there, do cars still drop the kids off or is it all bikes and buses?

I don't know what a school run in the provinces looks like. In Amsterdam it's all bikes and buses, and kids rarely wear cycle helmets. There's very little traffic around full stop.

I was warned by my Dutch friend about how terrible the traffic would be getting to our north Amsterdam hotel, but by English standards the roads were basically deserted. I mentioned it to him while we were walking along and he was like, "But, look at it all," and I was like, "Look at what?"

In some ways its actually a pretty good place to be a driver. There are very few traffic jams, parking is easy to find, and on bigger roads you can pretty much just put the cruise control on and look at the scenery. Dutch people have cars, they are just incredibly self disciplined about not using them unless they absolutely have to.

Ergates

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

See post #56!

Yeah - didn't see that until after I posted. My bad.

Ergates

AdrianC wrote: »

Except that's not the way it's being used, is it?

Not really no.

"Speed kills" is used because it's more snappy than:

The faster you go, the more likely you are to be involved in a fatal collision because you will have less time you'll have to react to a changing situation, your vehicle will be harder to control and take longer to stop. Also the consequences of the collision will be more severe due to the increased amount of energy involved in the impact.

What you're doing is akin to arguing against the phrase "Smoking causes lung cancer" on the basis that not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, and not everyone who gets lung cancer smoked.

fred246

Arklight wrote: »

In some ways its actually a pretty good place to be a driver.

That's the bit that most petrolheads don't seem to understand. If the people that can cycle do then the roads become clearer. It's all because the road footprint of a bicycle is much less than a car. In the UK if you look at rush hour traffic it is mainly lone drivers with 4 to 6 empty seats. Imagine if everyone drove round in double decker buses? Sounds silly. Well everyone driving round with empty seats IS silly. I used to ask colleagues what would make them cycle. "If it was safe" was always the answer. Once people feel safe on segregated cycle paths they will cycle. Drivers may have to give way to cyclists and pedestrians but it's still faster because there aren't massive queues of traffic.

AdrianC

fred246 wrote: »

That's the bit that most petrolheads don't seem to understand.

And what non-"petrolheads" fail to understand is that NOBODY drives in urban areas for enjoyment. It simply isn't possible.

The inconsiderate driving you see frequently in urban areas isn't from "petrolheads" trying to enjoy their driving or enjoy their car - it's simply from the terminally impatient and the terminally wuckfitted.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

fred246 wrote: »

That's the bit that most petrolheads don't seem to understand. If the people that can cycle do then the roads become clearer. It's all because the road footprint of a bicycle is much less than a car. In the UK if you look at rush hour traffic it is mainly lone drivers with 4 to 6 empty seats. Imagine if everyone drove round in double decker buses? Sounds silly. Well everyone driving round with empty seats IS silly. I used to ask colleagues what would make them cycle. "If it was safe" was always the answer. Once people feel safe on segregated cycle paths they will cycle. Drivers may have to give way to cyclists and pedestrians but it's still faster because there aren't massive queues of traffic.

So what's your simple solution to someone with a 20 mile commute and no lift share?

fred246

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

So what's your simple solution to someone with a 20 mile commute and no lift share?

Well that's what we are saying. For those who insist on driving for whatever reason it is easier because all those who can cycle DO cycle.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

fred246 wrote: »

Well that's what we are saying. For those who insist on driving for whatever reason it is easier because all those who can cycle DO cycle.

I don't see a cyclist a day on my commute so how are they making it easier?