Getting knocked down

[Captain Fastbastard Mayhem]

Yip. Till saturday morning.

 

Although now it's not beer, it's Frankie's Cinnamon Cola and Brandy. So feel free to disregard any comment I make

 

:thumbup:

 

Back to the OP though. A bicycle is classified as a vehicle in terms of the RTA (road traffic act) and therefore, if one decided to ride contrary to the flow of traffic, one is contravening said RTA and therefore breaking the law. Pure & simple. Not to mention that it's more stupid than a dole claimer wif 12 kids what lives in a council house in Essex. Only thing that's going to go "boo ya"is your face into the windscreen.

 

Oh - and btew. That cumulative collision gumpf where 1 car doing 100 and the other doing 40, in opposite directions, equals a collision force equal to the same single car hitting an immovable object at 140kph thing? Yeah. It's bad physics. Proven totally wrong. In real world environments. One of the more useful things that Mythbusters have done with force metres & calculations.

 

Yet another urban legend that all have adopted as the god-honest truth.

[Minion]

That cumulative collision gumpf where 1 car doing 100 and the other doing 40, in opposite directions, equals a collision force equal to the same single car hitting an immovable object at 140kph thing? Yeah. It's bad physics. Proven totally wrong. In real world environments. One of the more useful things that Mythbusters have done with force metres & calculations.

It depends on the circumstances of the collision. Two cars going at 100km/h, crashing into each other and coming to a complete stop is the same energy release as one car hitting a solid wall at 141km/h, but since the energy is spread over two cars, the net effect on each car is the same as if it drove into a wall at 100km/h.

 

When the cars are going at different speeds and their masses are different, though, the collision doesn't necessarily result in them coming to a complete stop. Two cars at 100km/h driving into each other head on has the same effect as a car driving at 100km/h into a wall, but it also has the same effect as a car driving at 200km/h into a stationary one.

 

Using some basic physics, a 1 ton car driving at 60km/h hitting a 100kg cyclist riding at 40km/h head-on, results in both of them travelling at 51km/h in the direction of the car. The cyclist has had a change in velocity of 90km/h. Assuming the collision takes 0.2s, that's a net impact force of over 1.2tons, the same as if the car was moving at 100km/h and the cyclist was standing still.

 

If the same car hits the cyclist from behind, both of them will end up going at 58km/h in the car's direction of travel. The cyclist has experienced a change in velocity of 18km/h. The net force of impact will be less than 260kg - an almost 5-fold reduction in force. This is the same force as if a car moving at 20km/hr had hit a stationary cyclist.

 

If you look at the energy that is liberated in the collision and assume that the car's crumple zone absorbs 75% of it, the car hitting the cyclist head on will have the same effect on the cyclist as the cyclist riding head-on into a wall at 48km/h.

 

A collision from the rear will have the same effect on the cyclist as riding into a wall at 10km/h.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Edman

[Disylizzy]

It depends on the circumstances of the collision. Two cars going at 100km/h, crashing into each other and coming to a complete stop is the same energy release as one car hitting a solid wall at 141km/h, but since the energy is spread over two cars, the effect on each car is the same as if it drove into a wall at 100km/h.

 

When the cars are going at different speeds and their masses are different, though, the collision doesn't necessarily result in them coming to a complete stop.

 

Using some basic physics, a 1 ton car driving at 60km/h hitting a 100kg cyclist riding at 40km/h head-on, results in both of them travelling at 51km/h in the direction of the car. The cyclists has had a change in velocity of 90km/h. Assuming the collision takes 0.2s, that's a net impact force of over 1.2tons, the same as if the car was moving at 100km/h and the cyclist was standing still.

 

If the same car hits the cyclist from behind, both of them will end up going at 58km/h in the car's direction of travel. The cyclist has experienced a change in velocity of 18km/h. The net force of impact will be less than 260kg - an almost 5-fold reduction in force. This is the same force as if a car moving at 20km/hr had hit a stationary cyclist.

 

If you look at the energy that is liberated in the collision and assume that the car's crumple zone absorbs 75% of it, the car hitting the cyclist head on will have the same effect on the cyclist as the cyclist riding head-on into a wall at 48km/h.

 

A collision from the rear will have the same effect on the cyclist as riding into a wall at 10km/h.

 

Nice summary!!!

 

And in order to avoid any collisions, using a perception reaction time of 2.5s (AASHTO standard).

 

If a motorist is travelling at 80km/h (22.22m/s), they will have travelled 55.55m. And if a cyclist is travelling at 25km/h (6.94m/s), they would have travelled 17.35m.

 

Assuming that the motorist first sees the cyclist 100m away, and they are travelling in the same direction, there would still be 61.8m left to either move over, brake, or continue on the same path. If the cyclist was heading towards the motorist, then that reduces the distance to only 27.1m - less than half of what it was previously.

[Nancy Drew]

My sister was riding with me about 6 months ago, she had to swerve out the way to avoid another cyclist that was riding on the wrong side of the road. I was ahead of her and fortunate enough to see the tjop in time, she wasn't so lucky. She removed the skin from her elbow all the way down her forearm and then some on her knees too. He said "sorry", helped her get up and then rode on. She still has pain 6 months later.

 

DON'T DO IT...... IT'S DANGEROUS

 

go with the flow

[Minion]

Assuming that the motorist first sees the cyclist 100m away, and they are travelling in the same direction, there would still be 61.8m left to either move over, brake, or continue on the same path. If the cyclist was heading towards the motorist, then that reduces the distance to only 27.1m - less than half of what it was previously.

To add to that, the 61.8m translates 4s of time remaining to complete whatever that evasive manoeuvre is. The 27.1m leaves only 0.93s to complete the manoeuvre.

 

An added danger is that in the head-on case, you've got two vehicles taking evasive manoeuvres. Coming from behind, a car has lots of time to go around a cyclist who will, in all likelihood, continue on the same path. Coming from head-on, both the cyclist and the car will be taking evasive action. If they both go to their left or their right, all's good. If one decides to go to their left and the other right, or vice versa - collision. Just think what happens when two people walk towards each other down a passage way, that awkward shuffle as they both try to go one way, then both go the other, then stop, then try get round each other again.

[DB28]

Just ride on the left... way safer! Also, nothing irritates me more than having a cyclist/commuter coming at me while out training... always feel tempted to push them into their oncoming traffic.

 

otherwise, cycle smack bang in the middle of the road... everyone will see u then.

[Lucky Luke.]

I am confronted by guys riding wrong side of the road from Noordhoek to Masiphumelele all the time. My solution is to ride straight at them until they have to bail into the pavement or swerve into the road. I don't have time to stop and explain to them why they should ride on the other side so I demonstrate on the fly.

[chris_w_65]

I am confronted by guys riding wrong side of the road from Noordhoek to Masiphumelele all the time. My solution is to ride straight at them until they have to bail into the pavement or swerve into the road. I don't have time to stop and explain to them why they should ride on the other side so I demonstrate on the fly.

 

+1

[splat]

To add to that, the 61.8m translates 4s of time remaining to complete whatever that evasive manoeuvre is. The 27.1m leaves only 0.93s to complete the manoeuvre.

 

An added danger is that in the head-on case, you've got two vehicles taking evasive manoeuvres. Coming from behind, a car has lots of time to go around a cyclist who will, in all likelihood, continue on the same path. Coming from head-on, both the cyclist and the car will be taking evasive action. If they both go to their left or their right, all's good. If one decides to go to their left and the other right, or vice versa - collision. Just think what happens when two people walk towards each other down a passage way, that awkward shuffle as they both try to go one way, then both go the other, then stop, then try get round each other again.

 

 

 

I always say 'thanks for the dance'...

[CaptainDura]

The ONLY reason you dont do it is.......

 

ITS TOO SCARY!!!

 

and thats the bottom line.

 

riding into traffic is like 10 times more nerve wracking than with the flow.

 

ask me i know. i have been knocked over by a bus on my roadbike before and im pretty nervous in the traffic.

 

I do commute however and it is much much much more relaxing going with the flow than against it.

 

there is just something about seeing the k@k coming that makes me uneasy.

 

its the ostrich mentality that allows me to continue to ride on the roads.....

[ccc2]

if it's your time to go , go you will. whether you are facing or riding with the flow of traffic

[andydude]

But they cycle on the right in the US and it seems to be working alright there...

[TNT1]

if it's your time to go , go you will. whether you are facing or riding with the flow of traffic

Dunno which is a more daft or irrelevant comment. This steaming turd, or the OP's.

[Joe Low]

Dunno which is a more daft or irrelevant comment. This steaming turd, or the OP's.

You'll probably find that people riding against the traffic find it's their time to go earlier than those who don't.............Good.

[SnailTrail]

An unexpected collision or being drunk during a collision , therefore being relaxed during a collision reduces the amount of injuries sustained. So i would rather not see it coming or i would like to be drunk at the time.

 

So rather ride drunk than into oncoming traffic.

 

Disclaimer: The postee can not be held responsible for the information or advice given in the above post.

[Tuxstir]

What about runners? They sometimes do 20km/h or even 25?..... yeah when they are sprinting

 

 

How often do you or most people here get above 25 km/h in traffic?..... i often reach more than 25 km/h in traffic on my morning commute.

i sometimes hit 60km/h and move into the center of the lane for safety... couldn't do that facing traffic.

if a large slow enough moving truck passes me i will take the opportunity to slip stream. couldn't do that facing traffic.

at busy traffic lights where traffic is backed up a lot. i will take the opportunity to get between lanes ( 2 lanes roads) and coast to the traffic light.. couldn't do that facing traffic.

 

if you are facing on coming traffic your response time is shorten dramatically.. even if you see something about to happen you might not have the time to avoid it..

your combined speeds is higher facing traffic.

your are contravening our road rules.

 

 

your response tell me your the kinda guy that rides helmetless. drive drunk. and most-likely drive a beemer.. think you own the road.. and then want to blame the other guy when things happen and it's your fault....

.