Pedestrian/Cyclist Visibility at Night - is it considered of value ?

No Pants

Going Forward wrote: »

the eye becomes trained to look for and see hi viz quite easily

Or it becomes so popular that people start to filter it out and we're back where we started.

ArmaniJeanss

Out of interest what is the recommended car<->bicycle overtaking distance?
Is it a legal distance or just recommended?

I notice Australia this week made it a legal distance of 1 metre, or 1.5 metres (5 foot for the oldies) if travelling over 60kmph.

No Pants

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Out of interest what is the recommended car<->bicycle overtaking distance?
Is it a legal distance or just recommended?

I notice Australia this week made it a legal distance of 1 metre, or 1.5 metres (5 foot for the oldies) if travelling over 60kmph.

I don't think there's anything legal, but 1.5m is recommended. It's not really that much and I'm sure that I generally give more when I'm overtaking a cyclist. If a guard witnessed a close overtake and fancied some paperwork, I'm sure a careless driving charge could be pursued.

Spook_ie

sdeire wrote: »

That's nitpicking to be fair. A lot of cyclists invest decent money in decent lighting and you can see the difference both up close and from a distance. They are more visible. Period.

Then again, emergency vehicles are lit up like christmas trees and are also more visible. Doesn't go to say all cyclists should have fifteen different lights and flashing headlights and a siren, though.

Cyclists should make themselves stand out against whatever conditions they're cycling in, much as drivers should always expect the unexpected and leave themselves room to stop in the distance they can see to be clear. A modicum of common sense all round.

You may call it nitpicking but in reality the brightest of cycle lights still doesn't bend light around corners, it's called line of sight and is quite important when thinking out roads etc.

The main reason I highlighted it is to show just how poorly people are at judging distances at night time, or even remembering the specifics of a road they've recently travelled.

Yes cyclists should make themselves stand out, the question of is a red tail light sufficent under all road conditions is debateable and IMO a belt and braces attitude is the only sensible one.

Road and visibility conditions change constantly and if I felt assured that cyclists would take the time to change the settings ( or even switch them on! ) for varying conditions I might agree with you.

Refer to the image of a horse with flourescent garb, that's a normal condition for a country road, would a cyclist think to turn their lights on to aid other road user to see them? I'd wager not as most would (probably ) want to save the batteries for the hours of darkness therefore hi viz would be highly recommended if not essential.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

Or it becomes so popular that people start to filter it out and we're back where we started.

Or it succeeds because of the safety in numbers effect by emphasising the number of cyclists

Spook_ie

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Out of interest what is the recommended car<->bicycle overtaking distance?
Is it a legal distance or just recommended?

I notice Australia this week made it a legal distance of 1 metre, or 1.5 metres (5 foot for the oldies) if travelling over 60kmph.

Also out of interest, if you overtake a slower moving car on your cycle does the minimum distance still apply?

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

Also out of interest, if you overtake a slower moving car on your cycle does the minimum distance still apply?

Bicyclists pass out slower moving cars on the left.

Unless you are talking about cars turning left or parked? In the case of the parked car then safe distance is applied to avoid been doored..

Spook_ie

Tenzor07 wrote: »

Bicyclists pass out slower moving cars on the left.

Unless you are talking about cars turning left or parked? In the case of the parked car then safe distance is applied to avoid been doored..

Yeah, so I'm travelling at say 20-30Kph in town, ( I often do when looking for fares or in the inner cordon ), if I were overtaking a cyclist and am required to leave a mandatory gap of 1.5 meters, why is the cyclist not required to leave a gap? The speeds are relatively the same, the maiming of the cyclist is still going to happen if an accident occurs because they are less than 1.5 meters from me, or is this a case of 2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad?

No Pants

Spook_ie wrote: »

if I were overtaking a cyclist and am required to leave a mandatory gap of 1.5 meters, why is the cyclist not required to leave a gap?

You're not required, it's recommended. Any decent cyclist will leave a gap due to the risk of doors opening, mirror blind spots and the like.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah, so I'm travelling at say 20-30Kph in town, ( I often do when looking for fares or in the inner cordon )...

I'd say 1.5 meters is excessive and unrealistic in built-up urban areas below 30km/h or maybe even below 40km/h. Many countries / states which have passing distance laws have 1.5 meters only for rural roads, while urban areas with low speed limits have passing distances of 1 meters (that working is based on people doing the speed limit or lower in those areas).

It's worth saying that these are minimum distances and passing at just 1.5 meters while doing 80-100km/h is over the top at the other end of the scale.

Spook_ie wrote: »

...if I were overtaking a cyclist and am required to leave a mandatory gap of 1.5 meters, why is the cyclist not required to leave a gap? The speeds are relatively the same, the maiming of the cyclist is still going to happen if an accident occurs because they are less than 1.5 meters from me, or is this a case of 2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad?

Basic physics is the answer:

This basic physics is why people riding bicycles at 10mph inches away from cars present no greater risk than scratched paint, whilst those who drive cars at 30mph inches away from people on bicycles risk killing others.

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/newtons-laws/

Tenzor07

Spook_ie wrote: »

Yeah, so I'm travelling at say 20-30Kph in town, ( I often do when looking for fares or in the inner cordon ), if I were overtaking a cyclist and am required to leave a mandatory gap of 1.5 meters, why is the cyclist not required to leave a gap? The speeds are relatively the same, the maiming of the cyclist is still going to happen if an accident occurs because they are less than 1.5 meters from me, or is this a case of 2 wheels good, 4 wheels bad?

I'd tend to give Taxi's a very wide berth whether on two wheels or four! In particular watching to see if passenger doors are going to open, or the car suddenly changing lanes/direction.

However as mentioned, it's basic physics, cars pretty much take up the width of city center lanes, and follow a straight path, not being affected by gusts of wind, rough or broken road surfaces, pedestrians suddenly stepping out from the path..etc...

Hilly Bill

alaimacerc wrote: »

I wonder where they could possibly have got that idea?


Oh yeah, there. Among other places where you keep saying much the same thing. "Safely" is apparently to be defined a) after the fact, rather than any precautionary basis of objectively assessed risk, b) according to the perception of the motorist, c) on the basis of didn't actually fall off bike (not counting 'own stupid fault', I imagine) or make a loud clunk against the car, and d) (and here's the key part) without stipulating any minimum distance whatever, dependently on speed and conditions or otherwise.


I think this discussion might progress somewhat more productively if you'd actually respond to what people are saying (and ensure some basic clarity and consistency in what you are saying, ideally, but let's walk before we can run), rather than merely repeatedly and aggressively assuming and asserting that everyone else has no worthwhile or valid experience as a road-user at all, and that saying this in itself somehow establishes you as ruling authority on the topic.

Do you really want me to dumb it down for you? Its that word Safely again which for some reason some cant understand. If you pass a cyclist close at certain speed then it can have an affect on them so thats not passing safely now is it? Ive said before that if the road allows for it then overtake giving a wide berth. Still with me? I also said that if its not safe to pass then dont do it . I said that you can pass safely within this so called recommended distance and then for some strange reason it turned to swinging bats and passing within an inch at 100kph. Thats not passing safely now is it. Still with me?. If the road is narrow, and both cyclist and car are going slow then you can pass within this so called recommended safely. If the cyclist hasnt been hampered in anyway when you pass then you have done so safely.
I did not suggest passing within an inch of any cyclist doing 100kph or swinging a bat so why the focus on it?
To sum it up, if you cant pass safely then dont pass.

Hilly Bill

monument wrote: »

The analogies seem strange to you because you're describing something which most people view as unsafe and without explaining you're trying to claim it's safe.




Why not within an inch? That fits perfictly with your very low bar of you claimed to be safe:

And "safely" was the most objective word you used -- and the context you used around that word coloured what people viewed.

"A recommended overtaking distance is mentioned which is pointless" -- you gave no reasoning beyond saying things like...

"...without clipping a cyclist with your wing mirror then that all that counts" -- just beyond wing mirror distance isn't viewed as safe!

"If the road and traffic allows it then overtake giving a wide berth" -- like it or not, you're effectively saying you don't give a wide berth on narrow roads, you pass closly on them. If that's not the case your unwillingness to clafary when people asked questions just compounded any misunderstanding. But one of your next lines shows that there might not be any misunderstanding...

You said "...as a driver who shows cyclists that deserve it some respect..." -- add that to your thinking of passing clear of your wing mirror being "all that counts", what exactly counts for cyclists that you deem to be undeserving of your respect? Do they get clipped by your mirror or what?

There you go again with your assumptions.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

You're not required, it's recommended. Any decent cyclist will leave a gap due to the risk of doors opening, mirror blind spots and the like.

We're talking about a moving vehicle 20-30Kph unlikely for a door to open, though I have heard of it happening to a passenger high on drink/drugs at much higher speeds

monument wrote: »

I'd say 1.5 meters is excessive and unrealistic in built-up urban areas below 30km/h or maybe even below 40km/h. Many countries / states which have passing distance laws have 1.5 meters only for rural roads, while urban areas with low speed limits have passing distances of 1 meters (that working is based on people doing the speed limit or lower in those areas).

It's worth saying that these are minimum distances and passing at just 1.5 meters while doing 80-100km/h is over the top at the other end of the scale.




Basic physics is the answer:



https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/newtons-laws/

So there is no hard and fast distance then, so your favorite quoted research about the gap being no different with without hi viz isn't actually as good as you make out, because as already pointed out to you the survey didn't measure speed or anything else but purely the distance

EDIT If it's safe at 1.5 meters at say 50kph, and 1 meter at 30 kph then why would you presume 50cm isn't safe if they were doing 10kph in a carpark or where ever?

Tenzor07 wrote: »

I'd tend to give Taxi's a very wide berth whether on two wheels or four! In particular watching to see if passenger doors are going to open, or the car suddenly changing lanes/direction.

However as mentioned, it's basic physics, cars pretty much take up the width of city center lanes, and follow a straight path, not being affected by gusts of wind, rough or broken road surfaces, pedestrians suddenly stepping out from the path..etc...

It doesn't require the car to change direction to cause a collision, a change in direction from the cyclist will usually suffice and have the same effect.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

EDIT If it's safe at 1.5 meters at say 50kph, and 1 meter at 30 kph then why would you presume 50cm isn't safe if they were doing 10kph in a carpark or where ever?

Because if bicycles are being cycled at less than 10km/h so that it can be overtaken by at car going at 10km/h, say the bicycle at 5km/h, then there's a good chance that the bicycle is less stable than a bicycle at 15km/h.

And when you get to lower distances of separation...

Spook_ie wrote: »

It doesn't require the car to change direction to cause a collision, a change in direction from the cyclist will usually suffice and have the same effect.

...what you have outlined here matters more.

patrickbrophy18

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

No front or rear facing lights, red at the front.

Fair enough.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Do I really need to spell it out? People are going to look at it as they pass it, same way as people will stare at anything else unusual they see and get momentarily distracted

Okay, maybe the example I gave a few pages back may cause motorists to take their eyes off the road which is dangerous and potentially fatal. Anyway, the need for visibility all depends on the conditions at hand.

As for the more recent comments about distances between wing mirrors and cyclists. The lee way recommended by the Road Safety Authority as per their "Respect Cyclists" advert is 1.5 meters. This means that the nearest point between a cyclist and any part of the car should not fall below this threshold. That includes the most outward point of a wing mirror. For this reason alone, I disagree with many of the recommendations made by the Design Manual For Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) which often mentions roadway tightening.

sdanseo

Spook_ie wrote: »

You may call it nitpicking but in reality the brightest of cycle lights still doesn't bend light around corners, it's called line of sight and is quite important when thinking out roads etc.

I don't understand what sort of counter-argument you're trying to make here. Save for the most reckless of cyclists, the person who has control over hitting a cyclist when a car travels around a blind bend is the driver.

If you drive at a speed which does not allow you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear, then you do so unsafely if not dangerously. The only conceivable exception is an unlit motorway with oncoming traffic where you have to momentarily dip your lights.

ThisRegard

No Pants wrote: »

So in other words, you weren't even hit. What's the problem?

Sarcasm off now. The fact that the driver continued would lead me to think that he never saw you at all, before or after the collision. Scary.

He was well aware, there was a kid in the car and even he peaked up over his seat and looked out the back window at me as they continued on. I would say their mirror casing was cracked or broken, there was no missing the noise when it hit my bar ends.

Spook_ie

No Pants wrote: »

I was coming back from the airport last night at approximately 22:45, heading towards Swords. There's a roundabout where the Naul Road crosses the R132 and I don't know the name of it, but as soon as the road straightened out, I saw two cyclists in the distance. They were approaching the traffic light controlled junction at Airside, at the Texaco station. The lights they were using were fantastic, each having more than one rear-facing light. Both were also wearing high-vis, but that didn't become apparent until I came much closer.

So, to summarise the value of their visibility at night; they were both noticeable at a considerable distance. This was due to their active lighting, not due to high-vis.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Not wanting to take you too much to task on that but unless you're driving a truck and have a higher eye level than majority of cars then the line of site to those lights coming from the airport is approx 200 meters depending if you are in the bus lane or outside lane
https://www.google.ie/maps?q=cloghran+roundabout&hl=en&ll=53.440421,-6.22769&spn=0.000653,0.001206&sll=53.434891,-6.230082&sspn=0.010495,0.01929&t=h&hnear=Cloghran+Roundabout&z=20&layer=c&cbll=53.440421,-6.22769&panoid=qKl8f8w9_LQBMMod-j2DqA&cbp=12,357.07,,0,-2.4

sdeire wrote: »

That's nitpicking to be fair. A lot of cyclists invest decent money in decent lighting and you can see the difference both up close and from a distance. They are more visible. Period.

Then again, emergency vehicles are lit up like christmas trees and are also more visible. Doesn't go to say all cyclists should have fifteen different lights and flashing headlights and a siren, though.

Cyclists should make themselves stand out against whatever conditions they're cycling in, much as drivers should always expect the unexpected and leave themselves room to stop in the distance they can see to be clear. A modicum of common sense all round.

Spook_ie wrote: »

You may call it nitpicking but in reality the brightest of cycle lights still doesn't bend light around corners, it's called line of sight and is quite important when thinking out roads etc.

The main reason I highlighted it is to show just how poorly people are at judging distances at night time, or even remembering the specifics of a road they've recently travelled.

Yes cyclists should make themselves stand out, the question of is a red tail light sufficent under all road conditions is debateable and IMO a belt and braces attitude is the only sensible one.

Road and visibility conditions change constantly and if I felt assured that cyclists would take the time to change the settings ( or even switch them on! ) for varying conditions I might agree with you.

Refer to the image of a horse with flourescent garb, that's a normal condition for a country road, would a cyclist think to turn their lights on to aid other road user to see them? I'd wager not as most would (probably ) want to save the batteries for the hours of darkness therefore hi viz would be highly recommended if not essential.

sdeire wrote: »

I don't understand what sort of counter-argument you're trying to make here. Save for the most reckless of cyclists, the person who has control over hitting a cyclist when a car travels around a blind bend is the driver.

If you drive at a speed which does not allow you to stop within the distance you can see to be clear, then you do so unsafely if not dangerously. The only conceivable exception is an unlit motorway with oncoming traffic where you have to momentarily dip your lights.

Follow the thread and it makes sense

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Because if bicycles are being cycled at less than 10km/h so that it can be overtaken by at car going at 10km/h, say the bicycle at 5km/h, then there's a good chance that the bicycle is less stable than a bicycle at 15km/h.

And when you get to lower distances of separation...



...what you have outlined here matters more.

That's making an assumption that the bicycle has slowed to allow a pass (in my experience a highly unlikely manouver! ), so assuming that the driver is paying attention he would have noticed if the driver is unstable and thus eliminated one variable from the equation.

So cyclist at 5 kph or 1.39 m/s ( we'll assume he's a competent cyclist and verified by observation of him as we approach ) vehicle at 10 kph or 2.78 m/s is it safe to pass at less than 1 meter?

If it's not safe for a vehicle to pass at less than 1 meter then what are your proposals to deal with cyclist passing each other often at greater speed differentials at the same or less distance?

No Pants

Was on the receiving end of a close overtake about an hour ago. The fact that I don't have to drive a diesel Qashqai was somewhat consoling. :pac:

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

That's making an assumption that the bicycle has slowed to allow a pass (in my experience a highly unlikely manouver! )

Regardless of the mode of transport, having enough space and being able to get to enough speed to overtake is up to the person attempting the overtake.

Spook_ie wrote: »

so assuming that the driver is paying attention he would have noticed if the driver is unstable and thus eliminated one variable from the equation.

So cyclist at 5 kph or 1.39 m/s ( we'll assume he's a competent cyclist and verified by observation of him as we approach ) vehicle at 10 kph or 2.78 m/s is it safe to pass at less than 1 meter?

I've tried to explain it already so I don't think repeating it will make a difference.

The more you go on the more it's clear that you know little about the how cycling and bicycles work or how there can be changing conditions (pot holes, gusts of wind, people walking out etc) which often affects cycling far more than others.

As for the cyclist being a competent cyclist or not -- judging that on watching the cyclist for a short time isn't really a great idea.

Spook_ie wrote: »

If it's not safe for a vehicle to pass at less than 1 meter then what are your proposals to deal with cyclist passing each other often at greater speed differentials at the same or less distance?

1. No matter the mode of transport, the sub 30km/h stuff really isn't as important as higher speed passes.

2. Did you miss the basic physics part of one of my last posts?

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Regardless of the mode of transport, having enough space and being able to get to enough speed to overtake is up to the person attempting the overtake.




I've tried to explain it already so I don't think repeating it will make a difference.

The more you go on the more it's clear that you know little about the how cycling and bicycles work or how there can be changing conditions (pot holes, gusts of wind, people walking out etc) which often affects cycling far more than others.

As for the cyclist being a competent cyclist or not -- judging that on watching the cyclist for a short time isn't really a great idea.





1. No matter the mode of transport, the sub 30km/h stuff really isn't as important as higher speed passes.

2. Did you miss the basic physics part of one of my last posts?

Nothing like avoiding a direct question.

So cyclist at 5 kph or 1.39 m/s ( we'll assume he's a competent cyclist and verified by observation of him as we approach ) vehicle at 10 kph or 2.78 m/s is it safe to pass at less than 1 meter?

So let us assume that the answer is no it's not, if I'm wrong in that assumption I presume you'll let me know.

If it's not safe for a vehicle to pass at less than 1 meter then what are your proposals to deal with cyclist passing each other often at greater speed differentials at the same or less distance?

So how is your physics holding up or are you going to avoid the question again?

No Pants

monument wrote: »

The more you go on the more it's clear that you know little about the how cycling and bicycles work or how there can be changing conditions (pot holes, gusts of wind, people walking out etc) which often affects cycling far more than others.

A good point. Defects in the road surface can have a much great impact on two-wheeled transport than vehicles with four or more wheels.

alaimacerc

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Do you really want me to dumb it down for you? Its that word Safely again which for some reason some cant understand.

On the contrary, I want you to smarten it a whole lot up. I think we can "safely" assume we all understand what the word "safely" means. The question is, what's your prior model, as you approach a cyclist with a view to pass them, of what constitutes "safely", and does it pass the "reasonableness" test to an objective observer? As against, people would might define themselves as "always safely passing cyclist" on the basis that "I haven't actually knocked anyone off so far, that wasn't actually their own fault, at least that I've noticed, has been proven in court, and I'm now admitting to".

If the cyclist hasnt been hampered in anyway when you pass then you have done so safely.

And you stop to conduct a poll, do you? For all I know, you're an impeccably safe driver, and are just recreationally venting on this topic lest the cyclists get too "uppity" in general. But little you've actually said would be terribly reassuring that you've much idea what cyclists perceive as physically unsafe or intimidating, or indeed whether it's just been a case of "so far, so lucky". And a lot of it, just the reverse, as several people have pointed out, several times, in considerable detail.

To sum it up, if you cant pass safely then dont pass.

It's rarely a matter of not being able to pass safely. Few, if any, cyclists are really going to force traffic to stay behind them for a couple of miles, then cry "foul!" if someone passes within 149cm of them rather than 151. In general, one would rather they were in front, where one keep an eye on 'em, rather than lurking menacingly behind. (Aside from the ones that particularly "need" to overtake then pull in or left-turn so close one is in danger of getting side-swiped or rear-ending them.) To the point of the cyclist slowing down or stopping to pull right over (contrary to another poster's claimed experience, I note) to facilitate this, indeed. Or give signals as to where they think it is (and isn't) safe for them to be passed, for that matter. (In the minority of cases where someone lyrca-clad is "on a time" and doesn't want to do this, and yet the road is so narrow that safe passing is impossible, one would wonder how much faster than them you ought to be going in those conditions, anyway...)

The "close passing" issue seems to much more able motorists that are apparently impatient as to even seconds of delay, or else so full of resentment about cyclists even being on the roads that "moving to the right" seems to them to be letting the ecoterrorists win, or whatever. Or in some ways more worryingly, they don't notice them, or have no realistic idea of the risks and the effects involved.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Nothing like avoiding a direct question.

So let us assume that the answer is no it's not, if I'm wrong in that assumption I presume you'll let me know.

Do you really have to presume that about my answer? This isn't a poll, you're supposed to be reading and taking in what people are saying but you seem to need a yes or no answer even after my position is made clear as I have answered why it may not be safe.

You thinking you need a yes or no to compare my response to cyclist's overtaking actions to motorist's overtaking actions really shows how hard you're trying to simplify detailed arguments.

But if you bothered to read just the start of that link already posted in reply to your willful or otherwise misunderstanding of basic physics, you would have read:

"SAMENESS IS NOT EQUALITY"

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/newtons-laws/

But your posts are showing a lack of any grasp of basic physics, and no willingness to understand the issues, and so it's pointless to try to explain them to you more.

Spook_ie wrote: »

So how is your physics holding up or are you going to avoid the question again?

Your question was:

"If it's not safe for a vehicle to pass at less than 1 meter then what are your proposals to deal with cyclist passing each other often at greater speed differentials at the same or less distance?"

And my answer was:

1. No matter the mode of transport, the sub 30km/h stuff really isn't as important as higher speed passes.

2. Did you miss the basic physics part of one of my last posts?

...

One has to wonder do you understand how important mass is in basic physics? You're posts clearly show that you don't or maybe that you're putting that aside just to argue a flawed point which does not take into account the rules of physics.

Or did you read the bit about me thinking the sub 30km/h stuff regardless if mode not being as important as higher speed passes? If so why are you so fixated on lower speed passes? It seems because you want to wrongly equate sameness to equality.

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

Do you really have to presume that about my answer? This isn't a poll, you're supposed to be reading and taking in what people are saying but you seem to need a yes or no answer even after my position is made clear as I have answered why it may not be safe.

You thinking you need a yes or no to compare my response to cyclist's overtaking actions to motorist's overtaking actions really shows how hard you're trying to simplify detailed arguments.

But if you bothered to read just the start of that link already posted in reply to your willful or otherwise misunderstanding of basic physics, you would have read:

"SAMENESS IS NOT EQUALITY"

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/newtons-laws/

But your posts are showing a lack of any grasp of basic physics, and no willingness to understand the issues, and so it's pointless to try to explain them to you more.




Your question was:

"If it's not safe for a vehicle to pass at less than 1 meter then what are your proposals to deal with cyclist passing each other often at greater speed differentials at the same or less distance?"

And my answer was:

1. No matter the mode of transport, the sub 30km/h stuff really isn't as important as higher speed passes.

2. Did you miss the basic physics part of one of my last posts?

...

One has to wonder do you understand how important mass is in basic physics? You're posts clearly show that you don't or maybe that you're putting that aside just to argue a flawed point which does not take into account the rules of physics.

Or did you read the bit about me thinking the sub 30km/h stuff regardless if mode not being as important as higher speed passes? If so why are you so fixated on lower speed passes? It seems because you want to wrongly equate sameness to equality.

Perhaps you need to check again on the issue of mass ( even a small mass ) versus Cyclist by revisiting the hit in the face thread on cycling and that was only a bar of chocolate.
I'd say it was a small mass which made a fair mess despite your physics

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

Perhaps you need to check again on the issue of mass ( even a small mass ) versus Cyclist by revisiting the hit in the face thread on cycling and that was only a bar of chocolate.
I'd say it was a small mass which made a fair mess despite your physics

"your physics"

Come again? Are you a physics denier or something?

As for comparing projectiles to getting hit by a car or bike... If you want to go down that silly line of argument, let's be silly:

Which do you think would hurt more (a) a car in the face or (b) a bicycle in the face?

Do you think the chances of survival are the same for a car in the face as a bicycle in the face?

Spook_ie

monument wrote: »

"your physics"

Come again? Are you a physics denier or something?

As for comparing projectiles to getting hit by a car or bike... If you want to go down that silly line of argument, let's be silly:

Which do you think would hurt more (a) a car in the face or (b) a bicycle in the face?

Do you think the chances of survival are the same for a car in the face as a bicycle in the face?

It's you that seems to be trying to pass off that the laws of physics don't apply to cycles, once again we'll try for a simple yes/no answer, given that the laws of physics apply to cyclists as much as motorists is it safe for cyclists to pass within a specified distance of other cyclists?
given that, is it safe for cyclists to pass within a specified distance of cars?

It really doesn't matter who hits who there is always going to be physics at work.

monument

Spook_ie wrote: »

once again we'll try for a simple yes/no answer,

Welcome to boards.ie -- this is a discussion board not a poll where you only get the restrictive answer you want.

I've already answered in the negative to at least one of your answers -- you don't seem to be able to deal with my reasoning.

Why do you want a yes or no answer when you have already got a negative answer?

Spook_ie wrote: »

It's you that seems to be trying to pass off that the laws of physics don't apply to cycles,

Spook_ie wrote: »

...given that the laws of physics apply to cyclists as much as motorists is it safe for cyclists to pass within a specified distance of other cyclists?
given that, is it safe for cyclists to pass within a specified distance of cars?

While the laws of physics apply to both, the forces are greater for a car because of the mass of the car so the results will not be the same because cars are of a far larger mass.

Even if your physics were not off, I would not be able to answer that question because you say specified distance but you have not specified a distance. And also no mention of speed.

Spook_ie wrote: »

-
It really doesn't matter who hits who there is always going to be physics at work.

Going by that logic, a bicycle hitting a car is the same as a truck hitting a car.

Keep talking -- you're showing how your posts on cycling go as far as distorting physics.