Journalism and Cycling 2: the difficult second album

magicbastarder

Type 17 wrote: »

However, if you want peer-reviewed sources, here you go:

https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf (see: Effects of individual speed choice)

be careful what you cite, it actually contradicts your point!

More recent studies confirmed the higher crash risk of drivers driving above the average speed. In Australia this conclusion was based on case-control studies (Kloeden et al. 1997, 2001, 2002). In Great Britain, a similar conclusion arose from a self-report study (Taylor, Lynam & Baruya, 2000). However, these recent studies did not find evidence for a higher crash risk for driving below average speeds. This is most likely due to the fact that the older studies also included manoeuvring vehicles. Manoeuvring vehicles are more at risk and have, per definition, a low speed.

tomasrojo

timmyjimmy wrote: »

Well I passed, it was about 15 years ago. I did as instructed, ie, float around the speed limit where conditions allowed me to do so. You would be naive to think that breaking the speed limit by a small amount isn't somewhat accepted.

When I did my driving test, I was stuck behind tractors and various slow-moving vehicles, by coincidence, so I did almost the entire test in third gear. It was great for me, and I passed. It's still the gear I'm most comfortable in: much closer to the cycling speed I'm used to.

tomasrojo

Never noticed huge numbers of slow-moving drivers myself anyway. Very odd article, very odd emphasis. Pulling over to let people pass is fine, obviously.

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

Never noticed huge numbers of slow-moving drivers myself anyway. Very odd article, very odd emphasis. Pulling over to let people pass is fine, obviously.

I've a good bit of family in south Mayo, and spend a few weekends there every summer. Anecdotally my experience is that Mayo seems to have more that it's fair share of drivers who toddle along at 30-40km/h below the limit regardless of conditions (as well as those who maintain 60-70km/h regardless of the road or conditions, and regardless of whether the limit is 100 or 50).

Mayo is also the home of one of the few cases I've ever heard of being prosecuted for driving with due care and consideration for causing a tailback

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tractor-driver-banned-over-7km-traffic-tailback-1.2177126#:~:text=Tractor%20driver%2C%20Brian%20McGuinness%2C%20of,from%20driving%20for%20a%20year.

Type 17

magicbastarder wrote: »

first point, it's not specifically because their speed varies too much from the mean, it's because they're too slow and exposed for a motorway.
why speed limits? it's not about cutting the top layer of divergence off, it's because driving at 50km/h over what a road can sustain is vastly more dangerous than driving at 50km/h, in most circumstances.

most of your points make the point that excess speed is dangerous, not that deviation from the mean is.

also, that second link is not about deviation from the mean, from a quick scan? it's a study of the effect of the mean itself on accident rates.

Yes, they're slow and exposed because they too varied from the mean...

Yes, but speed limits also exist because driving over the mean is dangerous because of the risk of conflict with other road users (not expecting you to be reaching them so quickly), rather than what the road can handle. I could drive a supercar at 250km/h on a motorway and not crash, because I wouldn't have exceeded the handling envelope for that car on that road-type, but it would still be dangerous because I'd likely collide with someone pulling out to overtake who wasn't expecting me to be so far from the mean.

The Japanese study shows that variability over a 5 minute period leads to more collisions, which indicates that speed variabilities in short time-periods are dangerous - if I'm doing 80km/h when everyone else is doing 110km/h, it doesn't matter what happens at other times of the day, I'm more likely to cause/be involved in a collision.

Type 17

magicbastarder wrote: »

be careful what you cite, it actually contradicts your point!

Read the next sentence. Manoeuvring vehicles are an extreme form of variation from the mean and they do exist in the real world (as do slower-than-the-mean vehicles), so a study that includes them is more realistic.

magicbastarder

that's a nonsense argument. you're treating 'driving slowly' the same as 'stopped or moving extremely slowly to manouevre' which is clearly not what is being discussed.
unless you're suggesting that people perform these manouevres at speed.

Tombo2001

tomasrojo wrote: »

Never noticed huge numbers of slow-moving drivers myself anyway. Very odd article, very odd emphasis. Pulling over to let people pass is fine, obviously.

Well its all about point of view really.

There's a stretch of road on the way to my parents, near Ashbourne, that technically is a rural road but in practice has continuous bungalows and a shop for 1500 metres or so.

Its an 80k speed limit, windy narrow road with no footpath and people regularly walking at road side.

I tip along it at 50k - and even that is probably too fast.

But you can always feel the glare of the car behind that cant handle the fact they are moving so slowly in an 80k zone.

magicbastarder

Type 17 wrote: »

The Japanese study shows that variability over a 5 minute period leads to more collisions, which indicates that speed variabilities in short time-periods are dangerous - if I'm doing 80km/h when everyone else is doing 110km/h, it doesn't matter what happens at other times of the day, I'm more likely to cause/be involved in a collision.

explain to me where it says that.
it looks at accident rates based on *mean* speed, not on *deviation from the mean*, unless i'm misreading it.
it's quite possible that when the mean speed drops from 100km/h to 80km/h, it's because of congestion, which is the actual factor which has the effect on collision rates rather than the speed.
e.g. from 'results and discussion':

Not only speed but also speed change affects the occurrence of accidents. The highest probability of accident is observed when the speed is around 85 km/h, after decreasing from 110 km/h in the previous time interval (5-min before). Another area of high crash probability, which is clearly visible in Fig. 5, is observed when the speed increases to nearly 90 km/h from 65 km/h in the previous 5-min time interval.

tomasrojo

blackwhite wrote: »

I've a good bit of family in south Mayo, and spend a few weekends there every summer. Anecdotally my experience is that Mayo seems to have more that it's fair share of drivers who toddle along at 30-40km/h below the limit regardless of conditions (as well as those who maintain 60-70km/h regardless of the road or conditions, and regardless of whether the limit is 100 or 50).

70km/h is fast enough on most roads though? It's hardly slow, except on a motorway, and it's easy to get past someone doing that speed on a motorway.

blackwhite wrote: »

Mayo is also the home of one of the few cases I've ever heard of being prosecuted for driving with due care and consideration for causing a tailback

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/district-court/tractor-driver-banned-over-7km-traffic-tailback-1.2177126#:~:text=Tractor%20driver%2C%20Brian%20McGuinness%2C%20of,from%20driving%20for%20a%20year.

For *not* driving with due care and consideration, I guess?

Obviously if you're driving slowly you should be aware of people behind you, and facilitate them passing.

Given that the overwhelming problem we have, like everywhere else, is people speeding and being impatient, this emphasis in the article is really pretty odd.

tomasrojo

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Well its all about point of view really.

There's a stretch of road on the way to my parents, near Ashbourne, that technically is a rural road but in practice has continuous bungalows and a shop for 1500 metres or so.

Its an 80k speed limit, windy narrow road with no footpath and people regularly walking at road side.

I tip along it at 50k - and even that is probably too fast.

But you can always feel the glare of the car behind that cant handle the fact they are moving so slowly in an 80k zone.

Yes, but you're completely correct, and the fault, if there's a collision, should lie with the person trying to pass you and misjudging it.

It might be because I drive so seldom, but if someone's going about 50km/h on a narrow road, I'd never bother overtaking them.

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

70km/h is fast enough on most roads though? It's hardly slow, except on a motorway, and it's easy to get past someone doing that speed on a motorway.




For *not* driving with due care and consideration, I guess?

Obviously if you're driving slowly you should be aware of people behind you, and facilitate them passing.

Given that the overwhelming problem we have, like everywhere else, is people speeding and being impatient, this emphasis in the article is really pretty odd.

70 might be fine on a narrow rural road. It's well below both the limit and well below what is appropriate on plenty of stretches of N-road, not just motorways.

tomasrojo

You're allowed to drive at 50km/h on motorways anyway, aren't you? Tractors that can reach 50km/h are allowed on them anyway?

tomasrojo

blackwhite wrote: »

70 might be fine on a narrow rural road. It's well below both the limit and well below what is appropriate on plenty of stretches of N-road, not just motorways.

You're definitely well within your rights to decide that 50km/h is more appropriate, and the fault isn't yours if someone tries to pass you and messes it up.

EDIT: Sorry, I get what you're saying now.

As I already said, you're allowed drive under the speed limit. If your vehicle can only do 50km/h, that seems to be permitted. These roads with 110km/h speed limits have several lanes, so you can pass safely. I really can't see the issue. You have to expect some vehicles going well below 100km/h on these roads.

magicbastarder

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Its an 80k speed limit, windy narrow road with no footpath and people regularly walking at road side.

isn't 80 the default until a road is assessed for a speed limit change? and there are so many back roads around the country the council would be tied up in knots trying to assess all the roads for suitable limits.

Eamonnator

Type 17 wrote: »

My source is observing the world around me - why are cyclists, pedestrians, tractors, etc not allowed on motorways? - their speed varies too far from the mean.

Why have authorities introduced electronically-controlled variable speed limits on busy roads? - to cut down on speed variability.

Why do roads have speed limits? - to cut the top off the curve of the divergence from the mean speed (85th percentile rule).

As cyclists, do we feel more comfortable cycling on roads where the mean vehicle speeds are very different to ours (eg:100km/h) or where they are closer to ours (eg:30km/h)?

However, if you want peer-reviewed sources, here you go:

https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/speed-crash-risk.pdf (see: Effects of individual speed choice)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0386111216300449

I started reading the second article.
I must admit, I stopped reading when they used the word "accident" 5 times in the first paragraph, when IMHO, they should have used "collision" or "incident"
That's a bit of a bugbear with me.

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

Never noticed huge numbers of slow-moving drivers myself anyway. Very odd article, very odd emphasis. Pulling over to let people pass is fine, obviously.

It'd be pretty common up here. Lines of traffic behind someone driving slowly, normally because they've poor spacial awareness so brake every time they meet an oncoming vehicle. Most people driving seem ok with that, but lose their mind having to wait to safely overtake cyclists...

The main inappropriate speed issue is people not driving to a speed they can safely stop for the distance they can see. Every "came around the corner and had to slam on as there was a tractor/ pedestrian/ cyclist/ horse" thread on motors is effectively this. So a shocking message for a road safety officer to put out!

I fairly regularly get overtaken, between speed ramps, for having the audacity to stick to the 50km heading out of Roundwood (both ways).

tomasrojo

Macy0161 wrote: »

It'd be pretty common up here. Lines of traffic behind someone driving slowly, normally because they've poor spacial awareness so break every time they meet an oncoming vehicle.

Yes, I can see that. Reminds me of driving out to Connemara from Galway city. It's hard to think that the correct encouragement for people with these judgement difficulties is to tell them to speed up though? (Not saying you're suggesting this! Just calling back to the article.)

Seth Brundle

Either way, it is wrong for the Safety Office within a Co Co to effectively say that if a driver is holding up traffic and someone decides to overtake and crashes then that is partly the fault of the slower driver.
Whilst I agree that it can be annoying following a slow vehicle for what seems like ages (but in reality isn't!), it is a ludicrous approach to take in terms of road safety. Fair enough, tell drivers to be conscious of what is behind and if possible let any traffic queueing behind pass. But don't blame driver A because driver B decided to overtake when it wasn't safe.

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

You're definitely well within your rights to decide that 50km/h is more appropriate, and the fault isn't yours if someone tries to pass you and messes it up.

EDIT: Sorry, I get what you're saying now.

As I already said, you're allowed drive under the speed limit. If your vehicle can only do 50km/h, that seems to be permitted. These roads with 110km/h speed limits have several lanes, so you can pass safely. I really can't see the issue. You have to expect some vehicles going well below 100km/h on these roads.

You're allowed to drive under the limit, and there's no limit for how low a speed to go at.

You still have an obligation - both legal and moral - to show due care and consideration for other road users.

If you are choosing to drive at a speed that is significantly different to what the majority of other road users have deemed to be acceptable, then there's an onus on you to display consideration for them also.

It doesn't absolve anyone who causes an accident by making an inappropriate overtake - but it also means that the person who was causing tailbacks to form behind them is necessarily "in the right" either.


Put it this way - I could believe it's appropriate to drive at 50km/h along this stretch of road whilst positioning a car towards the centre line https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.9698501,-8.2447858,3a,75y,83.24h,87.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLAysmNU8RGQYu4ZyiJYOlQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

It wouldn't be breaking any laws regarding speed, but there's a strong argument that I was breaking the law regarding due care and consideration if I continued at that speed all the way to Carrick-On-Shannon and allowed a tailback to build behind me.

blackwhite

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Either way, it is wrong for the Safety Office within a Co Co to effectively say that if a driver is holding up traffic and someone decides to overtake and crashes then that is partly the fault of the slower driver.
Whilst I agree that it can be annoying following a slow vehicle for what seems like ages (but in reality isn't!), it is a ludicrous approach to take in terms of road safety. Fair enough, tell drivers to be conscious of what is behind and if possible let any traffic queueing behind pass. But don't blame driver A because driver B decided to overtake when it wasn't safe.

I'm not sure I agree TBH. Responsibility isn't a zero-sum game.

Driver B's responsibility for the accident isn't reduced - what they decide to do lies with them and them only.
Driver A still bears responsibility for adding to the circumstances that increase the risk. They aren't responsible for Driver B's actions, but they are still responsible for their own.

tomasrojo

blackwhite wrote: »

You're allowed to drive under the limit, and there's no limit for how low a speed to go at.

You still have an obligation - both legal and moral - to show due care and consideration for other road users.

If you are choosing to drive at a speed that is significantly different to what the majority of other road users have deemed to be acceptable, then there's an onus on you to display consideration for them also.

That's not really true. You're not obliged to break the speed limit along the quays in Dublin, for example, because everyone else is doing it.

blackwhite wrote: »

YIt doesn't absolve anyone who causes an accident by making an inappropriate overtake - but it also means that the person who was causing tailbacks to form behind them is necessarily "in the right" either.

Causing tailbacks is a separate issue though: that's a failure to pull over and let people pass.

Macy0161

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, I can see that. Reminds me of driving out to Connemara from Galway city. It's hard to think that the correct encouragement for people with these judgement difficulties is to tell them to speed up though? (Not saying you're suggesting this! Just calling back to the article.)

I definitely am not. It's shocking of a road safety officer. Same as with passing people on bikes, it plays into the whole "forced to overtake" narrative that a significant minority of people who drive like to make.

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

That's not really true. You're not obliged to break the speed limit along the quays in Dublin, for example, because everyone else is doing it.

Indeed - I should have prefaced that by saying a speed that's well below the legal limit and also out of whack with what other users are travelling at - but I thought that should have been fairly clear given the discussion before that.

tomasrojo wrote: »

Causing tailbacks is a separate issue though: that's a failure to pull over and let people pass.

It's not a separate issue - this is straight back to the original point of
"drive at the speed appropriate to the conditions; if they’re not comfortable in doing that, we’re not asking them to speed up, we’re asking them to give way to following vehicles"

tomasrojo

blackwhite wrote: »

Indeed - I should have prefaced that by saying a speed that's well below the legal limit and also out of whack with what other users are travelling at - but I thought that should have been fairly clear given the discussion before that.




It's not a separate issue - this is straight back to the original point of
"drive at the speed appropriate to the conditions; if they’re not comfortable in doing that, we’re not asking them to speed up, we’re asking them to give way to following vehicles"

Yes, that part of the article is fine.

tomasrojo

This part is not fine:

Slow drivers may unknowingly contribute to other motorists making sometimes fatal overtaking manoeuvres. This can be prevented by regularly checking your mirrors and being aware of what is behind your vehicle.

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

Yes, I can see that. Reminds me of driving out to Connemara from Galway city. It's hard to think that the correct encouragement for people with these judgement difficulties is to tell them to speed up though? (Not saying you're suggesting this! Just calling back to the article.)

Where in the article did they tell people to speed up - they explicitly say they are not asking them to speed up

tomasrojo

Hmm, yes, they explicitly say that in one bit, and then they imply that "inadequate speed" is a problem, and imply that such slow-moving drivers are creating unsafe passing scenarios. It's quite a mixed message.

Basically, the article would have been shorter and more to the point just to ask slower drivers to be aware of tailbacks and pull over at the first opportunity. There was no need for any of the rest.

blackwhite

tomasrojo wrote: »

This part is not fine:

I disagree. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.

Nothing reduces the responsibility of someone who causes an accident with a dangerous overtake.

Equally well, someone who is driving without due care and consideration is also creating circumstances that potentially could result in a collision occurring. Whilst they aren't directly responsible for the collision, they can still be responsible for creating circumstances that contributed to it happening.

tomasrojo

blackwhite wrote: »

I disagree. Responsibility is not a zero-sum game.

Nothing reduces the responsibility of someone who causes an accident with a dangerous overtake.

Equally well, someone who is driving with due care and consideration is also creating circumstances that potentially could result in a collision occurring. Whilst they aren't directly responsible for the collision, they can still be responsible for creating circumstances that contributed to it happening.

But you're describing shared culpability so it does reduce the responsibility of someone who does a dangerous pass.

Just to be clear, maybe you could describe one of these scenarios: type of road and the maximum speed a slow-moving driver would need to be doing to share culpability.