Safe Speed Forums

But piloting a silent vehicle can be so much more dangerous.

Factor that in with exposure (distance travelled for each group) and you begin to wonder if the danger per unit distance travelled isn't so different (many more people drive, much more often, each journey over much larger distances).
Do you have any such figures?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

In the case of a cycle it's much more dangerous to the cyclist, in the case a car much more dangerous for the pedestrian.

But you still can't compare the two, it's ridiculous to do so.

If I lined up 100 people and had 100 cyclists ride into each of them at 30mph, then lined up another 100 and had 100 cars drive into each of them at 30mph what do you think's going to happen? I know which line I'd rather be standing in!



Nope, just arguing from a perspective.

Speak for yourself! People will generally side with me and choose not to line up at all to let people drive/ride into them

The issue here is the risk of collisions. You have rightly stated that others involved in a collision will come of worse if the mode of transport is a motor vehicle. What they do is walk around pavements and roads but remaining unaware of the presence of the silent vehicle, so leading to errors of judgement and an increased chance of a collision - who knows which effect wins. Couple that with a far higher rate of unpredictable behaviour from those pedalling and you get a more realistic perspective: a tiny portion of drivers jump pedestrian crossings or drive the wrong way through a 1 way roads; an extreme few drive significant distances along pavements (let alone at any great speed), or drive in darkness without lights - the effects of all these made worse because the bike is silent. I suspect it is right to say that in terms of unpredictable behaviour, it is just as ridiculous to compare the two.

PS, I'm not trying to demonise cyclists (I love cycling), I just don't want anyone getting misleading ideas about the dangers posed.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I imagine that even pedestrians who feel entitled to cross a road without looking would find this 'experiment' daft; the 'non-vehicles' would not want to participate if they were not allowed to evade.
I'd further also imagine that all the vehicle operators [of both types] would exeunt if they were not permitted to evade/brake.

I have a much better idea for an experiment that does not artificially cause undue pain and suffering by creating a situation to which no one in their right mind would ever be a party.Upon mention of 'a silent vehicle', a hybrid car came to mind. (That the topic of this thread pertains to bicyclists suggests that I don't find them to be much of a problem. Pedestrians in NYC beg to differ, however.)

I wonder how bicycles compare to hybrid cars? They're already thinking of adding artificial noises to hybrid cars to protect the blind (and perhaps the rare idiots who would partake in either of the above 'line-ups'). If hybrid cars aren't making enough noise, then that little bicycle bell alone can't be enough, can it?

_________________
The Rules for ALL ROAD USERS:
1) No one gets hurt
2) Nothing gets hit, except to protect others; see Rule#1
3) The Laws of Physics are invincible and immutable - so-called 'laws' of men are not
4) You are always immediately and ultimately responsible for your safety first, then proximately responsible for everyone's
Do not let other road users' mistakes become yours, nor yours become others
5) The rest, including laws of the land, is thoughtful observation, prescience, etiquette, decorum, and cooperation

Never underestimate the power of a cycle bell, it even works on escalators:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtv2_-2mHck

As an absolute figure or a proportion of each type?