Bicycle, crash hat and accident

[Uncle Peter]

Consider running for a bus, that's not a mile.

[Uncle Peter]

No. Because it's comfortable to run.

[Uncle Peter]

I never said I should be. I said it would be insane to compare a runner to a car, just as it is insane to compare a bicycle to a car.

[Tim Streater]

Well you're the one doing it. So what does that make *you*? Well, OK, I think we know the answer.

[Bob Henson]

But your car cannot do 110 mph anywhere a pedestrian is walking. At the legal speed limit in town there is precious little difference between being struck by a car at 30 mph (shortly to be 20 mph in many places, they tell us) and a bicycle at 26 mph. The bike has far more spiky bits sticking out than a car, and is likely to inflict nearly as much, if not more, damage than a car. The cyclist is much more likely to not be looking where he/she is going too, as they seem to think their special green status gives them authority to ignore normal rules - especially red lights.

[Uncle Peter]

I'm not the one doing it. Can't you follow simple English?

[Uncle Peter]

I'm not the one doing it. Can't you follow simple English?

[Uncle Peter]

Of course it can. And the fact is cars go faster than bikes in a built up area, breaking the law or not, they get overtaken.

Absolute twaddle. The laws of physics state that if a 100kg object is struck by a 1000kg object, it's gonna get hurt a lot more than if both objects were 100kg. Look up the conservation of momentum, and you'll find that with a car, the car does not change speed significantly, but the pedestrian is accelerated to the speed of the car almost instantly. If a bike hits a pedestrian (with a similar weight), then the pedestrian and the cyclist will both be accelerated/decelerated by half the speed of the cyclist.

[Fredxxx]

Then the cycling speed would be proportionately faster.

If the distance is ultra short, a few yards as in in your scenario of running for a bus, I will agree that by the time I have mounted the bike, you might well have reached the bus. Is that what you are trying to say?

[Fredxxx]

The percussive effect of running on ones knees suggest to me and most others that is not the case.

Or don't you have knees?

[Uncle Peter]

Then why do so many people run for exercise?

[Uncle Peter]

The cyclist will most likely be travelling 5 or 10 miles. The runner will most likely be travelling 100 yards.

[Uncle Peter]

Correct. Most people probably go 15-20mph to catch a bus. Which is close to what most people cycle at, which is usually 20mph.

[Uncle Peter]

At least you don't get so bored watching the race.

[Uncle Peter]

He was asking the question of me as a RUNNER, not a cyclist.

[Uncle Peter]

Bicycles are safer on the pavements, then they are out of the bloody way of the cars. Now if only buses would fit on pavements....

[dennis]

Everyone has to die some way.

[Fredxxx]

No, in order to get to the same destination most people will travel the same distances whether they walk or cycle.

I can now see why you can run faster than you can cycle.

[Capitol]

True, Everyone I know who has indulged in exercise has either died early or been injured. Mind you, pedal powered organ donors are a great spare parts resource.

[Uncle Peter]

People who don't exercise die of heart failure.