Advocacy & Safety - The Obsession With Speed

I am the first one to say cars and cagers as there called here are the cause of MOST accidents ! But having said that I think to many bicycle riders are obsessed with speed going balls to the wall all the time . Or atleast at HI speeds for a bicycle . I admit Iam not capable of much more than 15 mph avg and normaly avg 13 mph .

My point is I think this obsession IMHO of many many cyclist with speed is if not the cause atleast the inability to control the bike just like the cagers out a control cycling to fast to control there bike .

I know a LOT are not going to agree with this but what say you ? Wouldn't a lot of us be safer if we just slowed down ? Besides you would get to see what your passing by and enjoy the ride and surroundings more . Thats my 2 cents .:beer: Rememer Iam NOT the enemy I am a cyclist! I ride as much as posible just about everyday here in Mi weather permiting so don't yell at me just asking for your thoughts on this :)

A bit defensive, are we?

Nevertheless, I try to go fast because I'm riding for exercise, not for fun. A bike going 20 still can stop far faster than a car going the same speed, the bike is far more maneuverable, and a cyclist has a much better view of his surroundings. The danger lies with drivers expecting a bike going 9, rather than 20. If more cyclists rode fast, drivers would become more accustomed to it.

I don;t think Iam defensive but maybe it came across like that sure didn't mean to :) I agree a bike is easier to control than a car . But a LOT a the threads on BF are about how can I go faster or how fast iam going .

I try to be fast uphill, but I admit to being one of the pokiest riders on a steep and/or long downgrade.

A bit defensive, are we?

Nevertheless, I try to go fast because I'm riding for exercise, not for fun. A bike going 20 still can stop far faster than a car going the same speed, the bike is far more maneuverable, and a cyclist has a much better view of his surroundings. The danger lies with drivers expecting a bike going 9, rather than 20. If more cyclists rode fast, drivers would become more accustomed to it.

Well you convinced me! I will from now on try to ride faster, so that drivers will grow more accustomed to seeing bikes riding closer to 20mph rather than 9mph. I know it dosen't contribute much to the movement, but it's all I can do.

A bike going 20 still can stop far faster than a car going the same speed,

Not true but that's besides the point. I enjoy riding fast too. It's fun and the chances of me causing anyone harm but myself while going the *blazing speed* of 20mph on a bike are slim to none. If I wanted to truly enjoy every inch of my surroundings, I'd walk. Alas, I want to get to work in a reasonable amount of time so I go by bike.

A bit defensive, are we?

Nevertheless, I try to go fast because I'm riding for exercise, not for fun. A bike going 20 still can stop far faster than a car going the same speed, the bike is far more maneuverable, and a cyclist has a much better view of his surroundings. The danger lies with drivers expecting a bike going 9, rather than 20. If more cyclists rode fast, drivers would become more accustomed to it.

Speed and weight loss do not go hand in hand or I would never a lost 90 lbs so far poking along at 13 mph avg ! I ride for fun and to lose weight and because I luv riding :thumb:

But bicycles are more stable at higher speeds.

Around here cars drive 45mph, so the faster I go the less of a speed differential there is. IMHO, the less the speed differential, the safer it is to ride.

I try to be fast uphill, but I admit to being one of the pokiest riders on a steep and/or long downgrade.


I've noticed that myself, as well. Why, in your case? With me it is because i have a lingering fear of brake failure (not an issue uphill).

To me the solution to speeders is best addressed while riding in your car. Within reasonable give and take under certain road conditions, obeying the speed limit is your best weapon. At the BEST, it sets a good example for the other users; as a close second, it means they will have to slow down and wait behind you.

roughstuff

Wouldn't a lot of us be safer if we just slowed down ?

You should be telling the cars to slow down, not us.

You should be telling the cars to slow down, not us.

Iam not telling ANYONE to slow down . I agree the cars need to slow down but IMHO some folks on bikes are so bent on speed there outa control just my opinion :)

American cyclists are like that

If you can't handle your bike at 20, I doubt you'll be much better at 9.

American cyclists are like that

Correction:

Smart cyclists travel at a safe, quick (for a bike) speed to keep traffic flowing.

The rest just wish to go as fast as possible for kicks - and we make sure to teach them at an early age:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_0Ia2ZVGBE

-Kurt

I don't see a problem with speed as appropriate for the road. I had a trucker pull out in front of me on a hill where I rode 60. That was a problem. It would also have been a problem had I been in my car. It would have been less of a problem had I not flipped him off before I started braking.

20 mph is too fast on a sidewalk, it's almost never too fast on a roadway.

Wouldn't a lot of us be safer if we just slowed down ? But then again, it would be a lot safer if you just stayed at home and never left the house. Don't you agree?

You only learn your limits if you exceed them. ;)

Seriously though, on a road with traffic that can go much faster than I can, it's all about minimising speed differentials. If the ambient speed of traffic is 15kph, I'm quite happy to ride at that speed.

A bit defensive, are we?

Nevertheless, I try to go fast because I'm riding for exercise, not for fun. A bike going 20 still can stop far faster than a car going the same speed, the bike is far more maneuverable, and a cyclist has a much better view of his surroundings. The danger lies with drivers expecting a bike going 9, rather than 20. If more cyclists rode fast, drivers would become more accustomed to it.

No.
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=498037&highlight=50mph

Speed and weight loss do not go hand in hand or I would never a lost 90 lbs so far poking along at 13 mph avg ! I ride for fun and to lose weight and because I luv riding :thumb:

The slimmer one is, the faster one has to go to get fitter (could be further weight loss, could be to get stronger).

The slimmer one is, the faster one has to go to get fitter (could be further weight loss, could be to get stronger).

You can always add weight to your bike. Go touring, it will surely cure the problem, a few saddlebags, a tent, food for a week. I promise you, you will get your workout... :lol:

I read an interesting study regarding helmets and motorcycles. It said that if you were going less than 40 KPH, then a helmet might help - but after that, the odds were not in your favor no matter what you are wearing. It was a study done by insurance companies looking at insurance rates (i.e. should they give a discount for wearing a helmet - conclusion, no)

I like to follow the "can I run this fast?" rule when not enclosed by a cage. I know if I fall while running, my body will probably do just fine unless something freaky happens. After all, my body either evolved to survive that, or was designed (pick which ever one you like). But, my body isn't suitable for falling at 50 mph from my experience, perhaps if I was a cheeta I would do better... :o I follow the same rule with horses by the way. A horse can go much faster than I and of course, the fall is from a higher distance. For me, galloping is good, flat out running, to be avoiding usually.

If you wipe out at high speeds you may well spend time in the hospital. Much more likely than at lower speeds. And the hypocrisy of course is that those who wouldn't dream of riding without a helmet, will race down a hill.

I agree with you, original poster. The obsession with speed goes along with the general obsession about everything in our current world. Every aspect of life is now a reality TV show challenge in which everyone feels like they can be voted off the island if they don't perform to a certain level. Cyclocomputers contribute to it, but so does the marketing of Lance fantasies to people who have more money than brains.

But then again, it would be a lot safer if you just stayed at home and never left the house. Don't you agree?


If you read the statistics, your home is one of the most dangerous places to be.

If you read the statistics, your home is one of the most dangerous places to be.

Reading statistics about danger/risk without understanding or even questioning how the statistics were gathered or what the statistics represent can lead to "dangerous" conclusions. Of course using the term "dangerous" to describe various scenarios with no understanding of the concept of measuring, comparing, and determining acceptable risk, is also worthless.

You stay at home, I'm riding my bike. If I'm going to die, I'd rather do it on my bike than watching Oprah. ;)

OP, most cycling accidents aren't the result of going too fast but rather a failure to pay attention; by both car drivers and cyclists.

I agree with you, original poster. The obsession with speed goes along with the general obsession about everything in our current world. Every aspect of life is now a reality TV show challenge in which everyone feels like they can be voted off the island if they don't perform to a certain level. Cyclocomputers contribute to it, but so does the marketing of Lance fantasies to people who have more money than brains.

Part of human nature is competition. Competition is what makes us better, faster, and stronger. Life involves competition and that's what makes everything we enjoy better.

I enjoy going fast. It's fun. It also makes be more fit. And it's a constant challenge, even if I'm just competing with myself.

Wouldn't a lot of us be safer if we just slowed down ?

I don't think so personally. I ride mostly in downtown core traffic, which means that with my fitness level I can keep pace with traffic or be moving faster than traffic 95% of the time. IMO it is alot safer to be moving with traffic and be a part of traffic than to be an obstacle on the side of the road that you hope is given enough space as traffic zooms past

I don't think so personally. I ride mostly in downtown core traffic, which means that with my fitness level I can keep pace with traffic or be moving faster than traffic 95% of the time. IMO it is alot safer to be moving with traffic and be a part of traffic than to be an obstacle on the side of the road that you hope is given enough space as traffic zooms past

Great... can your grandma keep up with you?

If we slowed all traffic, then everyone could keep up with it. If motorists need to go fast, they can use their exclusive freeway system.

I go as fast as is safe. When there's hardly any room to move between packed cars, I go a lot slower than when the road is flowing freely. On a descent, I go as fast as is appropriate for the road surface, and on a climb I go as fast as I can. I daresay that you'd condemn me as a reckless cyclist were I to blast past you on the road. However there are races to be raced, and I won't learn to go faster unless I do so at every reasonable opportunity.

Great... can your grandma keep up with you?

If we slowed all traffic, then everyone could keep up with it. If motorists need to go fast, they can use their exclusive freeway system.

Someone who wasn't in good physical shape most likely could not keep up with me, no.

That said, it's unrealistic to think you're going to be able to slow down all vehicle traffic to 10mph or so in the downtown core. A far more realistic solution is to have bike lanes that are physically seperated from the roadways that allow cyclists to travel at a leisurely pace in a safe manner.

If however it came down to maintaining the status quo or forcing all cyclists to ride slowly, I would prefer the status quo. I've got places to be and I prefer getting to work in 12 minutes instead of 30 because it lets me sleep in longer. I prefer getting home faster, because it gives me more leisure time. I prefer getting to the roller derby arena in 50 minutes instead of 2 hours because I wouldn't be able to get there in time if I had to ride slowly.

Some of us don't have the luxury of taking a more leisurely pace everywhere we go. I'm busy, and there it is.

The endorphines don't start flowing until at least 20mph. I find when i take it ez i don't enjoy the ride half as much.

Someone who wasn't in good physical shape most likely could not keep up with me, no.

That said, it's unrealistic to think you're going to be able to slow down all vehicle traffic to 10mph or so in the downtown core. A far more realistic solution is to have bike lanes that are physically seperated from the roadways that allow cyclists to travel at a leisurely pace in a safe manner.

If however it came down to maintaining the status quo or forcing all cyclists to ride slowly, I would prefer the status quo. I've got places to be and I prefer getting to work in 12 minutes instead of 30 because it lets me sleep in longer. I prefer getting home faster, because it gives me more leisure time. I prefer getting to the roller derby arena in 50 minutes instead of 2 hours because I wouldn't be able to get there in time if I had to ride slowly.

Some of us don't have the luxury of taking a more leisurely pace everywhere we go. I'm busy, and there it is.

So should hurried motorists be able to use your same excuse as they honk and nag to get past you, the slow cyclist (to them)? "I'm Busy." Classic.

Or should we simply design the roads so that all traffic can share the roads at a reasonable pace... and perhaps add some enhancements for those regular people who happen to ride a bike but don't consider themselves "cyclists." This BTW is the European model of the cycling picture, where riding a bicycle for regular transportation is done by anywhere from 20 to 38% of the population... including grandmothers.

And for those folks that are "busy," perhaps they can use the freeways rather than turning all roads into freeways. And if that doesn't work... leave earlier.

So should hurried motorists be able to use your same excuse as they honk and nag to get past you, the slow cyclist (to them)? "I'm Busy." Classic.

What?

Where did I say it was ok to harass other people because you're in a hurry? Preffering to move at the speed limit to make good time is now equivalent to condoning harassment and aggressive behaviour?

Have you been drinking?

What?

Where did I say it was ok to harass other people because you're in a hurry? Preffering to move at the speed limit to make good time is now equivalent to condoning harassment and aggressive behaviour?

Have you been drinking?

Well what exactly would you do if you were so "busy" and everyone else on the road was moving along at "a leisurely pace as you put it."

In other words you object to lowering speed limits because as you put it "you are busy." So what if the speed limits were lowered in spite of your personal needs.

Well what exactly would you do if you were so "busy" and everyone else on the road was moving along at "a leisurely pace as you put it."

The same thing I always do when I come across slow cyclists. When there is room to pass while giving them a few feet of space for safety, I pass them. Don't assume because someone prefers to cycle at a safe speed for moving in traffic that they're abusive and dangerous. That's idiotic and it lowers the level of debate greatly.


In other words you object to lowering speed limits because as you put it "you are busy." So what if the speed limits were lowered in spite of your personal needs.

The speed limits wouldn't be lowered in spite of my personal needs, it's a moot point. We can debate what we'd all do if they banned vehicular transportation of all kind and made cities exclusively pedestrian as well, but these aren't workable solutions and they're not going to happen.

The same thing I always do when I come across slow cyclists. When there is room to pass while giving them a few feet of space for safety, I pass them. Don't assume because someone prefers to cycle at a safe speed for moving in traffic that they're abusive and dangerous. That's idiotic and it lowers the level of debate greatly.
Sorry... have dealt with far too many motorists who have this very pointed attitude about slow cyclists in traffic and the motorist need to speed. Of course the speed you are moving at is one in which you can move along at near the same speed as the rest of traffic, which is very conducive to cycling. Now imagine that all the traffic around you is moving at 50MPH+.



The speed limits wouldn't be lowered in spite of my personal needs, it's a moot point. We can debate what we'd all do if they banned vehicular transportation of all kind and made cities exclusively pedestrian as well, but these aren't workable solutions and they're not going to happen.

It is not so much of a debate per se, across the nation there are moves afoot to bring in traffic calming and change areas to become more pedestrian friendly.

Sorry... have dealt with far too many motorists who have this very pointed attitude about slow cyclists in traffic and the motorist need to speed.


I'm not a motorist and I deal with the same risk of getting killed by cagers that you do. Keep that in mind when you're dealing with fellow cyclists dude.

Further to your point, I don't believe the vicious attitude of drivers is a product of cycling as much as it is a general symptom of road rage. These are the same boneheads who yell at construction workers, blare the horn at slower drivers, tailgate and make aggressive stupid moves directed at other vehicles. "Fixing" their problem is going to need to address more than just cycling. I think the best thing is seperate bike ways, of the kind in Europe so that cyclists no longer need to be part of that hostile environment if they so chose

Its much harder for a bike to get back to speed after slowing down than a car, so many cyclists are reluctant to slow down at intersections. This may contribute to accidents, but not as much as inattentive drivers.

I'm not a motorist and I deal with the same risk of getting killed by cagers that you do. Keep that in mind when you're dealing with fellow cyclists dude.

Further to your point, I don't believe the vicious attitude of drivers is a product of cycling as much as it is a general symptom of road rage. These are the same boneheads who yell at construction workers, blare the horn at slower drivers, tailgate and make aggressive stupid moves directed at other vehicles. "Fixing" their problem is going to need to address more than just cycling. I think the best thing is seperate bike ways, of the kind in Europe so that cyclists no longer need to be part of that hostile environment if they so chose

Your "I'm Busy" comment just rang so much like the responses I've heard from motorists... In fact just an hour ago, after being nearly run over in a local shopping center parking lot... I got a classic rant... "how long have you lived here..." Sigh... (as if that means anything)

At any rate... I do rather tend to agree with your final points... but I have to ask if you have considered that such an arrangement, fully loaded with other bike traffic, might be somewhat limiting to your desire for speed.

Your "I'm Busy" comment just rang so much like the responses I've heard from motorists... In fact just an hour ago, after being nearly run over in a local shopping center parking lot... I got a classic rant... "how long have you lived here..." Sigh... (as if that means anything)


"I'm busy therefore I want to travel as fast as possible without infringing on anyone elses safety" is a far cry from "I'm busy and the road belongs to me. Outta my way!"


At any rate... I do rather tend to agree with your final points... but I have to ask if you have considered that such an arrangement, fully loaded with other bike traffic, might be somewhat limiting to your desire for speed.

One would hope some foresight is exercised so that when implementing such a plan recreational cyclists (ie, roadies and others who ride quickly) are taken into account. Whether that means seperating the bike lanes into "fast" and "slow" lanes like freeways or allowing cyclists the use of roads if they chose would hopefully be something that's given some thought.

. . . I try to go fast because I'm riding for exercise, not for fun.

All I can say is, that's a damn shame. If it's only fitness you're after, then I suggest you ride a trainer all year because you're less likely to get run over by a car that way.

Sure, I ride fast sometimes (probably most times). But, I can't tell you how much I enjoy slower rides through the countryside that give me time to soak in all of the scenery. I don't know about you, but I find just poking along to be really therapeutic. I have friends that seem to want to do nothing but hammer all the time. They're always checking average speed, fastest speed, etc. It's as if a "good ride" is measured by how fast we were able to go. If that's all I cared about I'd be burned out in a couple of months.

Faster is more fun IMHO, though I start to get a little uneasy at like 35mph, the pavement sweeping by and all I can think of is having to go for a nice ride on that. ;P

Plus obviously I cover a further distance quicker, which is always has a sense of accomplishment.

On the flats, 18-20mph is a nice, leisurely pace for me. I ain't in no hurry. If I was in a hurry I'd find me a fast roadie or, better yet a motor vehicle and sit in their slipstream. :D

Faster is more fun IMHO, though I start to get a little uneasy at like 35mph,

High speed shimmy concerns me more at those speeds.

-Kurt

...just asking for your thoughts on this :)

Most of my bikes just won't go slow. And I guess I am in the habit of cycling at a speed that is comfortable depending on distance. My 5 mile commute - time trial usually. I am not in a rush, but looking around, even at slow speeds where I commute, means death. Must pay attention. Also, the faster I go, the least amount of drunk/texting/druged/unskilled motorists will make a dangerous move passing me. I love it when ZERO cars pass me the best! And cars at the cross streets notice, and take speed seriously.

I find in general, riding near 20 mph, and above, actually gets me more motorist respect than putting along in the gutter. They see speed as legitimacy to my space on the road. The proof comes when I ride with my wife or slower friends at speeds less that 18 mph on the same streets. Almost unbearable how cars treat us. I hate it.

The faster I go, the more time overtaking cars have to make an adjustment to me in the lane. Me riding faster is more courteous to motor vehicles too.

Next Question.....!

It is important to me to be accurate. I earlier wrote that a bike can stop more quickly than a car, and few of you disputed that assertion. I consulted the font of all wisdom in this point, David Wilson, Bicycling Science (3d Edition 2004). Chapter 7 concerns bicycle braking, and the formulas and calculations show that a bike and rider weighing 87 kg (191 pounds) traveling 9 m/s (20.1 mph) on a level, good quality road can stop in a minimum of 1.835 seconds, or within 8.26 meters. Using the vehicle stopping distance calculator located at http://www.csgnetwork.com/stopdistcalc.html, a car going 9 m/s will stop in a minimum of 5.1658 meters. Pg. 245: "For this reason (and many others) bicyclists should never tailgate motor vehicles." All of those numbers are ideals, meaning actual stopping distances under real conditions is likely to be greater. I suspect the average cyclist riding at 20 mph is likely paying more attention than the average motorist at the same speed, so I would estimate the stopping time to be approximately the same. I stand corrected.

I like going fast. It's fun. There's nothing wrong with having fun on your bike, is there? Of course if going fast isn't as fun for you than taking it easy then that's okay too.

I never go faster than what I feel safe doing. Controlling your bike at higher speeds isn't that hard and just comes with practice. If you never get much faster than 15 mph, don't assume that people going 20 to 25 mph can't control their bikes just because you don't think you'd be able to.

I wonder if the OP realizes that some riders actually race their bikes. Which requires them to occaisonally ride them a tad faster than 15 mph.

High speed shimmy concerns me more at those speeds.

-Kurt

You should have you bike checked out. A bike should be completely stable at 35 mph. Have your wheels, tires, and bearings in both the hubs and headset checked.

I wonder if the OP realizes that some riders actually race their bikes. Which requires them to occaisonally ride them a tad faster than 15 mph.Yes, but these people are probably obsessed with speed, which helps prove his point!

(Not that I'm sure what the point is. If we weren't worried about our speed, many of us would just walk rather than ride our bikes. Think of all the money we could save on bikes and such!)