Yes but probability of a crash is probably related to the spread in the velocities of various agents.
This is why I often ride my 40 km/h max electric moped on bike paths. Cars don't give me enough following distance so I'm not risking my life there. I also slow down drastically when passing pedal bikers.
If you're exerting yourself you tend to pay attention to what's happening around you. I noticed that folks that go very fast on their two-wheeled vehicle without too much effort get distracted quite easily.
I think it may not be the exertion per se, as much as the perception that something is working hard to give the speed you have.
I have been a very very fast cyclist in the past, and when I'm down on my aero bars and doing 40-50kph under my own power, I'm very aware that I'm (a) working hard (b) going fast. This makes me not want to crash, if only because I'd lose all that hard-earned speed.
But I've seen the same effect in cars too. If I drive a very quiet and "smooth" vehicle on a very smooth road, its way too easy to go substantially beyond the speed limit, because I just don't have the perception of "an engine working hard to propel things forward". Switch a noisy, vibrating vehicle on a rougher road, and I'm much more aware of what is going on and will definitely keep my speed under control.
I haven't driven a Tesla or similar, so I have no idea how their near-silent engine affects this sort of thing. On paper, it seems likely to be bad :)
that equation shows velocity is more important though? a small car at 10 mph has about the same KE as a 200 lb person going 40 mph. of course KE doesn't tell the whole story. of the two, I'd much rather be hit by the car. I could run into a brick wall at 10 mph and probably be okay.
I suppose if you absorbed all of the energy from the car, rather than just being pushed back by it, then the damage might be more comparable. For example, I think if someone was standing against a wall and a car rolled into them at 10mpg it might be as terrible as being hit by a 200lb cyclist at 40 mph. Of course, I agree that 10 mph seems a lot less dangerous - it gives many more options to move out of the way, or to spread the impact over time (by walking backwards and pushing against the car). Just throwing out some thoughts on why the same energy from each seems to have such a different destructive force.
True, though most collisions aren't head on, and even when they are, usually only a fraction of the velocity is absorbed because the objects deflect from each other.
Yes but probability of a crash is probably related to the spread in the velocities of various agents.
This is why I often ride my 40 km/h max electric moped on bike paths. Cars don't give me enough following distance so I'm not risking my life there. I also slow down drastically when passing pedal bikers.
If you're exerting yourself you tend to pay attention to what's happening around you. I noticed that folks that go very fast on their two-wheeled vehicle without too much effort get distracted quite easily.
I think it may not be the exertion per se, as much as the perception that something is working hard to give the speed you have.
I have been a very very fast cyclist in the past, and when I'm down on my aero bars and doing 40-50kph under my own power, I'm very aware that I'm (a) working hard (b) going fast. This makes me not want to crash, if only because I'd lose all that hard-earned speed.
But I've seen the same effect in cars too. If I drive a very quiet and "smooth" vehicle on a very smooth road, its way too easy to go substantially beyond the speed limit, because I just don't have the perception of "an engine working hard to propel things forward". Switch a noisy, vibrating vehicle on a rougher road, and I'm much more aware of what is going on and will definitely keep my speed under control.
I haven't driven a Tesla or similar, so I have no idea how their near-silent engine affects this sort of thing. On paper, it seems likely to be bad :)
1 reply →
that equation shows velocity is more important though? a small car at 10 mph has about the same KE as a 200 lb person going 40 mph. of course KE doesn't tell the whole story. of the two, I'd much rather be hit by the car. I could run into a brick wall at 10 mph and probably be okay.
I suppose if you absorbed all of the energy from the car, rather than just being pushed back by it, then the damage might be more comparable. For example, I think if someone was standing against a wall and a car rolled into them at 10mpg it might be as terrible as being hit by a 200lb cyclist at 40 mph. Of course, I agree that 10 mph seems a lot less dangerous - it gives many more options to move out of the way, or to spread the impact over time (by walking backwards and pushing against the car). Just throwing out some thoughts on why the same energy from each seems to have such a different destructive force.
True, though most collisions aren't head on, and even when they are, usually only a fraction of the velocity is absorbed because the objects deflect from each other.
Yes but to not give weight a mention isn’t quite right.
Small car: 1500kg
Bike: 10kg
Escooter: 3kg (?)