- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Edward Mountain MSP (via YouTube)Conservative MSP argues that a bike could do more damage than a car in a collision
A transport expert has dismissed a Conservative MSP’s suggestion that a bike could cause more damage in a crash than a car. The claim was made by Edward Mountain during a discussion about 20mph limits in a Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee session this week.
As reported in our live blog earlier in the week, Mountain said: “With the 20mph in Edinburgh, it’s been quite interesting. If you drive along at 20mph, as a driver, the thing you notice more than anything else is the cyclists who are doing 30mph or 40mph down the hill.”
He continued: “Injury is about developing kilojoules of energy at a point of impact in a limited area. Now a bicycle will do that – probably more effectively on a point of impact – because it’ll be very narrow where they hit.
“I know cyclists are a problem, but do you think that’ll make people wonder: the car driver will think, ‘well I’m being overtaken by a cyclist’ – does it make it any easier for a car driver to come to terms with it? And should we not be thinking about cyclists as well?”
In response, transport expert Dr Adrian Davis branded this “an outlier question” and “a minor point.”
Davis said that getting up to 30mph on a bike was quite difficult for most people and, “the science is about mass. There is an equation about that. It’s the mass of the vehicle that’s going to do more damage.
“Being hit by an HGV is the one you really don’t want to get hit by because you’ll be dead. I think there is a bit of difference with respect, chair. The mass is most important.”
He added: “I don’t think that’s a main point for us today. Most people are hit by motor vehicles.”
Jodi Gordon from Cycle Law Scotland told The National: “The idea the average cyclist will now be overtaking motor vehicles and potentially causing people to speed simply re-enforces the ‘us and them’ culture we already have on our roads.
“It is counter-productive. We also need to understand the destructive disparity argument when comparing motor vehicles to other road users.
“However, In order to make our roads safer we need to have mutual respect for each other and all adhere to the rules of the road, that includes speed limits.
“Cyclists, like other road users have to be aware of hazards and to travel at excess speed only reduces their ability to react to situations as they arise, such as pedestrians stepping off a pavement.
“We all have a duty of care to ourselves and each other when out on the road. The 20mph speed limit should be a positive discussion about change in road culture and protection of the most vulnerable.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Boopop 1 sec ago
I find it deeply jarring and disappointing that Sir David agrees with these people not wanting a cycle lane. Whenever I watch one of his excellent...
- chrisonabike 9 min 7 sec ago
May need insurance, tax and a licence. No problem with the lights though.
- Simon E 25 min 8 sec ago
Yes, they look just like the Lezyne Zecto model. My club bought a couple of sets from the LBS for our midweek TTs so if someone turns up without...
- Hirsute 2 hours 56 min ago
If you can't see a %^$&ing large tractor what ^%$£"!*ing hope is there that you will see a cyclist ?...
- chrisonabike 3 hours 14 min ago
Well if you *can* interview the original riders at all surely they worked, at least?...
- David9694 3 hours 43 min ago
Live: Car plunges over wall and lands on beach rocks...
- biking59boomer 3 hours 49 min ago
Looks like yet another bike share service that's going to fold because of selfish idiots.
- quiff 7 hours 53 min ago
Fair point - I was restricting myself to pedal bikes. As I've never spent that kind of money on anything though (mortgage doesn't count), it's kind...
- brooksby 8 hours 56 min ago
And finally: I wonder how many of the "more than 3,000" signatures on that petition are actually locals, who live or work there (and are not just...
Add new comment
30 comments
Is there any way to get him kicked off this committee? He displays a staggering amount of arrogance and ignorance. Surely he can be taken to task somehow for his comments.
There is both a physics and a logic problem here with Mr Mountain.
The physics problem is that the damage from an impact is about energy transfer. He is right that the kinetic energy of a moving object is about weight and speed. But cars are much heavier. A car weighs at least 1000kg, a big person on a bike might be 100kg. To have the same kinetic energy as a car travelling at 20mph a bike would have to be going at over 60 mph. I've never been that fast and the thought petrifies me. He also contends more of that would be transferred by a bike than a car so it would be more "concentrated". That seems odd. It feels much more likely the bike will deliver a glancing blow whereas the car definitely won't bounce off.
The logic problem is that he seems to be arguing that cars shouldn't be subject to a 20mph speed limit because bikes break the speed. As I say above you shouldn't be worried about those bike unless they are going at 70mph or more. But even if you are the logic isn't too increase the speed limit, it is too actually enforce it against cyclists.
Online calculator says 1,750,000 J for the hgv against 9,000 J for the lardy cyclist.
I asked a physicist and they said he was talking nonsense.
I don't think you do very well against a 44 ton hgv even at 20 mph due to its mass.
I made the kinetic energy to be over 3.5 m
Well, yeah, because our patronising-yet-clueless poster doesn't seem to realise that force is proportional to mass. He doesn't seem to understand even A level physics.
(Must be an engineer).
Not so affectionately known to those who know him best ... Teddy Molehill.
Well he is an idiot for telling the truth ... Impact forces transmitted between the 2 impact areas are the issue ... if i was hit full on by a HGV at 20 i woud probably survive.
Impact
-----------------
area of impact
If i was hit by a cyclist at 30 then the impact area would be tiny, the mass of the impact would be much smaller .. but the resultant impact area mass would possibly be higher ..
Any Phyisics or Pure Maths grads out ther got an opinion ... if so find an Engineer to help you put it into words ....
How about I drop a house onto you, and you drop a pin on me at the same speed? The impact area of the pin would be much lower than that of the house, ergo it would be worse, right?
You don't seem to understand the difference between 'force' and 'pressure'. First you say the 'impact forces' are the issue (I would have thought it's more the transferred kinetic energy) and then you talk about force/area, i.e. pressure, i.e. not 'impact forces'.
From an engineering point of view you're going to have to consider point of impact, and the resultant deflective forces, turning moments, transfer of energy, retained energies and effects on both the impactor and the impactee. If a cyclist runs into you their wheel hits you first, but as it is at leg height it deflects, so the transfer of energy is pretty damn small (regardless of initial impact pressure). The cyclist's body, head and handlebares will then hit you spreading the force over a much larger area. The maths isn't difficult.
Now, imagine the car bumper hitting you in much the same place, with absolutely no deflection, then because of the sudden acceleration of your legs your body hits the bonet and windscreen and is accelerated to the speed of the car. Basic physics, or simple dynamic engineering, if you like tells you both the transfer of forces are orders of magnitude higher, and the initial impact pressures also.
About 2000 people a year are taken to hospital with badly broken legs from impact with a car bumper / bonnet. Precisely none were recorded in 2014 or 2015 or 2016 from impact with a bicycle front wheel. (UK hospital admissions).
He wasn't telling the truth, he was talking absolute hogwash.
I know cyclists are a problem.......WTAF
The guy is a total retard. When ever did a bike hit a car and break the spine of the driver. WHEN????????????? SIR YOU ARE A TOTAL RETARD.
Maybe the council should be making allowances for his learning difficulty and engage someone who can explain the available statistics for road traffic collisions and injuries using simple words and toy cars.
“Injury is about developing kilojoules of energy at a point of impact in a limited area. Now a bicycle will do that – probably more effectively on a point of impact – because it’ll be very narrow where they hit."
Now doesn't that sound like the kind of pseudo-scientific waffle used by people who object to my wearing, for example, brightly-coloured clothing in dull conditions?
Would that be Sir Edward Mountain, the Fourth Baronet Mountain, heir to the founder of one of the UK's largest insurance companies, speaking for the common man against those smug liberal elite cyclists?
Dear Mr Mountain.... I am going to place you in a road, you now have 2 choice... 1 Run over you with a car at 20mph ot 2 Run over you with a bicycle at 20mph... please choose... yes thought so you utter ******* how the hell do these people get into power
We're ruled by these morons. Isn't there a basic intelligence test they need to pass?
Don't vote for him!
Alternatively; think how bad the other candidates must have been.
Or how utterly thick the majority of the constituents are for voting in this complete plum.
So is the woman next to him sat there thinking, "WTF??"
I wonder whether the committee members laughed at him when he spouted this nonsense?
He is clearly an idiot, and I pity his constituents.
Her expression says everything. No further comments needed from us, except "I agree with her"
No doubt terrorists are planning to ditch large trucks and kill pedestrians with their bicycles.
I realise that's a joke, but I fully expect that there is no comment that's so stupid, false and impossible about bicycles that it cannot not be made by some cyclophobic half-wit of a politician.
Cars can and have penetrated buildings and killed people inside, I suggest this has probably never occurred with a person riding a bicycle. It caused little more than a murmour. You will note the complete absence of the media feeding-frenzies that accompanied the Charlie Allison / Kim Briggs case and the Jason Howard / Rhiannon Bennett case in 2008.
I wonder how many pedestrians have been killed by idiots in motor vehicles since 2008 and for comparison, by people riding bicycles.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-43815325
I'm sure Jeff is relieved someone tried to kill him with just a car
https://road.cc/content/news/255988-suspended-sentence-motorist-who-doub...
Someone should suggest this clown to read the road traffic act, where it states that it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle above the posted speed limit. This means that a cyclist doing 30, downhill is a 20 zone is not breaking the law. . . but it might not be smart. (There are a few exceptions in some royal parks where local bylaws include cyclists in the speed limit)
My personal experience across the North Sea is that in areas with a 30km/h limit (around 20mph) if I'm cycling at 29 I still get passed by cars going considerable above my speed. So I would say his argument is a pile of bovine excrement.
There would be fewer accidents between vehicles and pedestrians if pedestrians learned to look properly before crossing the road. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to take avoiding action when people simly step off the kerb without looking, both when cycling and driving.
alot of the roads round where I live are 20mph, not that theyve ever been enforced,and even though I can ride in that 15-20mph zone fairly comfortably, its never stopped anyone in a car from overtaking me (see point about never enforcing the limit), often even if it means the car then uses the pavement as extra road space. of course when I get to the end of the road and junction with the main 30mph roads, Im usually sat right behind them again, I just lean forward on my bars so they can see me staring at them up close in their rear view mirror.
Mobile phones need to be banned in cars and anywhere near roads. Too many lack the intelligence to use them responsibly.
OR
Running into a pedestrain using a phone should be their fault.
https://vimeo.com/239094870
I do this only I really bump into them - I've lost count of the number of people I've bumped into who drop their phone and then look confused. You can see them thinking 'was it my fault'. You don't want to be walking along looking at your phone when I am around.
What an ass
Edward Mountain really is an utter sperm.
Is that supposed to be an insult or a compliment? Half of me was a sperm once, a pretty good one to, I won a race with a lot of competitors, best win ever!
And now you are (presumably) a well rounded individual inherting attributes from both your Mother and Father. Mr Mountain however is obviously limping by with half a deck.
Incorrect! Sperm has potential.