Self righteous cameramen

[mjr]

Higher friction is of course pointless if the guy isn't braking much.

Is it, or does a higher-friction surface increase the coefficient of rolling resistance and thereby slow down even underbrakers? It's certainly harder work to cycle over that rubbish.

[BakfietsUK]

Ok I know all I want to know about high friction surfaces, but what the heck has this got to do with "self righteous cameramen" ?

[mjr]

Ok I know all I want to know about high friction surfaces, but what the heck has this got to do with "self righteous cameramen" ?

They're another impediment to cycling that wouldn't exist if we had speed limit and red light enforcement cameras, rather than bleating about how the restraints on motoring are outdated?

[landsurfer]

Ok I know all I want to know about high friction surfaces, but what the heck has this got to do with "self righteous cameramen" ?

They're another impediment to cycling that wouldn't exist if we had speed limit and red light enforcement cameras, rather than bleating about how the restraints on motoring are outdated?

I don't understand how a high friction surface is an impediment to cyclists.
Friction and rolling resistance are different countries.
I don't understand how a high friction surface is an advantage to modern cars with ABS fitted as standard.
Guidance please.

[Cunobelin]

Because part of the "resentment" about cameras is the ability to show just how poor a driver is ... very unpopular

Then there are the apologists who believe they are above speed limits and again resent being recorded

Then the final link in the proof of just how bad these drivers are is the high friction road surface

Even with modern brakes, ABS, modern tyres they are still unable to perform the basic task of stopping at a junction without the aid of increased friction on the road

[rick99]

....... what the heck has this got to do with "self righteous cameramen" ?

Because part of the "resentment" about cameras is the ability to show just how poor a driver is ... very unpopular

Then there are the apologists who believe they are above speed limits and again resent being recorded

Then the final link in the proof of just how bad these drivers are is the high friction road surface

Even with modern brakes, ABS, modern tyres they are still unable to perform the basic task of stopping at a junction without the aid of increased friction on the road

A recap. This isn't how the debate ran.
This is a sarcastic 'with the council' workers view of the general public. Categorising and pigeon holing. Also his view of how the world should be. Absolute adherence to laws however outdated or in singular instances irrelevant and a host of (well paid) officials conducting surveillance on private individuals and spending hard worked for taxes on madcap schemes backed by 'studies' without even an 'a' level standard of scientific method.

The debate here ran like this:
I don't like being verbally harassed by moralistic pedantic people. Those people seem to be those wearing cameras. The traffic code is not necessarily the right plan in every condition. Take the motorway speed limit. It is routinely disobeyed and that situation is tolerated by the police as they trust the judgment of the drivers, in certain circumstances.
There then followed a lot of ranting. The same pedantic people I was talking about who claim that in every circumstance the authorities know best..(for example drivers are so bad the council has to install high friction surfaces)...... pretended that everyone except idiots do drive below 70 : a blatant self delusion ; but at the same time these pedants are ridiculing the police on a separate thread.
Thus, in their minds, my initial premise that harassing people for what I considered to be irrelevant infractions was ruined as I was a person described sarcastically above in cunobelin's piece and under no circumstances could I make that judgment. After all. He and his council experiments had to install friction surfaces because I drive at 80 on the motorway, or something. That's where he lost me.


Incidentally I am absolutely amazed that people say the high friction surface slows down cyclists. A cycle wheel rolls. Unless there is a surface 'stickiness' that prevents the trailing edge of either wheel rising from the surface I would say that this is certainly not true. It's almost impossible to make a mineral surface stick to rubber. It's designed to withstand movement. Broadly by being physically rough.

[mjr]

Take the motorway speed limit. It is routinely disobeyed and that situation is tolerated by the police as they trust the judgment of the drivers, in certain circumstances.

I don't think that's true. I think it's more likely that it's tolerated by police because we lack the capacity to prosecute more of them and steps to increase capacity (automatic cameras and fine-issuing systems) are routinely opposed by enough lawbreaking motorists that they lack political support.

There then followed a lot of ranting. The same pedantic people I was talking about who claim that in every circumstance the authorities know best..

Where's that ever been claimed? If anything, several people have been saying that the council is doing the wrong thing installing those rough surfaces instead of taking action to slow motorists down.

Incidentally I am absolutely amazed that people say the high friction surface slows down cyclists. A cycle wheel rolls. Unless there is a surface 'stickiness' that prevents the trailing edge of either wheel rising from the surface I would say that this is certainly not true. It's almost impossible to make a mineral surface stick to rubber. It's designed to withstand movement. Broadly by being physically rough.

So do you really find coarse chippings as easy to ride over as smooth hot-rolled asphalt 55/10? And all the times the pro racers (including former CTC president Phil Liggett) talk about English roads being "heavy" is bunk?

[rick99]

Take the motorway speed limit. It is routinely disobeyed and that situation is tolerated by the police as they trust the judgment of the drivers, in certain circumstances.

I don't think that's true. I think it's more likely that it's tolerated by police because we lack the capacity to prosecute more of them and steps to increase capacity (automatic cameras and fine-issuing systems) are routinely opposed by enough lawbreaking motorists that they lack political support.

There then followed a lot of ranting. The same pedantic people I was talking about who claim that in every circumstance the authorities know best..

Where's that ever been claimed? If anything, several people have been saying that the council is doing the wrong thing installing those rough surfaces instead of taking action to slow motorists down.

So do you really find coarse chippings as easy to ride over as smooth hot-rolled asphalt 55/10? And all the times the pro racers (including former CTC president Phil Liggett) talk about English roads being "heavy" is bunk?

I'm surprised and don't recall it but am open minded about it. I don't understand it.
The high friction bits aren't 'coarse chippings' are they?

[rick99]

I don't think that's true. I think it's more likely that it's tolerated by police because we lack the capacity to prosecute more of them and steps to increase capacity (automatic cameras and fine-issuing systems) are routinely opposed by enough lawbreaking motorists that they lack political support.

Why do you think that? 'More of them '??!! They don't prosecute any in my experience. It's policy. If you drive past a police car at 40 in a 30 he will quite rightly nick you. 85 on a motorway. No problem. Look around you and really look. It's fine. Popular opinion says it's fine at the same time they are advocating 20mph limits outside schools: a good idea.
We've already done this bit, but here you go again 'law breaking motorists' = people with a different opinion.

[mjr]

The high friction bits aren't 'coarse chippings' are they?

No. Conventional coarse chippings don't withstand motorists skidding well enough to offer value-for-money at high-traffic junctions, which is why they're used on quieter back streets and country lanes (and cycle tracks by particularly clueless councils).

If I remember correctly (and excuse me but it's been maybe six years since the briefing I received on it), high-friction "road safety" surfaces are a type of thermoplastic veneer that incorporates persistently rough particles - I think bauxite is sometimes used, for example. I just thought more people will be familiar with the difference of cycling over granite chippings compared to smooth asphalt, rather than the specialist high-friction surface which is usually only used for short stretches.

[rick99]

Cycling over granite clippings is a nightmare. I get that. Some of your effort is absorbed by the friction between the chippings as they move wrto each other.
Still don't get the other one.

Edit: you mean chippings in a road surface.... hmmm; maybe the roughness is large enough to make an extra deformation in tyres or the whole bike vibrating significant enough to slow you down.

[mjr]

I don't think that's true. I think it's more likely that it's tolerated by police because we lack the capacity to prosecute more of them and steps to increase capacity (automatic cameras and fine-issuing systems) are routinely opposed by enough lawbreaking motorists that they lack political support.

Why do you think that? 'More of them '??!! They don't prosecute any in my experience. It's policy. If you drive past a police car at 40 in a 30 he will quite rightly nick you. 85 on a motorway. No problem. Look around you and really look. It's fine. [...]

It's really not fine and is a problem. I agree with our local road safety officer (for once) who responded to the consultation a few years ago about raising 70mph speed limits to 80mph by pointing out that while cars have progressed, most drivers lacked the skills to handle such speeds and most 70mph roads weren't designed to offer sufficient run-off for motorists then likely to do 95mph or more.

We've already done this bit, but here you go again 'law breaking motorists' = people with a different opinion.

No, law breaking motorists = motorists that are breaking the law. People can have different opinions or not, but it doesn't coincide with whether they speed or not.

[rick99]

But the people wanting the higher limit aren't necessarily those breaking the law. That is supposition.
Fact: the police don't enforce the 70mph limit
Fact: they love an easy target in general. They would love to pull a load of middle class families over and patronise them. They don't. ... because they're told not to.

[landsurfer]

But the people wanting the higher limit aren't necessarily those breaking the law. That is supposition.
Fact: the police don't enforce the 70mph limit
Fact: they love an easy target in general. They would love to pull a load of middle class families over and patronise them. They don't. ... because they're told not to.

So research has shown that only " middle class" families are breaking the speed limit ...... WOW!!!
Post a link to that research please ....

[rick99]

That's not what I said is it?
Some proportion of speeders are and the police love an easy well behaved target.
So my theory is that if they had not been told to relax about 75mph they would gleefully jump at the chance, IN PARTICULAR, to have a pop at these.