abit long and sicne i am not sure how to get the whole msg i'll
just address what i can remember.
Precisely. If you find the posting too long for recollections, it
certainly helps a long way if you can revert back what you hv
stated in earlier postings. In fact, with all the misplaced
punctuations and paragraphs, it easy making sence of what you are
trying to get across.
firstly for the first point you broke up that paragh/sentence. i
said its unlikely but not in the same category its not a
contradiction. unlikely means that it has a small possibility
anyway like in common usage you would say that going for a medical
treatment with 0.1% chance of failure it can be said that its
unlikely that somethign adverse will occur.
Let's make this simplier by
quantifying your 0.1% chance of failure. I give a 50% chance of a
runnig into that steel barrier and multiply by the probablity of
getting head or upper body injury when colliding into such "safety
device".
Unlikely something advese will occur ? Fact is someone has been
PERMENENTLY PARALYSED by ACCIDENTALLY running into such barrier.
That is a 100% fact vs your "flying off a hump" theory. The odd is
pretty obvious here. `gr`t rtgfrtgeretfrtfe
regarding high danger well you said it its your opinion as is
its my opinion the only way to prove would be to test it i
guess.
TEST ? What test ? YOu referring
to ACTUALL accidents as "TEST"?
OR had LTA or any authorites conducted crash-dummy TEST on how
these steel-barriers can inflict serious injuries ?
You tell me.
going over a hump and losing balane can easily cause serious
injuries. you can fall over and unluckily get your jugular vien or
someother major artery severed by the chain,
My friend, this is NOT about
bikers loosing balance nor about LUCK here. Its about the FACT that
such barrier is, will and had done serious damage to an ordinary
bridge user. If you hv a hard time shallowing this fact, than I
suggest you do justice to your senses by visiting this 40 yr old
victim and question your justification by "HOPING" someone get
HIT.
you can fall off the bridge due to falling on the railings and
tipping over, some of the more serious ones i'm qouting i guess but
i think you should reasonably admit it has possibilities.
Strange. 1st you disclaimed on
your own argument by saying its a "guess". Then next you putting
words in my mouth by stating I "should reasonably admit it has
possibilities."
Your logic is beyond rational comprehension.
when i said added height i didn't mean the seat per se. i'll try
to put it briefly, when you sit on the bike chances are your cg is
higher then when you are walking, this higher cg allows you to more
easily go over the railing by the side of the bridge if you happen
to bump against it, imagine a leverage system if you will. i can't
really communicate this well in words pciture would be more
descriptive i guess, just hope you can get it
Question:
How fast does a cyclist need to go flip over a hump/railing ?
If you can gather that figure, then you can justify your theory of
such hazard on local overhead bridge and send your finding to LTA
for immediate correction.
Else, hv you EVER come across cyclist flying off bridges
unintentionally ?
the device is to precent cyclign and as i said all devices are
dangerous including the humps you mentioned, feel free to prove as
i laid out in similar circumstances that humps are perfectly safe(
i noticed you decide to go on an attack on my points rather than
defend your stand but i'm bored anyway).
All safety devices are "dangerous"
? Sure. Question is to which degree ?
Have humps on local overheard bridge result in a high-CG cyclist
toppling off the bridge when going over it ?
Or have steel barriers have forced cyclist to dismount when using
overheads ?
Your boredom is the sign of impatience. That's
unfortunate
in addition i personall feel threat of harm is probably an
effective way to discourage that in any case. i'lll jsut quote the
humps for cars, ever wondered why cars do not just speed over the
humps? its mostly because it hurts the car(harm) or it
hurt/discomforts the motorist.
Discourage by threat of HARM ? OMG
Why not install CCTVs on overheards with a large $500 fine notice
?
Or even better: How abt tyre-puncturing spikes to the floors
?
This certainl will cause HARM to BOTH the bike and the rider.
BTW, I am surprised you finally realised the effectiveness of
humps. However your analogy of motor-car "discomfort" on a bicycle
is way off. You might as well start with why 747 needs such long
runway when birds can land on trees ?
Do you know that even simple speed reducing advice like this has
specific design requirments which provide speeding deterrence while
not compromising safety?
you mean to tell me a normal person on the bridge cannot be
expected to see an obstacle if the obstacle is clearly visible?
expert or not expert if an obstacle if clearly viisible is no issue
is it?
Again, you failed to realise the
situation in how this unfortunate accident had occur. Was that
tampines barrier clearly visible that time of accident ?
And even if this steel barrier is coated with reflected paint with
a HUGE sign, will such device stop bikers from cycling on overheads
?
You tell me.
