|
|
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
On Feb 24, 8:17*pm, JNugent wrote:
On 24/02/2013 15:17, Squashme wrote: On Feb 24, 11:51 am, JNugent wrote: On 24/02/2013 10:36, Squashme wrote: On Feb 24, 8:29 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Bret Cahill wrote: It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians -- just use those spikes like in gated communities. Cyclists can slip between the spikes or stop and step over them as can pedestrians. A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires. Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. The first obvious solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on sidewalks/pavements. A good wheelman, however, will just hit these at an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. Maybe some combination of patches of ice and grates would work but that would be expensive to install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians as well. Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a pedestrian, both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor vehicle. Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy. As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement is concerned? Bret Cahill wheeled traffic on the road, foot traffic on the footpath. The main reason to keep wheeled traffic separate from foot traffic is the speed differential, which is the same reason that car and bicycle traffic is incompatible. The issue is avoiding injuries from collisions. * After all, who cares about a collision where no one gets hurt? Injuries from collisions comes from 2 major sources: 1. *the relative kinetic energies of 2 objects during impacts, and, 2. *the crushing weight of one object as it falls or rolls over the other. In the first the kinetic energy is often 2 orders of magnitude higher with a motor vehicle than a bicycle. In the second the crushing force is an order of magnitude higher with a motor vehicle than a bicycle. Bret Cahill if there were no forces involved then there would be no collision. *Any collision (even the very slightest) with a pedestrian may be sufficient to kill the pedestrian. *Any collision of pedestrian with a wheeled vehicle on the pavement is unacceptable. *Bicycles are the most common wheeled vehicle making journeys on footpaths. But cars are the most common killers of pedestrians on the footpath, I believe. Which mode do you "believe" is involved in most injuries to pedestrians on the footway? You "tell" me. I cannot tell you what you might or not believe. Well, if you don't know ... But I note this spurious series of distinctions between threat/intimidation, collisions, injuries and fatalities. Why would anyone use a measure which ignores the first three as though they were of no consequence? Are they exactly the same then? Is "Get out of the way because I'm not stopping" (threat/ intimidation?) as bad as actually colliding with someone fatally? ------------------------------ "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." That is just so unfair. And unsatisfying. |
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
On 24/02/2013 21:36, Bret Cahill wrote:
It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians -- just use those spikes like in gated communities. Cyclists can slip between the spikes or stop and step over them as can pedestrians. A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires. Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. The first obvious solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on sidewalks/pavements. A good wheelman, however, will just hit these at an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. Maybe some combination of patches of ice and grates would work but that would be expensive to install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians as well. Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a pedestrian, What? What distinction are you drawing between a cyclist and a pedestrian? More to the point, why? both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor vehicle. Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy. As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement is concerned? Yes. A bicycle is a vehicle, not a pair of feet. Some kids' shoes have small wheels in the heels. True, but what point is it you are struggling to make? A person riding a cycle is a cyclist (at that point) When does a pair of wheels become a bicycle? Did I mention bicycle? If you want to digress from the OP feel free to start another thread. It was not me who mentioned golf carts, motorcycles, kids shoes with wheels, why did you not start new threads? I was just making sure that tricycles etc were included. When a drive chain is added? It's wouldn't be hard to snarl up the judiciary as well as uk.rec.cycling with a lot of inbetween designs. Gun nuts use the classification/camels nose approach all the time with great success. Some guy in Florida realized he would have to pay a bigger fee to register his floating dock as a dock than if he registered it as a boat so he registered it as a boat. My father once got an article in _Reader's Digest_ about a Navy man who couldn't get the Navy to pay for moving his canoe across the country. He filled it with dirt and flowers, called it a "planter" and the Navy was ok with that. |
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
On 24/02/2013 21:39, Squashme wrote:
On Feb 24, 8:17 pm, JNugent wrote: On 24/02/2013 15:17, Squashme wrote: On Feb 24, 11:51 am, JNugent wrote: On 24/02/2013 10:36, Squashme wrote: On Feb 24, 8:29 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote: Bret Cahill wrote: It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians -- just use those spikes like in gated communities. Cyclists can slip between the spikes or stop and step over them as can pedestrians. A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires. Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. The first obvious solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on sidewalks/pavements. A good wheelman, however, will just hit these at an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. Maybe some combination of patches of ice and grates would work but that would be expensive to install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians as well. Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a pedestrian, both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor vehicle. Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy. As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement is concerned? Bret Cahill wheeled traffic on the road, foot traffic on the footpath. The main reason to keep wheeled traffic separate from foot traffic is the speed differential, which is the same reason that car and bicycle traffic is incompatible. The issue is avoiding injuries from collisions. After all, who cares about a collision where no one gets hurt? Injuries from collisions comes from 2 major sources: 1. the relative kinetic energies of 2 objects during impacts, and, 2. the crushing weight of one object as it falls or rolls over the other. In the first the kinetic energy is often 2 orders of magnitude higher with a motor vehicle than a bicycle. In the second the crushing force is an order of magnitude higher with a motor vehicle than a bicycle. Bret Cahill if there were no forces involved then there would be no collision. Any collision (even the very slightest) with a pedestrian may be sufficient to kill the pedestrian. Any collision of pedestrian with a wheeled vehicle on the pavement is unacceptable. Bicycles are the most common wheeled vehicle making journeys on footpaths. But cars are the most common killers of pedestrians on the footpath, I believe. Which mode do you "believe" is involved in most injuries to pedestrians on the footway? You "tell" me. I cannot tell you what you might or not believe. Well, if you don't know ... But I note this spurious series of distinctions between threat/intimidation, collisions, injuries and fatalities. Why would anyone use a measure which ignores the first three as though they were of no consequence? Are they exactly the same then? They are all of consequence. Is "Get out of the way because I'm not stopping" (threat/ intimidation?) as bad as actually colliding with someone fatally? Someone or something? |
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians --
just use those spikes like in gated communities. *Cyclists can slip between the spikes or stop and step over them as can pedestrians. *A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires. Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. *The first obvious solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on sidewalks/pavements. *A good wheelman, however, will just hit these at an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. *Maybe some combination of patches of ice and grates would work but that would be expensive to install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians as well. Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a pedestrian, What? What distinction are you drawing between a cyclist and a pedestrian? More to the point, why? both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor vehicle. *Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy. As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement is concerned? Yes. A bicycle is a vehicle, not a pair of feet. Some kids' shoes have small wheels in the heels. True, but what point is it you are struggling to make? A person riding a cycle is a cyclist (at that point) When does a pair of wheels become a bicycle? Did I mention bicycle? If you want to digress from the OP feel free to start another thread. It was not me who mentioned golf carts, motorcycles, kids shoes with wheels, why did you not start new threads? Because every last item was being compared to bicycles. I was just making sure that tricycles etc were included. When a drive chain is added? It's wouldn't be hard to snarl up the judiciary as well as uk.rec.cycling with a lot of inbetween designs. Gun nuts use the classification/camels nose approach all the time with great success. *Some guy in Florida realized he would have to pay a bigger fee to register his floating dock as a dock than if he registered it as a boat so he registered it as a boat. My father once got an article in _Reader's Digest_ about a Navy man who couldn't get the Navy to pay for moving his canoe across the country. *He filled it with dirt and flowers, called it a "planter" and the Navy was ok with that.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
Another less than formal rigorous argument is the small kid test. A
one or 2 year old will ignore motor vehicles but will smile at pedestrians and twist out of his seat to follow a cyclist. Happy kids is what Western Civilization is all about. It's easy to separate motor vehicles from bicycles and pedestrians -- just use those spikes like in gated communities. *Cyclists can slip between the spikes or stop and step over them as can pedestrians. *A motor vehicle will get 4 damaged tires. Separating cyclists from pedestrians is trickier. *The first obvious solution would be to install parallel bars like on cattle stops on sidewalks/pavements. *A good wheelman, however, will just hit these at an angle like he does oblique railroad tracks. *Maybe some combination of patches of ice and grates would work but that would be expensive to install and maintain and dangerous to pedestrians as well. Moreover the weight of a cyclist + bicycle averages about that of a pedestrian, both an order of magnitude less massive than a motor vehicle. *Even more compelling a motor vehicle often represents 2 orders of magnitude more kinetic energy. As a practical matter, is there really any reason not to reclassify cyclists as pedestrians as far as cycling on the sidewalk/pavement is concerned? Bret Cahill |
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 06:47:28 -0800, Bret Cahill wrote:
Another less than formal rigorous argument is the small kid test. A one or 2 year old will ignore motor vehicles but will smile at pedestrians and twist out of his seat to follow a cyclist. What a load of ********. My son who is now 3 1/2 has loved cars since he was about 8 months old. Now he likes sitting in the back of my Subaru and telling me to go faster. I don't, much.. He showed a brief interest in the TDF when it was on telly, but prefers F1 or motorbikes. Oh, I cycled 25 miles today, before you start classing me as some cycle- hating cager. -- Mike P |
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
On 26/02/2013 14:47, Bret Cahill wrote:
Another less than formal rigorous argument is the small kid test. A one or 2 year old will ignore motor vehicles but will smile at pedestrians and twist out of his seat to follow a cyclist. They do that because they recognise someone at the same intellectual level as they are. -- Dave-Cyclists VOHR ''As the severity of the injury increased the benefit of wearing a helmet increased, which is very hard to ignore I think,'' Dr Olivier said. Results showed that cyclists without helmets were more than 3.9 times as likely to sustain a head injury to those with helmets. Helmets reduced the risk of moderate head injury by 49 per cent, of serious head injury by 62 per cent, and of severe head injury by 74 per cent". |
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
|
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:20:39 +0000, Judith wrote:
****** Lee Why do people insult others? People insult others because they obviously think that's a great way to cheer THEMSELVES up. They want to feel superior towards those who appear weaker. |
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
On 28/02/2013 07:50, Peter Keller wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:20:39 +0000, Judith wrote: ****** Lee Why do people insult others? People insult others because they obviously think that's a great way to cheer THEMSELVES up. They want to feel superior towards those who appear weaker. Is that why you call people Hagfish? -- Dave - Cyclists VORC Bicycles are for Children. Like masturbation, something you should grow out of. There is something seriously sick and stunted about grown men who want to ride a bike." |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CycleBanter.com