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, 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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

but the cars are not making whole journeys on the footpath. imagine how
many would die every minute if cars used pavements the way cyclists do.

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?

On 23/02/2013 19:32, 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.


People riding cycles are cyclists.

Pedestrians are not riding cycles.

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




Yes, most pedestrians do not want to constantly dodge cyclists on the
pavement/footway.

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.

People riding cycles are cyclists.

Pedestrians are not riding cycles.

I wouldn't try to do this with case law, i.e., arguing against that in
traffic court.

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?

Yes, most pedestrians do not want to constantly dodge cyclists on the
pavement/footway.

In Palm Springs they have dual use paths: golf carts and cyclists.
Throw in various motorcycles and a categorization scheme could get
messy really fast.


Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill wrote:

People riding cycles are cyclists.

Pedestrians are not riding cycles.

I wouldn't try to do this with case law, i.e., arguing against that in
traffic court.

Case law has established that a person riding a bicycle is not a pedestrian.