Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles

On 24/02/2013 03:39, 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)


It needs to be pointed out that something as successful in industry as
ball bearings is never ever found in nature. It probably has
something to do with feeding nutrients to spinning objects.

DARPA has done a lot with wheeless vehicles, things that can crawl
over rugged terrain like insects. But bad knees are proof positive
that this approach is inferior to the wheel.


Bret Cahill

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 23/02/2013 19:32, Bret Cahill wrote:

Oh look! "Wheelman" is back SNIGER








--
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."

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 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.

On Feb 24, 2:41*am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
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.

Motor vehicles are threshold different and need to be at a distance
from cyclists and pedestrians.


Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill wrote:
On Feb 24, 2:41 am, "Mrcheerful" wrote:
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.

Motor vehicles are threshold different and need to be at a distance
from cyclists and pedestrians.


Bret Cahill

Agreed, and the same goes for cyclists and pedestrians. What is needed is
at least three separate 'lanes' to avoid conflict. The room for such a
scheme does not exist in the UK
However, since cyclists in the UK represent such a tiny proportion of
traffic, it would be easiest just to ban them from public places.

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.

A minor injury isn't the same as a fatality and a few fatalities
doesn't justify shutting down any form of commuting.

It really needs to be cost benefit risk analysed by an acturial.

For example, to keep the gun "rights"/gun "control" -- both are
moronic fantasies -- debate in perspective I pointed out that
Reaganomics had shorted the life spans of so many working people by so
much that more life-years could be saved by debating Reaganomics than
by discussing gun control.

The gun control people, probably encouraged by the media, then adopted
this kind of reasoning and pointed out domestic gun violence had
killed more Americans than all U. S. military conflicts combined.
This was probably true but they were still ignoring the much bigger
factor, the economy.

The same approach could be applied to cycling on the streets or on
sidewalks/pavements. After that has been done then other factors can
be taken into consideration, overall public health, quality of life,
etc.


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.

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.

A minor injury isn't the same as a fatality and a few fatalities
doesn't justify shutting down any form of commuting.

It really needs to be cost benefit risk analysed by an acturial.

For example, to keep the gun "rights"/gun "control" -- both are
moronic fantasies -- debate in perspective I pointed out that
Reaganomics had shorted the life spans of so many working people by so
much that more life-years could be saved by debating Reaganomics than
by discussing gun control.

The gun control people, probably encouraged by the media, then adopted
this kind of reasoning and pointed out domestic gun violence had
killed more Americans than all U. S. military conflicts combined.
This was probably true but they were still ignoring the much bigger
factor, the economy.

The same approach could be applied to cycling on the streets or on
sidewalks/pavements. After that has been done then other factors can
be taken into consideration, overall public health, quality of life,
etc.


Bret Cahill

Stopping the sale of sugar infested food would save vast swathes of people
and money, but that is completely irrelevant to the present discussion.

Cycling on pavements (except where specified as OK) is illegal, end of.