|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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? 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. Bret Cahill |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
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? If you knew anything, then you would be aware that when a bicycle hits a pedestrian, it temporarily becomes a motor vehicle, legally speaking. So to answer your "question", you will find the mode most involved in injuries to pedestrians on the footway is the evil car. Bicycles are involved in a big fat ZERO such collisions. Not the answer you wanted, that, is it? As I have clearly won this argument, I will not be replying to any responses that I consider trolling. If JNugent is not prepared to accept that what I am saying is true then he is wasting his time posting. JUST ADMIT I'M RIGHT YOU *******! Oh, and tell Judith to stop the URCM breaching experiments (as my legal adviser tells me they are called by learned people). |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
On Feb 24, 3:17*pm, 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. Yeah. Don't pot up with any nonsense from him. I'm sure that when you look around and see that people like me and Simon Mason are on your side of the "URC divide", and clearly reasonable people like JNugent are almost always opposed to you, it must make you very confident that you've come to the right conclusions. Yes, clearly banning cars is the only way forward: just look at the luminaries here who support such a policy. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
wrote:
On Feb 24, 3:17 pm, 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. Yeah. Don't pot up with any nonsense from him. I'm sure that when you look around and see that people like me and Simon Mason are on your side of the "URC divide", and clearly reasonable people like JNugent are almost always opposed to you, it must make you very confident that you've come to the right conclusions. Yes, clearly banning cars is the only way forward: just look at the luminaries here who support such a policy. Dream on, how much progress have you made already in say the last ten years? -- ennemm |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
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 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. The masses are comparable and the kinetic energy is only different by a few times at most. What is needed is at least three separate 'lanes' to avoid conflict. *The room for such a scheme does not exist in the UK Sure it does. Just listen to the most important economist of the 20th Century and spend some public money on infrastructure. Relocate motor vehicles in underground tunnels. This will make it a lot easier to process the CO2. Bret Cahill |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
On 24/02/2013 16:41, 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? 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. Bret Cahill Stop wriggling. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
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. 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? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
On Feb 24, 5:55*pm, nik.morgan wrote:
wrote: On Feb 24, 3:17 pm, 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. Yeah. Don't pot up with any nonsense from him. I'm sure that when you look around and see that people like me and Simon Mason are on your side of the "URC divide", and clearly reasonable people like JNugent are almost always opposed to you, it must make you very confident that you've come to the right conclusions. Yes, clearly banning cars is the only way forward: just look at the luminaries here who support such a policy. Dream on, how much progress have you made already in say the last ten years? -- ennemm This is all most confusing. Is that a blue on blue whoosh? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bye bye motor vehicles | Bertie Wooster[_2_] | UK | 5 | September 27th 12 10:22 AM |
More pedestrians complaining just because they think the pavement isfor pedestrians | Marie | UK | 25 | January 9th 12 02:33 AM |
Another pollution from motor vehicles warning. | Doug[_10_] | UK | 43 | April 29th 11 09:51 AM |
IMBA Uses 50+ Motor Vehicles to Put on Its "Environmentally Friendly" Epic Ride! | Mike Vandeman | Mountain Biking | 0 | May 7th 07 04:15 PM |
IMBA Uses 50+ Motor Vehicles to Put on Its "Environmentally Friendly" Epic Ride! | Mike Vandeman | Social Issues | 0 | May 7th 07 04:15 PM |