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.

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.

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?

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 -

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

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

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".

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:22:32 -0800 (PST), wrote:

snip


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).


Ho, ho, ho - you are a ****** Lee (I suppose I could have missed out the "a")

"Breeching"? Keep in touch with Porky Chapman do you? Ask him how the court
case is going will you.

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.

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."