|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
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? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. 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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Classifying Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motor Vehicles
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. |
|
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 01:33 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 |