who are pavements for?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
Because you stated "Pavements are differzentiated from roads. As you're so hot on legality, I wonder why you're not more interested in the effective exclusion of pedestrians from road space, which they may use or occupy without breaking any law whatever."

And you responded with questions about anticipated public and police behaviour in the face of hypothetical events that are irrelevant to the thread. Just to clarify, I meant use or occupy not in the sense of hold a demonstration, but in the everyday sense that people use or occupy public spaces in the course of going about their business.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
And you responded with questions about anticipated public and police behaviour in the face of hypothetical events that are irrelevant to the thread. Just to clarify, I meant use or occupy not in the sense of hold a demonstration, but in the everyday sense that people use or occupy public spaces in the course of going about their business.

Which implies pedestrians may walk on roads (doesn't it). I am taking the implication to the next logical step.
 

theclaud

Openly Marxist
Location
Swansea
They are still peds so yes. I believe they would have less inertia that a cyclists if a collision were to occur.

Cyclist at 5mph, runner at 12? Considerate cyclist at 10 mph on a wide pavement, runner expecting everyone else to get out of the way on a narrow one?
 
They are still peds so yes. I believe they would have less inertia that a cyclists if a collision were to occur.

ITYM momentum and given the wide range of rider masses and the relatively small mass of a bike relative to the rider it could be less or it could be more.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
[QUOTE 1463557"]
See, again you're only applying it to yourself.

You need to consider the bigger picture and think about, for example, a mother with three children attached to her bike who chooses quiet roads as much as possible but is unable to avoid a substantial stretch of very busy road with a lovely, wide pavement alongside.
[/quote]
The law makes alowences for this. I am not against this type of riding although I could never advocate it.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
[QUOTE 1463560"]
And unsigned city centres? We get on. In harmony. Outside of the angry internet telling us that we don't, or shouldn't.
[/quote]
Then I am very happy for you :smile:
 
I have phone my LA to confirm legality of routes. I take them at their word. I have not seen said maps. Phone 01443 494700 between 8:30 - 5:00 Monday - Friday.

So when you kept talking about maps of the TROs provided by the LAs people could refer to you were in fact making it up? Getting a straight answer from you is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
 
No. Momentum is a product of mass and speed. As for the bike it may or may not be a part of the collision.

No, momentum is a property of a moving mass only, inertia is the property of a mass whether its moving or not. A stationary body has no momentum but it still has inertia.
 

Angelfishsolo

A Velocipedian
So when you kept talking about maps of the TROs provided by the LAs people could refer to you were in fact making it up? Getting a straight answer from you is like trying to nail jelly to the wall.
My Mum used to work for the LA. If I ask the LA for info I know they have maps. Who do you think is responsible for the authorisation of these TRO?
 
Top Bottom