Hacker News Reader

Comment by justboxing | Hacker News Reader

> As for the self righteousness of "only peds belong on sidewalks", I get tired of that

Nothing self-righteous about that.

Sidewalks are -- as the name itself suggests - meant for WALKING on the SIDE of the road, not for riding scooters and other vehicles which pose a danger to other people walking. Only exception being people on wheelchairs, but they aren't driving at break-neck speeds like an electric scooter rider, or a bicyclist.

View on HN

Streets were originally for pedestrians, buster. The idea that they weren't was actually manufactured by the auto industry.

Sidewalks weren't invented to get people off streets, either.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/when-pedestrians-r...

Now: should our transportation infrastructure support cars? Yes. Society moves on. Should it also support bicycles and low-speed electric vehicles? Also yes.

If we're gonna play that silly game, what about roads, from the old English rād meaning 'journey on horseback'.

Why is the Old English meaning of the precursor word relevant? The modern word is road and it means thoroughfare.

Right. It's almost like the name of something has no bearing on what the thing could be used for.

I always get a kick out of manipulating widgets on my bank's online "dashboard".

In the case of sidewalk vs rad vs road, you're making the wrong argument.

We do not have "rads" anymore, we have "roads." "Road" is derived from "rad" but they are two different words with different meanings.

A sidewalk is a walking area on the side of a road, and that meaning of the word has not changed. Bikes, for example, or prohibited from sidewalks in most Western jurisdictions (lack of enforcement notwithstanding), and essentially all Western jurisdictions prohibit motorized vehicles from sidewalks. In both cases, it is because the sidewalks are meant for "pedestrians", i.e., people walking.

What's your point? When roads were reserved for horses, would you ride your donkey on the sidewalk?

Yes, thank you. That is exactly my point. The name of 'sidewalk' has no bearing on what you could use the sidewalk for.

Roads were never reserved for horses.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/when-pedestrians-r...

Well reflexively referring to the DEFINITION of a WORD is not an argument. When there are no dedicated cycleways, either pedestrians share with at least some cyclists or scooterists or you have children cycling on the road.

When there are pedestrians, cyclists and cars sharing a space with only two different speed zones, cyclists driving on the sidewalk will have to limit themselves to walking speed, or cars driving on the same road as bicycles need to slow down to cyclist speed.

The same "children cycling on the road" argument (which is only dangerous if the cars on the road are going faster than the children) can be applied to children walking on the sidewalk where people cycle at full speed.

1) An auto going 30kmh is a great deal more dangerous to a pedestrian or cyclist than a cycle doing the same.

2) Cars pose a risk to cyclists, even if cars are going the same speed, which is a fictional scenario, as many motorists don't go the same speed as cyclists and instead overtake them dangerously ASAP.

3) The risk posed by cycles to pedestrians is far less than the danger posed by autos to cycles.

Driveways/sidewalk crossings are not necessarily designed for cycling speed traffic. Motorists do not expect bicycles when crossing sidewalks.

The problem with this is that it's the same attitude as the car drivers have about "their" roads. If we listen to the drivers who say nobody but cars should ever be on the road, and the peds who say nobody but pedestrians should ever be on the sidewalk, what's left for cyclists, scooters, or any other form of transit?

> If we listen to the drivers who say nobody but cars should ever be on the road.

It's not drivers who say this, but the Law. Ever heard of 'Jaywalking' Tickets?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com