[*BCM*] BTD PED Rules

[Jim Leonard]

Turtle, 
I understand what you're saying, but I must disagree with you on this.

First at it's simplest I can completely disrupt traffic by moving at
0.3 mph on a busy narrow road and while it's completely antisocial, it
is still within your rules.  More realistic is the person who is
unable to move faster than this but is still given the full right to
disrupt traffic.


More practically:

Pedestrian traffic is by default disorderly.  Without devices to shape
the traffic, I can't see this changing.  This is ok when it is done at 
walking speed and no vehicles, where bumping into someone is
relatively harmless (when was the last time you got your ankle clipped
by a stroller or a shopping cart?  Walking speed just became harmful,
not deadly but not as safe as just people.  A larger vehicle can
easily be deadly to pedestrians even at this speed).  When it becomes
harmful to bump another entity you need significantly more order to
make it possible to avoid collisions entirely. 

I don't believe that we as a society can ever go back to being ok with
only travelling at three miles per hour.  In my personal experience,
safety dictates that you don't want traffic in the same space with
speeds that differ by much more than a factor of two or three.  The
faster you're traveling and the more congested the less variance in
speed that is acceptable.  And this is what requires the segregation
of pedestrians from other forms of transportation.

On small uncongested sidestreets requiring the complete segregation of
traffic is overly harsh and I'm sure you're aware that it is not
enforced as such.  But with any level of traffic, even people running
is not compatible with walking pedestrians. 


On a complete tangent, thinking about the utility of separating
vehicles by speed, I find myself lamenting that I'm in a place with no
bike paths.  Yes there are several multiuse paths, but no place where
bicyclists have the right of way.  When I lived in Columbus, it was
often worth my while to get onto one of the bike paths because it was
safe and useful.  I could travel at reasonable bicycle speeds and not
have to worry about pedestrians or worse, their pets.  

--jim



On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 06:09:23PM -0400, Turtle wrote:
> Ouch.
> 
> Yep, we do loathe humanity, don't we?  I wonder what rights robots have on
> the streets.  Or cyborgs.  I wouldn't mind getting rid of this silly body of
> mine and sticking my brain in something more effecient (I'd want to be
> powered by wind and solar energy, of course).  If I got wheels installed in
> my cyborg feet, I bet I'd have the right to use the travel lanes.
> 
> Also, it's no wonder "modern" Bostonian communities are so unfriendly,
> people are too intimidated to cross the street to chat with their
> neighbors.  Either that, or they are walking up to a tenth of a mile out of
> their way (600 feet) to do it (which is great for getting exercise, but not
> so great for encouraging neighborly friendships).
> 
> I have a vision of healthy, thriving, respecful, and efficient streets.
> Let's get rid of the messy, segregated, and anti-social public ways we have
> now, take out all the confusing and discriminatory signs and laws, and make
> people responsible for their own behavior.  I think we only need a few
> actual laws, and they would apply to ALL travelers (on foot, wheels,
> hovercraft, hooves, skis, etc.).  Off the top of my head, I'd say the
> following 6 laws would do a pretty good job:
> 
> 1. Don't harm or endanger anyone or anything, intentionally or out of
> negligence.
> 2. Stay on the right side of the travel way when traveling, except when
> passing or turning.
> 3. Move out of the travel lane when you intend to stop traveling - no
> stopping in the travel lane except when yielding to other travelers or for
> emergency purposes.
> 4. Move at or below a speed at which you can stop without hitting anyone or
> anything that is in front of you.
> 5. Pass only when it is safe to do so.
> 6. If you are involved in a crash you are responsible for reporting it to
> the police and will be required to participate in the mediation process to
> determine compensation for any damage, injuries, or trauma caused in the
> crash, unless everyone involved signs a waiver stating that they don't feel
> the need for mediation).  If you fail to report a crash you were involved in
> (within some specified time period, maybe a month) you forfeit all claims
> for compensation arising from the incident.
> 
> Mediation for crashes would favor the individual who was most harmed by the
> crash (unless there was clear evidence that they were trying to get hit), so
> larger vehicles and faster vehicles would be more likely to bear the brunt
> of the costs affiliated with the crash.  This policy would encourage
> smaller, safer, and slower traffic that moves as efficiently as possible - a
> win-win solution.
> 
> There might be some special regulations for more dangerous vehicles (cars,
> trucks, airplanes, etc.), and there might still be room for a few segregated
> travel ways (for trains, buses, and/or trucks, to offer priority through
> ways for long distance travel and shipping).  And roundabouts would be more
> common, to make intersections more efficient and safe.  But generally, those
> 6 laws would be all we'd need for healthy traffic flow for everyone.
> 
> It works with human nature, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for most
> folks.  And robots and cyborgs would be able to get where they want to go
> too, which is probably something that we'll need to deal with pretty soon
> anyway.
> 
> -Turtle
> who works with 4 year olds who already know how to travel efficiently and
> safely around others, and don't need signs or laws to get around perfectly
> well

> _______________________________________________
> Boston Critical Mass mailing list
> list at bostoncriticalmass.org
> http://bostoncriticalmass.org/list
> To unsubscribe email list-unsubscribe at bostoncriticalmass.org