[markh1967]

"All of them should be allowed on the pavement, because people aren't stupid, they will get out of the way if they see one coming."

Speaking as someone who sometimes puts his back out and spends a few days hobbling slowly about, I shouldn't have to quickly get out of someone's way if I see them coming and they shouldn't be allowed on pavements.

[nemo44x]

You shouldn't ever have to move out of someones way if they are not walking. I live in NYC so perhaps my perception is skewed but pedestrians should always have the right of way.

Don't move for runners, bikes (shouldn't on sidewalks unless it's a kid) or these things. It's up to the user to manage themselves and prevent themselves from hitting and potentially hurting others.

I see these around here and there, more and more, and don't mind them for now but if we start to get a problem with users hitting people then I'll support a sidewalk ban on them.

[anon4]

The people who hit pedestrians are assholes. Pedestrians have the ultimate right of way. If they refuse to move, then you have to go slow. Just increase fines for hitting people and the problem will go away. Responsible people shouldn't be impacted by assholes who have to shave that last second from their hipster commute.

[zzleeper]

Not so common in NYC because that would get you elbowed, but in many places people walk in pairs or larger groups which blocks up traffic.

(EG When I'm biking on campus, sometimes I have to stop down completely because of 8+ students taking the entire sidewalk for them)

[cheepin]

Biking is supposed to be done on roads, not sidewalks.

[dj_axl]

I wish this were the law everywhere. It varies by jurisdiction. "Each city in California has its own rules about riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. Some cities allow sidewalk riding, some don’t. Check with your city’s municipal code." (http://la-bike.org/resources/california-bicycle-laws)

[nvarsj]

That's quite a generalization.

Assuming you mean where it is an offence to ride on the sidewalk, I'll always choose angry peds or a penalty over getting killed by a coffee-drinking, cell-phone talking urbanite in their range rover. Or non observant lorry driver. Or bus running a red light. Etc.

Cycle a bit in a city and you'll change your view.

[cbr]

Cycling on sidewalks feels safer, but it's actually more dangerous. [1] The problem is that cars don't expect something moving quickly on the sidewalk, and so hit cyclists at driveways and intersections.

[1] http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/riskfactors.htm

[baus]

There are places that are shared pedestrian/bike paths. The east side of the GG Bridge when the west side is closed for instance. In those cases I think pedestrians should at least be aware of cyclists, instead of walking 4 abreast and blocking the entire way.

[dalore]

Yeah I had a bicycle guy quickly drive over the pedestrian crossing almost riding right in front of me.

[enoch_r]

I don't own a car and ride almost everywhere. In all the cities I've lived, my experience has been the exact opposite. Since the majority of accidents involve intersections, riding on the sidewalk doesn't do much other than put you in a less visible position, where drivers don't expect you to be and won't be looking for you.

[bernardom]

Disagree. I cycle to/from work and to most errands here in Boston. The bike lanes suck in most places, but bikes on sidewalks are bad news.

[anon4]

Don't give me that crap. I can't count the number of times I've been nearly run over by cars who refuse to give me my right of way and try every possible trajectory just so they won't be in any way impacted by a person on a bicycle. The only good part about riding on the road is the satisfaction from hearing the honks of asshole cars. I'm taking my right of way and we're paying with our lives if we have to. Fuck cars.

And before you start saying I'll be endangering pedestrians with the same outlook - no. Pedestrians have the ultimate right of way. If there are 8 walking abreast and don't make way when I ring, then so be it, I'll go at 2kph until it's safe to pass them. I'm not in a hurry.

[zzleeper]

Not on a campus sidewalk. At least not in my campus.

[anon4]

Then you either take the road for a bit, if it's safe, or ring them politely. It's the same if you're walking fast, which is really all biking is.

[zzleeper]

There is no road, cars are not allowed at campus after a certain point. only bikes and pedestrians..

[FelixP]

Runners are pedestrians, too?

[JulianMorrison]

May I suggest you use a hoverboard?

[zyxley]

I doubt having your back out is ideal condition for riding a device where you may have to hop a couple of steps to catch your step if you mess up anything.

[sixQuarks]

A bit off topic, but have you tried yoga to help your back problem? I've thrown my back out a couple of times and am in the process of integrating yoga into my daily routine, want to know how well it works (if it works).

[Afton]

Not OP, but while I've had a lot of success, the evidence doesn't support blanket application of 'Yoga' to back pain. The real problem is that back pain typically goes away regardless of treatment modality, which leads to a lot of people who grab the last thing they tried as "the real thing that fixed my back".

[sixQuarks]

yeah, I realize it's not going to cure back pain, I just want it to improve my musculature. I think I keep pulling things because I'm at a computer all day and don't do a lot of movements/stretches.

[wyager]

It's not practical to design everything in the world with the very slowest people in mind. The efficiency losses would be huge. Imagine if every pedestrian crossing light went for five minutes. Vehicular traffic would grind to a standstill.

That said, I see no reason why the people riding these things couldn't just move around other people. I rarely have problems with people on bicycles, because we can mutually avoid each other.

[cstross]

It's not practical to design everything in the world with the very slowest people in mind. The efficiency losses would be huge. Imagine if every pedestrian crossing light went for five minutes. Vehicular traffic would grind to a standstill.

Actually, there was a study in the UK a couple of years ago that didn't get acted on, but which demonstrated that pedestrian crossing lights in British streets allowed so little time for crossing that able-bodied teenagers had to hurry -- middle-aged, elderly, unfit, or handicapped people really need about triple the time.

The solution is probably a combination of the sensor-controlled systems showing up in newer crossings in the UK (IR sensors block traffic by setting a red light until the crossing is clear) and cutting down on automobile use in densely populated areas like urban cores. Ahem. (Hint: why should your one ton rolling steel status symbol trump anybody else's right to use the highway?)

[bmsleight_]

The study was very flawed. The 85 percentile walking speed for pedestrians (1.2 m/s) is for when people start the crossing at the end of green man. So some 15 percent of the people are slower. However if youo take into account most people start crossing before the end of the green man, then the time is ample. "the sensor-controlled systems" - are hopelessly inefficient and actually confusing for pedestrians.

A countdown which displays the time until the red-man is best for a balance of all users.

[ciaranm]

The green man is intended as a sign that it's safe to _begin_ crossing the road - at least in the UK. You'll notice that the man changes away from Green long before the light sequence. That's intended.

[digi_owl]

In various places the green man will start to blink when there is seconds left before it changes over.

[Dylan16807]

Doesn't really matter. The takeaway is that the light timings don't have to change. You would just make the man stop being green earlier.

[landryraccoon]

How are you supposed to know how long it has been since the green man appeared? Presumably if it turned green while you were waiting, you would have started walking immediately. Do you have to wait until the next green man if you arrived at the intersection while the light was green?

[Dylan16807]

If you are particularly slow, then yes. This is equivalent to getting at the intersection only a few seconds later, not a big deal.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

"The very slowest people" are actually the majority: the elderly, the very young, the temporarily or permanently disabled- if you put all of those people together they're many more than the young, strong and fast.

What's more important, each and everyone of us, will inevitably, at some point in their lives be very young, elderly or disabled. In fact most of us will probably be each of those things during our lifetime.

So it's not so much a matter of efficiency as accepting the fact that human beings are not born with wheels, but with feet and that they should always get priority, despite any misunderstandings about what the purpose of "efficiency" is in the first place.

[wyager]

>"The very slowest people" are actually the majority: the elderly, the very young, the temporarily or permanently disabled

That is quite simply not true. http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_age.html As you can clearly see, most of the population falls in the age range that has no trouble walking at a reasonable speed. I don't have exact figures on how much of the population is disabled or seriously injured at any given time, but experience says it's not enough to make up for the fact that the very young and the very old are very very far from constituting a majority.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

I'll qualify my comment: "the very slowest people" are the majority _in the developed world_ where the median age is 35+ (Wikipedia). It's also where people are the most likely to use hoverboards.

In any case, you can dispute the numbers and it makes no difference. People are not born with wheels. We need space to walk about. By convention and by law, the pavement is not for vehicles.

Despite that, I'm prepared to share the pavement with people on wheels but it has to be absolutely clear that it's not my responsibility to avoid them. It's theirs. They are the ones choosing to put me at risk, they should take full responsibility for it. And watch where the bloody heck they go.

[omellet]

Bicycles aren't allowed on the sidewalk, either.

[dazc]

In the UK they are allowed on some sidewalks (or pavements) and often have their own lanes.

However, on most pavements it is still an offence but 'some' cyclists choose to overlook this point.

[atomicfiredoll]

How fast do these go compared to a bicycle? I saw a few of them on the street and they didn't seem to be moving faster than a brisk walker.

My impression was that bikes are generally banned because they move fast enough to cause serious injury yet are silent enough that pedestrians don't hear them coming.

[dogma1138]

I've seen a few of these in London they aren't really faster than a fast walking speed which makes people who use them look very silly.

They are quite often laughably used in shopping centers or and super markets mostly because allot of the pavements in London are horribly uneven which probably doesn't provide a very good surface for those. I've seen 2 guys on those things at Westfield last weekend arguing with a bunch of confused staff that didn't knew how to treat them.

I don't really get this device it doesn't help you to commute any faster, it doesn't increase your pedestrian commute range if you aren't fit to walk you won't be able to use one of those (they got quite a stringy weight limit, and require quite a bit of effort to balance yourself on) anyhow.

It's a bit funny to see fit and young hipsters pretty much using a 500$ mobility scooter...

[digi_owl]

A quick search resulted in one with a official speed of 8MPH, or about 12-13KMH.

[zyxley]

Bicycles may not be allowed on the sidewalk, but you'll still see plenty of them on the sidewalk anywhere there aren't good, separated bike lanes.

[differentView]

No one travelling on a sidewalk should go so fast that they are unable to avoid a stationary object.

Edit: extra word