 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lilyb283.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
So are we going to have an edit war over "footpath"? (Edit wars are always over something silly, aren't they? And when we've finished that discussion, we could always argue over what the bit of grass or gardened earth between the curb/kerb & sidewalk/footpath is called. I'm not sure there is a standardly accepted word for it inside the US. (I call it a "parking", but I'm probably the only one.) -- llywrch 03:31 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
Worse than that, why are we spending time on a "simple" definition of the word pedestrian. This should be in the wiktionary not in wikipedia. The best thing that you could do for this page is delete it, not use it to argue over pointless dialect differences -- Derek Ross 03:39 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
- Amen. Tannin
Not over "footpath" per se but maybe over "pavement". In Australia the typical arrangement is a pavement separated from the road by a grassy "nature strip". As I understand it, the issue was that once upon a time pavement was paved on UK roads, and the meaning has transferred (fully paved roads were "streets"). But since UK English does have a specific meaning for "footpath", that has to be allowed for; suggesting it for that roadside bit is plain wrong, in that context. The concession allowing the alternative meaning implies that people in Britain would look to the side of the road if someone said "footpath". They wouldn't.
Digressing somewhat: UK English doesn't allow people to drop the term "Street" or "Road" in giving a location - no "corner of A and B" meaning "corner of A Road and B Street". There isn't enough redundancy. I remember being stopped by an angry US tourist in London and asked how to get to "Sloane". I rather enjoyed explaining to him that he would have to go back to his hotel and get the full address, as within a quarter of a mile were Sloane Street, Lower Sloane Street, Sloane Square, Sloane Terrace, Sloane Gardens, Sloane Avenue, and no doubt others whose names had escaped me. PML.
Another digression, and as long as we're defining: pedestrian prose usually means mediocre, average, or unimpressive. See the article on Tom Clancy. Atorpen 03:53 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
Seems doomed to be a dictionary entry -- what can we say that is encyclopedic about pedestrians? *thinks* ... various right of way laws? link to
rambling?
Is there really such a thing as "International English" which differs from both the more traditional USA English and the more modern standard British English? I am inclined to doubt it. Michael Hardy 02:50 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)
- No, there isn't. There seems to have been some confusion about the http://www.ielts.org/ (whether "International" applied to English or the testing program, it's the testing program) that resulted, partially at least, in the creation of an "English language|" page, which I changed to just point at English. There doesn't really seem to be an international standard for English. Otherwise, we'd have fewer debates about spelling here... Even Canadian English which is lumped into Commonwealth English differs quite a bit from British English. Daniel Quinlan 03:29 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- "Even Canadian English which is lumped into Commonwealth English differs quite a bit from British English. " Perhaps this is why " Commonwealth English" isn't the best term. It doesn't appear to be an oft-used term (google gives is 767 hits). It's hard to do a similar test with " International English" as this phrase can be used in other contexts. Mintguy 08:59 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- It isn't the best term, but it does seem to work fairly well if you need to lump them all together and it does not have quite the same UK viewpoint problems as say "International English". The problem is that some countries that use what we call "Commonwealth English" here are no longer members of the Commonwealth of Nations, most notably Ireland. And, as we agree, Canadian English has diverged from British English more than most Commonwealth countries. I'm not sure how to address the terminology problem. Writing with a good NPOV sometimes mean we lack the right word for a concept. The concepts that we lack the terms to describe is the divergence of English and the similarities and differences between the different versions. I'm still thinking about it... Daniel Quinlan 07:05, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)
Don't forget Hiberno-English! :-) FearÉIREANN 03:52 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)
i wonder if the sidewalk was normally for a pedestrian or was it a road or was it both. what im trying to say is which was first known for a pedestrian to use.
- Roads existed first, originally as tracks. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Mention what countries still require one to dangerously walk in the same direction as traffic, and why this is easy to get hit from the rear. Jidanni ( talk) 18:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/walking/2012/04/walking_in_america_what_scientists_know_about_how_pedestrians_really_behave_.html is part of a series on how pedestrians behave that might be useful as a source for this article. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
'*facepalm* Does this really need to be stated? How else are humans suppose to move about? Roll around on the ground? It sounds like the sort of introduction that I would write, and I know very well that I am hopeless at writing introductions. 202.73.1.98 ( talk) 06:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I undid a previous edit that removed Jimmy Savile. While Jimmy Savile is not critical to the content of the article, I cannot recall any Wiki policy that states criminals should be purged from wiki articles. Feel free to enlighten me if I am wrong. 202.73.1.98 ( talk) 06:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
By my count, this section has at least 10 facts that are not cited. Also, it seems to actually be a history of pedestrianism (i.e. walking as a sport/event), which is not the subject of this article. The entire section should probably be removed. Sadievico ( talk) 22:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- That would be the lazy way of fixing it. An industrious Wikipedian might well consider researching some appropriate citations instead. An industrious Wikipedian might also discover that the original subject of the article (after the stupid argument about names for bits of roads was deleted) was the historical sport of Pedestrianism before the addition of the other material changed its focus. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The article has much information about safety in the United States. Globalisation could be improved by adding similar information for other regions, for example the European Union. Humphrey Tribble ( talk) 05:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
- I think the article needed less on the whole subject of safety, it is only one aspect of pedestrians, and there are other articles specialising in accidents and safety. As such, I have removed a significant amount of statistic dumps and the undue granularity of pedestrian safety in specific states in the US.
- We have articles for Road traffic safety, Automotive safety, Bicycle safety, Safety of cycling infrastructure, Motorcycle safety, Jaywalking and Transport accidents and incidents, but Pedestrian safety is just a redirect to Road traffic safety, which has a tiny section about pedestrians. Perhaps, instead of a redirect, turn it into a proper article with the sort of detail that we don't need in this article. ( Hohum @) 20:37, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
The article makes no mention of pedestrians who are wheelchair users or otherwise disabled. A person walking/rolling in a wheelchair is also a pedestrian. Bohemian Baltimore ( talk) 11:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)