Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles [Archive]

Frank Krygowski

September 22nd 04, 07:45 PM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
>>about. You're talking about something else.
>
>
> I just did the search in google images....

Do it in Google.

>
> http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/trafeng/NTMP/humpa.jpg
> http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/992MarApr/images/speedhumpbronx.jpg
> http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbox/images/speedhumps1.jpg
> http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbox/images/speedhumps3.jpg
> http://www.mesalek.com/colo/picts/fc_stuartspdhmp.jpg
> http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/images/hump.jpg
>
> As you can see the design varies quite a bit. All can put all four tires
> of many vehicles below the peak of the hump with the peak under the car.

And the ones designed according to the current standards will clear any
reasonable undercarriage just fine. Only the first seems to be a
mistaken design. It should be fixed.

>>The vocabulary is well accepted by people who know this subject. Speed
>>BUMPS are short in the direction of travel (8" to perhaps 30"), feature
>>steep slopes (as much as 45 degrees) and can't be driven over at much
>>above a walking speed.
>
>
> Obviously not, as speed hump is used by offical government agenices have
> pictures of what you call 'bumps' but are calling them humps.

"... people who know this subject." I'm sorry that not everyone does -
but I submit that educating the world's traffic engineers on this design
is far easier than your proposed alternative of fixing local speeding by
starting with the interstate system regulations!

Visit http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm for some detail on doing them
right. It also lists advantages and _realistically_ states
disadvantages, so communities and engineers can make informed decisions.

>>Speed HUMPS are as long as 14 feet in the direction of travel, feature
>>smooth slopes, and can be driven comfortably at speeds like 25 mph,
>>depending on their design.
>
>
> In chicago, Speed humps are about 4-5 in the direction of travel, have
> steep slopes of only a 6 inches or less and are as high as the curb, 4-6
> inches.
>
> The definitions are not defined as you would like them to be.

There are badly designed freeway ramps in this world. There are badly
designed intersections. There are badly designed sidewalks. And there
are badly designed speed humps.

That does NOT mean we should have no freeways, no bridges, no sidewalks.
And it does NOT mean we should have no speed humps.

It means the designs should be done correctly.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Muttley

September 22nd 04, 08:08 PM

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:41:47 GMT, "Mark Jones" > wrote:

>"Muttley" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:38:56 GMT, "Mark Jones" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
>>>> Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:33:50 GMT,
>>>> et>,
>>>> "Mark Jones" > wrote:
>>
>>>I don't need to slow down because I do not speed in
>>>residential areas.
>>
>> No, you need to slow down so you don't damage your car ;)
>>
>> Then you won't _need_ to whine.
>I am not whining and I do not need to slow down when I am not
>speeding in the first place.

OK, fine - if you want to damage your car, you go right ahead.

That's the advantage of a free country ;)

> Speed bumps that are excessively
>high are not a good thing, no matter how you try to spin it.

"Too high" is a bit of a moveable feast, though, isn't it.

A mother whose child has been killed by a motorist who was quite confident that
he wasn't speeding when he killed her child, might have one idea, and the
motorist who considers that he never speeds, might well have another.

>
>Poorly designed speed bumps in shopping center parking lots
>are my main complaint.

I sympathize with you there.

I once used to stay at a hotel that had a very low speed hump, that no matter
how slowly you went over it caused the car to lurch violently (and I mean even
at 1-2mph). I turned up very late one night when the environs were deserted, and
decided to try it at 40. No problem at all.

Brent P

September 22nd 04, 08:45 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>First, adjust the orbit of the earth around the sun. Get it properly
>>>circular, for gosh sake!
>>
>>
>> Frank has no rebuttle.
>>
>
> Heck, I don't even have a buttle, whatever that is! ;-)
>
>
> Terse replies work much better with correct spelling. ;-)

Worked perfectly in this case as I wanted to see if I could reduce you to
complaining about spelling.

Brent P

September 22nd 04, 09:05 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
>>>about. You're talking about something else.
>>
>>
>> I just did the search in google images....
>
> Do it in Google.

I did, their picture utility. Faster than sifting through websites
finding ones with pictures.

>> http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/trafeng/NTMP/humpa.jpg
>> http://www.transalt.org/press/magazine/992MarApr/images/speedhumpbronx.jpg
>> http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbox/images/speedhumps1.jpg
>> http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbox/images/speedhumps3.jpg
>> http://www.mesalek.com/colo/picts/fc_stuartspdhmp.jpg
>> http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/images/hump.jpg
>>
>> As you can see the design varies quite a bit. All can put all four tires
>> of many vehicles below the peak of the hump with the peak under the car.

> And the ones designed according to the current standards will clear any
> reasonable undercarriage just fine. Only the first seems to be a
> mistaken design. It should be fixed.

Speed humps are like bike lanes. Put in as half-assed retrofits most of
the time. There is no set definition that is in anything close to
universal usage.

>> Obviously not, as speed hump is used by offical government agenices have
>> pictures of what you call 'bumps' but are calling them humps.

> "... people who know this subject." I'm sorry that not everyone does -

Not even the DOTs. Just you I suppose.

> but I submit that educating the world's traffic engineers on this design
> is far easier than your proposed alternative of fixing local speeding by
> starting with the interstate system regulations!

Educating traffic engineers won't achieve your goal. THe 85th percentile
method of setting speed limits comes from traffic engineers and yet
that's not happening despite all the decades of evidence behind it. The
very same politics you call "community scale" will stifle what you call
proper speed hump design. Because somewhere, somebody will think one
three feet in the traffic direction looks better than one 14 feet... or
the 14 foot one will ruin the space where he parks his car, or something
like that. Standardizing speed humps is about as politically viable as
setting speed limits correctly.

> Visit http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm for some detail on doing them
> right. It also lists advantages and _realistically_ states
> disadvantages, so communities and engineers can make informed decisions.

I should dismiss it out of hand as you do with V85 evidence.
Anyway, 12-14 feet in the travel direction, 300-600 feet apart... Like
the ideal bicycle lane configuration, I've never seen this animal in the
wild. The one pictured looks good for sliding a car into that big tree
after an ice storm though.

You are insisting that speed humps are needed because road design is done
incorrectly and it cannot be fixed. Yet, you'd have me not believe my
own eyes, but rather your claim that the speed humps are / will be designed
correctly. It's inconsistant to say the least.

> There are badly designed freeway ramps in this world. There are badly
> designed intersections. There are badly designed sidewalks. And there
> are badly designed speed humps.
>
> That does NOT mean we should have no freeways, no bridges, no sidewalks.
> And it does NOT mean we should have no speed humps.
>
> It means the designs should be done correctly.

And if we are going to do things correctly, we can eliminate speed humps
entirely.

Nate Nagel

September 23rd 04, 12:12 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> There are *tons* of speed bumps that I could scrape my old car on at
>> 0.00001 MPH simply because the exhaust hung lower than the top of the
>> speed bump. (VW Scirocco - lowered maybe 1". NOT "slammed.") Let's
>> not mention how it feels to go over a speed bump on a bicycle!
>>
>> People who install speed bumps, and/or lobby for the installation of
>> speed bumps, are quite simply rude and inconsiderate, despite their
>> protests of inconsiderate behavior on the part of others. Not
>> everyone drives a land barge SUV.
>>
>> nate
>
>
> Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
> about. You're talking about something else.

I've seen what may be considered "humps" but none of the ones I've seen
in the flesh are long enough to not scrape. Funny thing is, unlike
speed bumps, they're actually easier to take at a higher speed as the
suspension unloads a little when the front starts on the downslope so
driving faster actually reduces your chance of scraping.

>
> The vocabulary is well accepted by people who know this subject. Speed
> BUMPS are short in the direction of travel (8" to perhaps 30"), feature
> steep slopes (as much as 45 degrees) and can't be driven over at much
> above a walking speed.
>
> Speed HUMPS are as long as 14 feet in the direction of travel, feature
> smooth slopes, and can be driven comfortably at speeds like 25 mph,
> depending on their design. They cause discomfort at higher speeds. The
> idea is to keep speeds down to the speed limit in residential areas or
> pedestrian areas - not to keep speeds down to 0.00001 mph.
>

Again, I don't think those kinds of devices work at all - at least in
the cars I drive they actually encourage driving faster.

Anyway, the most common type that I see are the "lump of asphalt" speed
bumps, closely followed by the truly evil things that look like short
parking curbs and really wreck your equipment. I don't think I'd ride a
road bike over one of those at *any* speed if I can avoid it, trueing
rims is not my idea of a good way to spend an afternoon.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Mark Jones

September 23rd 04, 02:57 AM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> There are badly designed freeway ramps in this world.
The worst ones are decreasing radius exit ramps. Very dangerous.

Brent P

September 23rd 04, 03:22 AM

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:

> Anyway, the most common type that I see are the "lump of asphalt" speed
> bumps, closely followed by the truly evil things that look like short
> parking curbs and really wreck your equipment. I don't think I'd ride a
> road bike over one of those at *any* speed if I can avoid it, trueing
> rims is not my idea of a good way to spend an afternoon.

I see the small plastic parking block things bolted to the pavement most
often now. They are generally removed in the winter for plowing and
replaced in the spring. There is no choice but to go around those on a
bicycle and generally I can in the car as well. The small asphalt bumps
usually have road bike tire thin gaps in the worst places, such as the
centerline of the road or in the gutter. Generally the best gap is the
one in the center, so I have to take the entire road and then slow to
walking pace to 'thread-the-needle'. What is considered a hump in
chicago (much shorter than frank's 'proper hump') is also something I have
slowed down for on bicycle. But I haven't encountered them much more on
the bike than I have behind the wheel.

Frank Krygowski

September 23rd 04, 05:15 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
>> about. You're talking about something else.
>
>
> I've seen what may be considered "humps" but none of the ones I've seen
> in the flesh are long enough to not scrape.

Then you haven't seen the ones I'm talking about. Again, visit
http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm

With a, say, 14 foot hump that's 3.5 inches at its tallest, there is no
way any reasonable vehicle can scrape at a reasonable speed.

If you want to complain about bolt-down logs in parking lots, or short
lumps of asphalt in roadways, you really should start a separate thread
on _that_ topic.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Nate Nagel

September 23rd 04, 05:24 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
>>> about. You're talking about something else.
>>
>>
>>
>> I've seen what may be considered "humps" but none of the ones I've
>> seen in the flesh are long enough to not scrape.
>
>
> Then you haven't seen the ones I'm talking about. Again, visit
> http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm
>
> With a, say, 14 foot hump that's 3.5 inches at its tallest, there is no
> way any reasonable vehicle can scrape at a reasonable speed.

What's the point? Something like that doesn't affect a vehicle's speed
at all, you could cruise over that at 50 MPH and it wouldn't be any
worse than an average Pittsburgh pothole. Heck, I've deliberately sped
up before hitting shorter but similar devices to pop the front of my car
up (then braked once the front wheels are over the crest to pop the back
up. By doing so, you can actually get over without scraping something
that would normally scrape even at a crawling speed.) I'm not saying
that I drive that fast through a residential neighborhood, simply that
if I somehow got it in my mind to do so such a device wouldn't be an
impediment at all. Really, I don't think any sort of road surface
manipulation can slow down traffic at all without causing damage to some
vehicles, and all such devices are a) bad ideas and b) band-aid fixes to
a completely different problem (people using residential streets as
through streets and/or simply driving like idiots.)

>
> If you want to complain about bolt-down logs in parking lots, or short
> lumps of asphalt in roadways, you really should start a separate thread
> on _that_ topic.
>

I don't really see the point; I don't think that anyone smart enough to
find the "on" button on a computer would be in favor of those things.
Sadly, there's plenty of people dumber than that, as evidenced by their
widespread use.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Frank Krygowski

September 23rd 04, 03:55 PM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
>>>> about. You're talking about something else.
>>>
>>> I've seen what may be considered "humps" but none of the ones I've
>>> seen in the flesh are long enough to not scrape.
>>
>> Then you haven't seen the ones I'm talking about. Again, visit
>> http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm
>>
>> With a, say, 14 foot hump that's 3.5 inches at its tallest, there is
>> no way any reasonable vehicle can scrape at a reasonable speed.
>
>
> What's the point? Something like that doesn't affect a vehicle's speed
> at all, you could cruise over that at 50 MPH and it wouldn't be any
> worse than an average Pittsburgh pothole. Heck, I've deliberately sped
> up before hitting shorter but similar devices to pop the front of my car
> up (then braked once the front wheels are over the crest to pop the back
> up. By doing so, you can actually get over without scraping something
> that would normally scrape even at a crawling speed.) I'm not saying
> that I drive that fast through a residential neighborhood, simply that
> if I somehow got it in my mind to do so such a device wouldn't be an
> impediment at all.

<sigh> Did you actually read that page? Here's a quote:

"....based on a limited sample of sites, typical crossing speeds (85th
percentile) of 19 mph have been measured for 3½ inch high, 12 foot humps
and of 21 mph for 3 inch high, 14 foot humps..."

If you google "speed humps" and spend five minutes reading, you'll find
other data - for example, average reduction in speeds of 20% and more.

It's always wise to do this before making claims like your "50 mph" one
above. It's less embarrassing.

Really, I don't think any sort of road surface
> manipulation can slow down traffic at all without causing damage to some
> vehicles,

One of the points I've been making is, if damage occurs to a vehicle
that's speeding, that's the driver's fault - he shouldn't speed. If
damage occurs to a vehicle that's been modified (say, radically lowered)
that's the owner's fault - he should have planned on the world not being
perfectly flat. The same goes for people who purchase similar vehicles.

and all such devices are a) bad ideas and b) band-aid fixes to
> a completely different problem (people using residential streets as
> through streets and/or simply driving like idiots.)

Well, it seems many neighborhoods have decided they're a good idea,
partly because they reduce the problem of people driving like idiots.

>> If you want to complain about bolt-down logs in parking lots, or short
>> lumps of asphalt in roadways, you really should start a separate
>> thread on _that_ topic.
>>
>
> I don't really see the point; I don't think that anyone smart enough to
> find the "on" button on a computer would be in favor of those things.

Well hopefully, a speed BUMP thread would get those people to state
their complaints in that thread. Then we could stay on speed HUMPS in
this thread.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Brent P

September 23rd 04, 04:28 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

><sigh> Did you actually read that page? Here's a quote:
>
> "....based on a limited sample of sites, typical crossing speeds (85th
> percentile) of 19 mph have been measured for 3½ inch high, 12 foot humps
> and of 21 mph for 3 inch high, 14 foot humps..."

Frank quoting 85th percentile..... Amazing. As I recall before I
stopped following r.b.s you believed that the 85th percentile method
had no value. And here you are, quoting its use, where it is used just as I
said it should be used, to determine the actual safe upper bound speed of
the road.

Frank Krygowski

September 23rd 04, 08:50 PM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>><sigh> Did you actually read that page? Here's a quote:
>>
>>"....based on a limited sample of sites, typical crossing speeds (85th
>>percentile) of 19 mph have been measured for 3½ inch high, 12 foot humps
>>and of 21 mph for 3 inch high, 14 foot humps..."
>
>
>
> Frank quoting 85th percentile..... Amazing. As I recall before I
> stopped following r.b.s you believed that the 85th percentile method
> had no value.

Once again, you're confused.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Brent P

September 23rd 04, 09:23 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>><sigh> Did you actually read that page? Here's a quote:
>>>
>>>"....based on a limited sample of sites, typical crossing speeds (85th
>>>percentile) of 19 mph have been measured for 3½ inch high, 12 foot humps
>>>and of 21 mph for 3 inch high, 14 foot humps..."
>>
>>
>>
>> Frank quoting 85th percentile..... Amazing. As I recall before I
>> stopped following r.b.s you believed that the 85th percentile method
>> had no value.
>
> Once again, you're confused.

Google is loaded with posts where you state you don't believe in the 85th
percentile method. Where you feel that signage and enforcement is the way
to get the lower speeds.

I'll quote a couple instances where you claimed it had no value in these
situations:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3ADEF026.5BABECA1%40cc.ysu.edu&output=gplain

-> Again, this is obvious to everyone but one or two. This is the reason
-> that places with high pedestrian traffic have lower speed limits, as
-> standard practice. This is the reason that there are such things as
-> school zones, where speed limits are _much_ lower than the 85th
-> percentile driver would normally choose.

Later in the thread:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3ADF386A.283FBBE4%40cc.ysu.edu&output=gplain

-> If you understand and accept that, then you shouldn't be arguing against
-> enforcement of the speed limit in small towns, as you have been. You
-> shouldn't be telling me that my small town should re-design the state
-> highway instead of ticketing speeders. After all, they don't re-design
-> the road at every school zone. They put up a sign, and they ticket
-> offenders. It's much more economical, and it works.

So, now you pull out quotes showing that changing the road design by
adding some half-assed retrofits to lower the 85th percentile speed as
supporting evidence. I told you years ago the way to get the lower
speeds you wanted was to lower the 85th percentile speed and you went on
and on and on about how the sign and a cop writing tickets was good
enough. You didn't want to redesign the road for lower speeds, you
wanted signs and enforcement. Now you want half-ass retrofits
to change the design of the road to lower the 85th percentile speed.
It's simply amazing. You could just admit that I'm correct (that the way
to actually acheive lower traffic speeds is make a slower road to lower
the 85th percentile minus any signs/enforcement), and you (signs and
enforcement is the way) were wrong.

Nate Nagel

September 23rd 04, 09:26 PM

Frank Krygowski > wrote in message >...
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >> Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>
> >>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
> >>>> about. You're talking about something else.
> >>>
> >>> I've seen what may be considered "humps" but none of the ones I've
> >>> seen in the flesh are long enough to not scrape.
> >>
> >> Then you haven't seen the ones I'm talking about. Again, visit
> >> http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm
> >>
> >> With a, say, 14 foot hump that's 3.5 inches at its tallest, there is
> >> no way any reasonable vehicle can scrape at a reasonable speed.
> >
> >
> > What's the point? Something like that doesn't affect a vehicle's speed
> > at all, you could cruise over that at 50 MPH and it wouldn't be any
> > worse than an average Pittsburgh pothole. Heck, I've deliberately sped
> > up before hitting shorter but similar devices to pop the front of my car
> > up (then braked once the front wheels are over the crest to pop the back
> > up. By doing so, you can actually get over without scraping something
> > that would normally scrape even at a crawling speed.) I'm not saying
> > that I drive that fast through a residential neighborhood, simply that
> > if I somehow got it in my mind to do so such a device wouldn't be an
> > impediment at all.
>
>
> <sigh> Did you actually read that page? Here's a quote:
>
> "....based on a limited sample of sites, typical crossing speeds (85th
> percentile) of 19 mph have been measured for 3½ inch high, 12 foot humps
> and of 21 mph for 3 inch high, 14 foot humps..."
>
> If you google "speed humps" and spend five minutes reading, you'll find
> other data - for example, average reduction in speeds of 20% and more.
>
> It's always wise to do this before making claims like your "50 mph" one
> above. It's less embarrassing.
>

I'm not the one that ought to be embarassed. Wanna go for a ride?
Real world experience trumps theory every time, buddy.

>
> Really, I don't think any sort of road surface
> > manipulation can slow down traffic at all without causing damage to some
> > vehicles,
>
> One of the points I've been making is, if damage occurs to a vehicle
> that's speeding, that's the driver's fault - he shouldn't speed. If
> damage occurs to a vehicle that's been modified (say, radically lowered)
> that's the owner's fault - he should have planned on the world not being
> perfectly flat. The same goes for people who purchase similar vehicles.
>
>
>
> and all such devices are a) bad ideas and b) band-aid fixes to
> > a completely different problem (people using residential streets as
> > through streets and/or simply driving like idiots.)
>
> Well, it seems many neighborhoods have decided they're a good idea,
> partly because they reduce the problem of people driving like idiots.

No, it really doesn't, it just ****es them off and IME makes them
drive *more* idiotically - *between* the "traffic calming" devices.
"Neighborhoods" have decided they're a good idea primarily because the
neighborhoods in question must be populated by morons.

>
>
> >> If you want to complain about bolt-down logs in parking lots, or short
> >> lumps of asphalt in roadways, you really should start a separate
> >> thread on _that_ topic.
> >>
> >
> > I don't really see the point; I don't think that anyone smart enough to
> > find the "on" button on a computer would be in favor of those things.
>
> Well hopefully, a speed BUMP thread would get those people to state
> their complaints in that thread. Then we could stay on speed HUMPS in
> this thread.

They're *all* bad. "Traffic calming" is bad. Any "traffic calming"
device is an admission that someone f'ed up in planning.

I'm guessing you're posting from the bicycling group - I would have
thought that people there would be even more anti-"traffic calming"
than here (RAD) as the consequences to a bike are much more severe
than those to a car.

nate

Zoot Katz

September 29th 04, 07:21 PM

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:08:41 GMT, <JSC6d.283143$mD.172897@attbi_s02>,
tetraethyllead yahoo.com (Brent P) whined:

>People driving fast through residential areas is the direct result of
>screwing up the roads elsewhere. If the busy-bodies, control freaks, and
>lowest common demonator believers hadn't screwed up the other roads this
>problem wouldn't have occured.

The lowest common denominator is the asswipe cagers screwing up the
roads simply by being there en masse.
So, the worthless scumbags like yourself choose to blow through
residential streets trying to avoid the problems they created by
driving in the first place.
Choke.
--
zk

Zoot Katz

September 29th 04, 07:46 PM

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:23:18 -0500,
>,
(Matthew Russotto) dithered:

>
>I imagine next Tim will tell you that if your bicycle can't handle the
>speed bumps, it's unsuitable and you should replace it with a mountain
>bike or something.

The speed humps along one stretch of road by the high school, tennis
courts, sports fields and hospital are designed for the posted speed
limit - 30KmH.

At 32 KmH in a car they're barely noticed. At 37KmH on a bike the
front end goes airborne if I'm riding no handed and sitting back on
the saddle.

Your interchanging of "bump" for "hump" is either your persistent
preposterousness or deliberate disingenuousness.

IOW, you're stupid or lying though I suspect it's both.
--
zk

Brent P

September 29th 04, 07:51 PM

In article >, Zoot Katz wrote:
> Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:08:41 GMT, <JSC6d.283143$mD.172897@attbi_s02>,
> tetraethyllead yahoo.com (Brent P) whined:
>
>>People driving fast through residential areas is the direct result of
>>screwing up the roads elsewhere. If the busy-bodies, control freaks, and
>>lowest common demonator believers hadn't screwed up the other roads this
>>problem wouldn't have occured.
>
> The lowest common denominator is the asswipe cagers screwing up the
> roads simply by being there en masse.

I see the same things on bike paths.

> So, the worthless scumbags like yourself choose to blow through
> residential streets trying to avoid the problems they created by
> driving in the first place.

I don't 'blow through' residential areas. I drive residential streets at
about the same speeds I ride through them on the bicycle.

Zoot Katz

September 29th 04, 08:12 PM

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:51:27 GMT, <PuD6d.131665$MQ5.55161@attbi_s52>,
tetraethyllead yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:

>> The lowest common denominator is the asswipe cagers screwing up the
>> roads simply by being there en masse.
>
>I see the same things on bike paths.

Really? I've not much experience with bike paths having never seen
one. If you're talking about FMUPs then the thing that screws up those
are speeding cyclists, careless bladers, irresponsible dog walkers and
packs of young mothers out jogging their strollers. It all depends on
who you ask.
--
zk

Brent P

September 29th 04, 08:41 PM

In article >, Zoot Katz wrote:
> Wed, 29 Sep 2004 18:51:27 GMT, <PuD6d.131665$MQ5.55161@attbi_s52>,
> tetraethyllead yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>> The lowest common denominator is the asswipe cagers screwing up the
>>> roads simply by being there en masse.
>>
>>I see the same things on bike paths.
>
> Really? I've not much experience with bike paths having never seen
> one. If you're talking about FMUPs then the thing that screws up those
> are speeding cyclists, careless bladers, irresponsible dog walkers and
> packs of young mothers out jogging their strollers. It all depends on
> who you ask.

Don't know what FMUPs are but all those you mention cept for "speeding
cyclists" use the bicycle paths just as they drive on the roads.
Most fast cyclists are just fine and keep right except to pass. It's a
bicycle road, they are using it correctly as such. Because bike paths
have been taken over by peds a other fools that mostly drive think that high
speed bicycle travel doesn't belong on the bicycle path I use the roads.

Zoot Katz

September 29th 04, 08:56 PM

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:41:41 GMT, <VdE6d.138320$D%.135878@attbi_s51>,
tetraethyllead yahoo (Brent P) wrote:

>>I see the same things on bike paths.
>
> Really? I've not much experience with bike paths having never seen
> one. If you're talking about FMUPs then the thing that screws up those
> are speeding cyclists, careless bladers, irresponsible dog walkers and
> packs of young mothers out jogging their strollers. It all depends on
> who you ask.
>
>Most fast cyclists are just fine and keep right except to pass. It's a
>bicycle road, they are using it correctly as such. Because bike paths
>have been taken over by peds a other fools that mostly drive think that high
>speed bicycle travel doesn't belong on the bicycle path I use the roads.

FMUP is a friggin' multi-use path. It's not a "bicycle road". It's a
recreational facility for sharing with other users. It's not designed
nor designated as a "bicycle road", whatever that is. As I said, I've
never seen one.
--
zk

Brent P

September 29th 04, 09:23 PM

In article >, Zoot Katz wrote:
> Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:41:41 GMT, <VdE6d.138320$D%.135878@attbi_s51>,
> tetraethyllead yahoo (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>>I see the same things on bike paths.
>>
>> Really? I've not much experience with bike paths having never seen
>> one. If you're talking about FMUPs then the thing that screws up those
>> are speeding cyclists, careless bladers, irresponsible dog walkers and
>> packs of young mothers out jogging their strollers. It all depends on
>> who you ask.
>>
>>Most fast cyclists are just fine and keep right except to pass. It's a
>>bicycle road, they are using it correctly as such. Because bike paths
>>have been taken over by peds a other fools that mostly drive think that high
>>speed bicycle travel doesn't belong on the bicycle path I use the roads.
>
> FMUP is a friggin' multi-use path. It's not a "bicycle road". It's a
> recreational facility for sharing with other users. It's not designed
> nor designated as a "bicycle road", whatever that is. As I said, I've
> never seen one.

They aren't called multi-use paths here, they are called bike paths. And
thusly should be a bicycle road, but never are.

Zoot Katz

September 29th 04, 09:45 PM

Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:23:56 GMT, <wRE6d.72921$wV.38047@attbi_s54>,
tetraethyllead yahoo (Brent P) wrote:
>
>> FMUP is a friggin' multi-use path. It's not a "bicycle road". It's a
>> recreational facility for sharing with other users. It's not designed
>> nor designated as a "bicycle road", whatever that is. As I said, I've
>> never seen one.
>
>They aren't called multi-use paths here, they are called bike paths. And
>thusly should be a bicycle road, but never are.

They're probably called "bike paths" so they can qualify for money
diverted from transportation funding.
Without constructing a barricade along its entire length, like a
freeway or toll road, it's foolishly naive to consider one anything
but a FMUP.
--
zk

Frank Krygowski

September 30th 04, 04:59 AM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
The cause of people driving fast through
>>neighborhoods is pushing down on the damned gas pedal too hard.
>
>
> So you believe this problem occured spontanously?

No, it didn't occur spontaneously. It occurred because there's
insufficient testing for drivers' licenses.

At a minimum, there should be intense psychological testing to determine
whether a person thinks saving ten seconds of commute time, and/or
preventing damage to his delicate toy car, is more of a concern than the
living environment of a residential neighborhood. Oh, and they should
also check to see if someone has an irrational fixation on
"transportation efficiency" or "underposted speed limits." Folks that
have those problems shouldn't get licenses.

Problem solved! And those folks would probably be more content, too.
Think of the frustration they'll never experience! ;-)

>
>
>> It's
>>a choice people make, it's a choice they are responsible for, and if
>>they can't be good neighbors voluntarily then they will face things
>>like speed bumps, restricted access residential streets, etc. Trying
>>to lay off the responsibility for people's inappropriate choices onto
>>someone else is classic mid-70's liberal bull****- it was bull****
>>then and it's bull**** now (and BTW, I'm speaking as a long-time
>>liberal).
>
>
> I am not laying off responsibility. I am finding the root cause.

"Yer honor, my client had a terrible childhood! He grew up in a home
with only two televisions and no Game Boy. After that, the stress of
waiting for a traffic light would be too much for anyone! That's the
root cause of his mowing down the elderly couple. He's to be pitied,
sir, not punished!!"

>>More stupidity and laying the blame for personal choices at the feet
>>of others.
>
>
> Again, I am not taking responsibility from the individual driver.

You're making excuses for them all day long. Quit whining.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

September 30th 04, 05:26 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski > wrote in message >...
>
>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>OK, in case you want to be serious: If your car is straddling a speed
>>>>bump and scraping, you need to fix your car. Either you have a
>>>>mechanical problem like a low-hanging exhaust system, or you have
>>>>chosen to drive a car with insufficient ground clearance for the real
>>>>world.
>>>
>>>It's perfectly fine in *most* situations. The only problems I have
>>>(well, had) are in busybody-infested neighborhoods or annoying shopping
>>>centers.
>>
>>If "perfectly fine in most situations" is good enough for you, great.
>>Drive only where those situations exist.
>>
>
>
> Sometimes that's not an option, like when they become so prevalent
> that it's impossible to avoid them all.

Take this slowly, Nate - apparently it's a little complicated for you:

If your car is "perfectly fine in most situations" as you claim, then
you don't have much of a problem. Quit whining.

If your car scrapes in situations that are so prevalent that you can't
avoid them, that's VERY UNUSUAL. Other people don't have this problem!
Your car is not practical enough.

You chose that car. Quit whining.

>>You're complaining about shopping centers? Yes, I know of speed bumps
>>in a local shopping center - necessary to keep entering speeders from
>>mowing down pedestrians entering a popular bookstore. Cars slow to
>>about 5 mph to cross them. I've _never_ detected a car scraping across
>>those. Would your car? If so, it seems your car is very unusual. The
>>solution seems to be: don't drive an unusual car and expect to handle
>>what normal cars handle easily; or take your business elsewhere.
>>
>
>
> Unusual? Here, have a look, if you insist. Does this look like a car
> with exceptionally low ground clearance?
>
> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel/Scirocco.html

Lovely. Is it lower than the Honda Civic I had, which was low enough I
felt I had to shovel myself out of it? Is it lower than the Saturn for
which I had to cut down my repair ramps to make them usable? Those cars
didn't scrape on a speed bump, not once.

This really is sounding more and more like an operator problem.

>>>However, every time I drove down a certain stretch
>>
>>>of residential street, no matter how slowly I drove, I could hear my
>>>center resonator scraping across the top of that #$%^*& bump.
>>
>>Did everybody's resonator scrape?

Apparently, this question will go unanswered.

Did _anyone_ else scrape?

And this question will go unanswered.

Again, my
>>bet is you needed to crawl under you car and fix something - or stop
>>driving a cartoon.
>
>
> Would you consider a bone stock Miata a "cartoon?"

To repeat the quote I gave earlier: "The Miata is the car that makes
the statement 'Look! I'm Peter Pan, and I'm driving Minnie Mouse's
slipper!' "

Sorry I can't give proper attribution for that. I was laughing too hard
to hear who originally said it.

So it's no more a cartoon than Minnie Mouse. ;-)

>
>>No matter what you pretend, there are not very many production vehicles
>>whose ground clearance is unusually low - again, for practical reasons.
>> GM knows that Corvette drivers go to the mall, so they give enough
>>ground clearance to clear speed bumps; mall managers know they want
>>Corvette drivers to shop there, so they limit the height of speed bumps.
>> These facts cause a natural equilibrium to occur.
>
>
> Aside from the fact that a Corvette probably has less ground clearance
> than either my old car or a Miata, you should be correct. However, it
> seems more and more like in an effort to REALLY slow down those
> eeeeevil speeders...

It _is_ an effort to do that, obviously. And naturally, the dedicated
speeders are not happy. They can't understand why they get no sympathy!

The really obnoxious drivers never care how their behavior affects
others, do they?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

September 30th 04, 05:55 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> So you believe this problem occured spontanously?

> No, it didn't occur spontaneously. It occurred because there's
> insufficient testing for drivers' licenses.

Well at least you've been convinced of one part of the root cause.

<frank's compulsion regarding insulting comments snipped>

Frank Krygowski

September 30th 04, 05:59 AM

Brent P wrote:

> Thankfully Chicago has this season that comes after road construction
> called winter. Winter brings snow, which has to plowed, which makes
> things like speed humps and bumps a real pain the ass for the government
> bodies that run the plows. Also thanks to winter, road crews have real
> work to do instead of installing speed humps and bumps. So the speed hump
> is generally restricted to alleys, which don't get plowed.

In other words, all this time you've been whining about a negligible
problem!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

September 30th 04, 07:47 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> Thankfully Chicago has this season that comes after road construction
>> called winter. Winter brings snow, which has to plowed, which makes
>> things like speed humps and bumps a real pain the ass for the government
>> bodies that run the plows. Also thanks to winter, road crews have real
>> work to do instead of installing speed humps and bumps. So the speed hump
>> is generally restricted to alleys, which don't get plowed.
>
> In other words, all this time you've been whining about a negligible
> problem!

I stated from begining they are few and far between here. And I'll do
what I can to keep it that way.

Nate Nagel

September 30th 04, 01:31 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski > wrote in message
>> >...
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> OK, in case you want to be serious: If your car is straddling a
>>>>> speed bump and scraping, you need to fix your car. Either you have
>>>>> a mechanical problem like a low-hanging exhaust system, or you have
>>>>> chosen to drive a car with insufficient ground clearance for the
>>>>> real world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's perfectly fine in *most* situations. The only problems I have
>>>> (well, had) are in busybody-infested neighborhoods or annoying
>>>> shopping centers.
>>>
>>>
>>> If "perfectly fine in most situations" is good enough for you, great.
>>> Drive only where those situations exist.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Sometimes that's not an option, like when they become so prevalent
>> that it's impossible to avoid them all.
>
>
> Take this slowly, Nate - apparently it's a little complicated for you:
>
> If your car is "perfectly fine in most situations" as you claim, then
> you don't have much of a problem. Quit whining.

I'm not "whining," I'm stating that your beloved road features are
unacceptable as implemented.

>
> If your car scrapes in situations that are so prevalent that you can't
> avoid them, that's VERY UNUSUAL. Other people don't have this problem!
> Your car is not practical enough.
>
> You chose that car. Quit whining.

Did you even read my other post, where I listed some vehicles that would
have scraped over what another poster characterized as a "typical" speed
hump? Like a Dodge Dart? Is that an impractical car?

What I meant by "unavoidable" was that aroudn here there's often pockets
of residential areas where every freaking road has speed bumps and/or
humps on them. So it's possible to never see a speed bump in everyday
driving but one day go somewhere and inadvertantly end up in one of
these areas where you've no choice but to go over 20-30 of these
monstrosities before you find your way back to the main road.

>
>
>>> You're complaining about shopping centers? Yes, I know of speed
>>> bumps in a local shopping center - necessary to keep entering
>>> speeders from mowing down pedestrians entering a popular bookstore.
>>> Cars slow to about 5 mph to cross them. I've _never_ detected a car
>>> scraping across those. Would your car? If so, it seems your car is
>>> very unusual. The solution seems to be: don't drive an unusual car
>>> and expect to handle what normal cars handle easily; or take your
>>> business elsewhere.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Unusual? Here, have a look, if you insist. Does this look like a car
>> with exceptionally low ground clearance?
>>
>> http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel/Scirocco.html
>
>
> Lovely. Is it lower than the Honda Civic I had, which was low enough I
> felt I had to shovel myself out of it? Is it lower than the Saturn for
> which I had to cut down my repair ramps to make them usable? Those cars
> didn't scrape on a speed bump, not once.

I don't know, why don't you tell me how low they were. While not a
definite indicator of whether or not a car will scrape on a speed bump
(underbody features can vary car to car, but the trend is to make the
underside of the car more or less flat for aerodynamic reasons,) ground
clearance numbers do give a rough indicator.

>
> This really is sounding more and more like an operator problem.
>

Wow, another unsupported assertion from Frank. Lovely.

>
>>>> However, every time I drove down a certain stretch
>>>
>>>
>>>> of residential street, no matter how slowly I drove, I could hear my
>>>> center resonator scraping across the top of that #$%^*& bump.
>>>
>>>
>>> Did everybody's resonator scrape?
>
>
> Apparently, this question will go unanswered.
>
>
> Did _anyone_ else scrape?
>
> And this question will go unanswered.
>

Did you read my other post?

>
> Again, my
>
>>> bet is you needed to crawl under you car and fix something - or stop
>>> driving a cartoon.
>>
>>
>>
>> Would you consider a bone stock Miata a "cartoon?"
>
>
> To repeat the quote I gave earlier: "The Miata is the car that makes
> the statement 'Look! I'm Peter Pan, and I'm driving Minnie Mouse's
> slipper!' "
>
> Sorry I can't give proper attribution for that. I was laughing too hard
> to hear who originally said it.
>
> So it's no more a cartoon than Minnie Mouse. ;-)
>

So you don't like sports cars, that's your prerogative. Still doesn't
make it right to install road features that prohibit driving fairly
common, unmodified vehicles over them.

If you're going to argue that it's impractical, explain to me then why
my mom drives one - and she lives on a dirt road in western PA. Hmm,
she doesn't have any problem with hers, but the one time I tried to take
one over a speed bump, bad things happened. I guess that just suggests
that what I've always thought is true - unmaintained rural PA roads are
LESS dangerous, at least to your car, than suburban streets with speed
bumps.

>
>>
>>> No matter what you pretend, there are not very many production
>>> vehicles whose ground clearance is unusually low - again, for
>>> practical reasons. GM knows that Corvette drivers go to the mall, so
>>> they give enough ground clearance to clear speed bumps; mall managers
>>> know they want Corvette drivers to shop there, so they limit the
>>> height of speed bumps. These facts cause a natural equilibrium to
>>> occur.
>>
>>
>>
>> Aside from the fact that a Corvette probably has less ground clearance
>> than either my old car or a Miata, you should be correct. However, it
>> seems more and more like in an effort to REALLY slow down those
>> eeeeevil speeders...
>
>
> It _is_ an effort to do that, obviously. And naturally, the dedicated
> speeders are not happy. They can't understand why they get no sympathy!
>

Have I *ever* stated that I sped in a residential area?

> The really obnoxious drivers never care how their behavior affects
> others, do they?
>

Where have I stated that I drove in an obnoxious manner? The only thing
that I'm guilty of is not wanting to drive a SUV, and apparently I am to
be punished for that, in your world. I'm glad I don't live in your
neighborhood...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Frank Krygowski

September 30th 04, 06:42 PM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> If your car is "perfectly fine in most situations" as you claim, then
>> you don't have much of a problem. Quit whining.
>
>
> I'm not "whining," I'm stating that your beloved road features are
> unacceptable as implemented.

You're whining that speed humps are not acceptable to _you_. These
things are clearly popular, and increasingly requested, in many areas.

Visit http://www.publicworks.cityofhouston.gov/traffic/humps.htm to see
evidence of their popularity. Houston has had to institute a formal
mechanism for dealing with and prioritizing the requests to install them.

Visit http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/rwspdhmp.htm to see more
evidence of the desirability, and to get a refresher on the difference
between HUMPS and BUMPS (which I'm sure you need by now - it's been two
days!) http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/tc.htm also has info.

Of course, not everyone loves them. I note that Houston has had some
requests to remove humps - probably from people like you! But I also
note that the repeatedly fail to be justified, probably by others in the
neighborhood. Houston very logically requires complainers like yourself
to get neighborhood petitions as evidence. This seems to filter out the
crackpot speeders. (I'd love to hear some of the resulting front-door
conversations!) ;-)

There are many, many more sites like these on the web. Perhaps you can
find an official city web site talking about the evils of speed humps
and explaining why citizens should never request them - but I doubt it!

> Did you even read my other post, where I listed some vehicles that would
> have scraped over what another poster characterized as a "typical" speed
> hump? Like a Dodge Dart?

This may come as a shock to you, but I've found I can't believe
everything posted on Usenet! And when a poster's repeatedly shown
himself to be illogical, I'm even less likely to take his unsupported
word. At the very least, I prefer to use data from reputable sources.

Perhaps you can explain to me how a Dodge Dart scrapes its undercarriage
on a hump with the geometry described here:
http://www.ite.org/traffic/table.htm

3.5" high, 14 feet long. A Dodge Dart will scrape? Explain this
geometrically. IOW, please - at least try to keep your arguments plausible!

> What I meant by "unavoidable" was that aroudn here there's often pockets
> of residential areas where every freaking road has speed bumps and/or
> humps on them.

My gosh, why on earth would the city spend so much money to do that?
Could it be - just maybe - that there were many problems with yahoos
driving too fast? Is such a thing possible?

So it's possible to never see a speed bump in everyday
> driving but one day go somewhere and inadvertantly end up in one of
> these areas where you've no choice but to go over 20-30 of these
> monstrosities before you find your way back to the main road.

You poor, poor boy! ;-)

>> Lovely. Is it lower than the Honda Civic I had, which was low enough
>> I felt I had to shovel myself out of it? Is it lower than the Saturn
>> for which I had to cut down my repair ramps to make them usable?
>> Those cars didn't scrape on a speed bump, not once.
>
>
> I don't know, why don't you tell me how low they were.

I don't own those cars any more. Perhaps you can look up the ground
clearance. I _can_ tell you for sure that they were low enough that a
creeper was useless unless they were up on ramps or jackstands. And
the Saturn was definitely the first car for which I had to trim the
ramps to avoid bodywork. Seemed low to me! Yet, it never scraped even
a speed BUMP, let alone a speed HUMP.

>>
>> This really is sounding more and more like an operator problem.
>>
>
> Wow, another unsupported assertion from Frank. Lovely.

I don't know what other possibility there could be!

>
>>
>>>>> However, every time I drove down a certain stretch
>>>>> of residential street, no matter how slowly I drove, I could hear
>>>>> my center resonator scraping across the top of that #$%^*& bump.
>>>>
>>>> Did everybody's resonator scrape?
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently, this question will go unanswered.
>>
>>
>> Did _anyone_ else scrape?
>>
>> And this question will go unanswered.
>>
>
> Did you read my other post?

Yes. Answer the questions. Did _everyone_ scrape their resonators?
Did _anyone_ else scrape their undercarriage? Or was it just one boy
whose combination of car choice and driving habits caused him trouble?
Sounds like the latter!

> So you don't like sports cars, that's your prerogative. Still doesn't
> make it right to install road features that prohibit driving fairly
> common, unmodified vehicles over them.

I'm not aware of people that have your problem! But if this is a big
problem for you, you're wasting your time here. I suggest taking it to
the rest of the public.

From what I can tell, all evidence is against your complaints. Based
on that, you're very unlikely to change _my_ mind - and it wouldn't
matter anyway. I have some influence in my village, but I doubt you'll
drive through here very frequently.

So I suggest you start a public crusade to point out the alleged
tragedies associated with these increasingly popular devices. Explain
that your super-cute car has to slow way, way down, and how terrible
that is. Talk about the terrible damage to Brent's hidden heat shield,
and how much that will cost him in the next Concours d'Elegance.

I'm sure that neighborhood residents across the country will suddenly
see the light, and will learn to accept the roar of speeding vehicles
and the danger to their families, when you put it all in context! ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

September 30th 04, 09:30 PM

Matthew Russotto wrote:

>>>
>>>>In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>So jump the bike. It's not that hard.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sheesh - newbies! :-)

> When I used to ride a road bike, getting airborne was a great way to
> bend the wheels. Looks like Frank doesn't restrict his equipment
> damaging ways to cars.

All I can say is, I've known how to jump a bike since the 1970s. I've
never damaged a wheel doing that.

I've driven over speed bumps since the 1960s. I've never damaged a car
doing that.

If you are having trouble with these things, it sounds more and more
like an operator problem!

Maybe you can study and practice, and learn to be better. Would you
like lessons?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Terry Morse

September 30th 04, 09:38 PM

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> When I used to ride a road bike, getting airborne was a great way to
> bend the wheels.

Then your cycling skills left something to be desired. Bunny hopping
is a very useful skill for avoiding obstacles in the road: speed
bumps, tree branches, broken bottles, fallen cyclists. And no, it
doesn't bend wheels when done correctly.

--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA http://bike.terrymorse.com/

Zoot Katz

September 30th 04, 10:54 PM

Thu, 30 Sep 2004 13:14:02 -0500,
>,
(Matthew Russotto) wrote:

>
>When I used to ride a road bike, getting airborne was a great way to
>bend the wheels.

Then you probably build wheels even weaker than your "arguments".
--
zk

Nate Nagel

October 1st 04, 02:33 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> If your car is "perfectly fine in most situations" as you claim, then
>>> you don't have much of a problem. Quit whining.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not "whining," I'm stating that your beloved road features are
>> unacceptable as implemented.
>
>
> You're whining that speed humps are not acceptable to _you_. These
> things are clearly popular, and increasingly requested, in many areas.

That's because the people requesting them haven't thought things through
completely.

>
> Visit http://www.publicworks.cityofhouston.gov/traffic/humps.htm to see
> evidence of their popularity. Houston has had to institute a formal
> mechanism for dealing with and prioritizing the requests to install them.
>
> Visit http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/rwspdhmp.htm to see more
> evidence of the desirability, and to get a refresher on the difference
> between HUMPS and BUMPS (which I'm sure you need by now - it's been two
> days!) http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/tc.htm also has info.
>
> Of course, not everyone loves them. I note that Houston has had some
> requests to remove humps - probably from people like you! But I also
> note that the repeatedly fail to be justified, probably by others in the
> neighborhood. Houston very logically requires complainers like yourself
> to get neighborhood petitions as evidence. This seems to filter out the
> crackpot speeders. (I'd love to hear some of the resulting front-door
> conversations!) ;-)
>
> There are many, many more sites like these on the web. Perhaps you can
> find an official city web site talking about the evils of speed humps
> and explaining why citizens should never request them - but I doubt it!
>

The link that you yourself posted earlier in this thread mentioned
increased response time and slower speed of emergency vehicles as a
drawback. If that isn't a deal killer, I don't know what is! I'm sure
Joe Ambulance Driver just loves driving his heavily sprung,
commercial-framed beast over those things as well. Those drive almost
as rough as a race car! Imagine what happens to the poor *patient*
inside, as well - especially one with a nasty bone fracture, or one
who's receiving an emergency intubation...

>
>> Did you even read my other post, where I listed some vehicles that
>> would have scraped over what another poster characterized as a
>> "typical" speed hump? Like a Dodge Dart?
>
>
> This may come as a shock to you, but I've found I can't believe
> everything posted on Usenet! And when a poster's repeatedly shown
> himself to be illogical, I'm even less likely to take his unsupported
> word. At the very least, I prefer to use data from reputable sources.

What the hell are you talking about? I stated that a Dodge Dart's
ground clearance was within a few fractions of an inch of that of some
other cars which you referred to as unacceptably low and "cartoonish."
If you don't believe me, prove me wrong. I just picked that as an
example because that happened to me a somewhat "mainstream" car that I
used to own. If you don't believe that it's typical, again, prove me wrong.

>
> Perhaps you can explain to me how a Dodge Dart scrapes its undercarriage
> on a hump with the geometry described here:
> http://www.ite.org/traffic/table.htm
>
> 3.5" high, 14 feet long. A Dodge Dart will scrape? Explain this
> geometrically. IOW, please - at least try to keep your arguments
> plausible!

I've never seen anything like that. The features that I've seen have
been both shorter (road distance, that is) and taller (often 6" or
higher,) both of which make scraping much more likely. You know, if all
traffic calming devices were compliant with the recommendations on that
web site, we might not be having this discussion! However, I've yet to
see a single one. I also notice that speed *bumps* are not on that site
at all, and yet they are almost ubiquitous in some areas.

Perhaps you should get the word out to your fellow busybodies that they
need to specifically request ITE-compliant speed humps rather than the
garden variety ones - or worse yet, tall bumps - that being thrown up
everywhere.

>
>> What I meant by "unavoidable" was that aroudn here there's often
>> pockets of residential areas where every freaking road has speed bumps
>> and/or humps on them.
>
>
> My gosh, why on earth would the city spend so much money to do that?
> Could it be - just maybe - that there were many problems with yahoos
> driving too fast? Is such a thing possible?

So you make life miserable for everyone. Of course.

>
> So it's possible to never see a speed bump in everyday
>
>> driving but one day go somewhere and inadvertantly end up in one of
>> these areas where you've no choice but to go over 20-30 of these
>> monstrosities before you find your way back to the main road.
>
>
> You poor, poor boy! ;-)
>
>>> Lovely. Is it lower than the Honda Civic I had, which was low enough
>>> I felt I had to shovel myself out of it? Is it lower than the Saturn
>>> for which I had to cut down my repair ramps to make them usable?
>>> Those cars didn't scrape on a speed bump, not once.
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know, why don't you tell me how low they were.

I don't know, I've never owned one. Do your own homework.

>
>
> I don't own those cars any more. Perhaps you can look up the ground
> clearance. I _can_ tell you for sure that they were low enough that a
> creeper was useless unless they were up on ramps or jackstands. And
> the Saturn was definitely the first car for which I had to trim the
> ramps to avoid bodywork. Seemed low to me! Yet, it never scraped even
> a speed BUMP, let alone a speed HUMP.

Maybe you've just got a better grade of speed bump where you live. Most
of the ones around here are rather tall, I'd estimate at least 6".

>
>>>
>>> This really is sounding more and more like an operator problem.
>>>
>>
>> Wow, another unsupported assertion from Frank. Lovely.
>
>
> I don't know what other possibility there could be!

Um, that I actually have a valid point, that in my experience most
"traffic calming" road features are badly and improperly implemented?
(disregarding the fact that IMHO they should never have been installed
to begin with.)

>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> However, every time I drove down a certain stretch
>>>>>> of residential street, no matter how slowly I drove, I could hear
>>>>>> my center resonator scraping across the top of that #$%^*& bump.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Did everybody's resonator scrape?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently, this question will go unanswered.
>>>
>>>
>>> Did _anyone_ else scrape?
>>>
>>> And this question will go unanswered.
>>>
>>
>> Did you read my other post?
>
>
> Yes. Answer the questions. Did _everyone_ scrape their resonators? Did
> _anyone_ else scrape their undercarriage? Or was it just one boy whose
> combination of car choice and driving habits caused him trouble? Sounds
> like the latter!

Quite a few vehicles would scrape. I didn't sit outside at night
listening for the sound of scraping metal, but my roommates all
complained about them and I've already proven that there are at least
several models of popular vehicle with less ground clearance than my car.

>
>
>> So you don't like sports cars, that's your prerogative. Still doesn't
>> make it right to install road features that prohibit driving fairly
>> common, unmodified vehicles over them.
>
>
> I'm not aware of people that have your problem! But if this is a big
> problem for you, you're wasting your time here. I suggest taking it to
> the rest of the public.

You're not aware of a problem? You really *are* sticking your fingers
in your ears and singing "la la la" to yourself!

>
> From what I can tell, all evidence is against your complaints. Based
> on that, you're very unlikely to change _my_ mind - and it wouldn't
> matter anyway. I have some influence in my village, but I doubt you'll
> drive through here very frequently.

ALL evidence?

>
> So I suggest you start a public crusade to point out the alleged
> tragedies associated with these increasingly popular devices. Explain
> that your super-cute car has to slow way, way down, and how terrible
> that is. Talk about the terrible damage to Brent's hidden heat shield,
> and how much that will cost him in the next Concours d'Elegance.
>

I don't know about you, but I take property damage very seriously. I
respect others' property and I expect you to respect mine. The fact
that you don't is apparent. It's also apparent that you don't like my
car for some reason and have deemed it unacceptable, despite my showing
that its ground clearance is actually fairly typical for a small
passenger car.

However, if *my* property is unimportant to you, what about the property
of the fire department? The local ambulance service? Surely *those* at
least are of some concern to you?

> I'm sure that neighborhood residents across the country will suddenly
> see the light, and will learn to accept the roar of speeding vehicles
> and the danger to their families, when you put it all in context! ;-)
>

How does it follow that the *lack* of big, nasty lumps in the road will
immediately be followed by speeding vehicles? Furthermore, were you
aware that in the vast majority of cases, people who lobby for increased
speed limit enforcement in residential neighborhoods are shocked to
discover that the people driving fastest, and ticketed most often are -
wait for it - the residents themselves? It actually makes sense if you
think about it, those are the people who are most familiar with, and
therefore the most comfortable with the road - and thus will tend to be
comfortable driving at higher speeds than someone "just cutting
through." However, they often don't like to realize that the "evil
speeders" they complain about are their neighbors, and that they drive
just as fast themselves.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 04:56 AM

Brent P wrote:
>
> The speed humps will seem to work for awhile, then traffic will adapt and
> you'll have other problems.

And what "other problems" have you seen?

Again - in the other city I've visited many times, they seem to have no
"other problems" after years of use. And in many cities, the only
significant problem is figuring out how to get speed humps installed as
fast as the residents want them.

Your alleged problems are boogey men. Speed humps cause problems only
for drivers too dense to slow down.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 05:00 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel > writes:
>>
>>
>>> However, I'm willing to bet that allowing higher travel speeds on
>>> roads on which it's safe to do so will not only shift traffic away
>>> from your residential streets onto those roads, but also increase
>>> compliance with speed laws across the board as they will not be
>>> regarded as the joke that they are now.
>>
>> You'd likely lose that bet. In Minnesota, according to the state
>> police, the prevalence and magnitude of speeding increased after speed
>> limits were raised to 65 mph on the highways. There's an article in
>> the St. Paul Pioneer Press about 10 days ago on the topic.
>
>
> I suspect that's due to a combination of the speed limits *STILL* being
> set too low...

Of course! There are many boys who feel _any_ speed limit is "too low."
We seem to have one of them here, in Nate!

And if he attains his fantasy of no speed limits, then nobody will be in
violation of speed limits!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

October 1st 04, 05:06 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>>
>> The speed humps will seem to work for awhile, then traffic will adapt and
>> you'll have other problems.

> And what "other problems" have you seen?

I've already been over this. Why do you insist on re-runs? See the other
post where I listed them again today alone.

> Again - in the other city I've visited many times, they seem to have no
> "other problems" after years of use. And in many cities, the only
> significant problem is figuring out how to get speed humps installed as
> fast as the residents want them.

That's the first problem. You'll need to put them on every residential
street as traffic finds new diversionary routes to overflow into.

> Your alleged problems are boogey men. Speed humps cause problems only
> for drivers too dense to slow down.

As in any speed above parked.

Pete

October 1st 04, 05:16 AM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote

>
> Of course! There are many boys who feel _any_ speed limit is "too low."
> We seem to have one of them here, in Nate!
>
> And if he attains his fantasy of no speed limits, then nobody will be in
> violation of speed limits!

Meanwhile, the *real* problems are speed differential and lack of skill.

Pete

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 05:19 AM

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
>
>>You vaguely allude to problems, yet what might they be?
>
> People using other residential instead, increasing problems elsewhere.

That simply calls for the installation of more speed humps. Eventually
they'll be universally standard, installed in all residential areas.
Problem solved.

> Damage to vehicles moving at or below the speed limit.

.... by a smooth 3.5" hump that's 14 feet long? That's your boogey man,
but it's not real. If it is, provide documentation from a reputable
source - say, the on-line data from Houston or Austin or the ITE that
discusses these in detail.

> Irritating to people on the block who didn't know what the busybodies
> were up to.

I noted that Houston requires a neighborhood survey before the humps go
in. In other areas (like the neighborhood a few miles from here) the
discussion ahead of time was well publicized. If some TV addict doesn't
respond, he loses his right to complain.

> People finding out that if they go _faster_ they are navigated more
> easily, thusly increasing the speed of some drivers.

I think we have a clue as to why you and your buddies have damaged your
heat shields!

>
> Probably a couple I missed, but that's the short list.

Too bad you couldn't come up with any non-imaginary, non-negligible ones!

And against that list, we have the wishes of taxpayers who actually live
in the neighborhood - and vote for their government. Who have kids who
play, walk and bike in or near the streets. Who have elderly parents
who try to cross the street safely. Who want to sleep without noise of
fast-moving toy cars.

Sorry, Brent, but these folks vote time and again for speed humps. In
the real world, you're losing.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

October 1st 04, 05:36 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You vaguely allude to problems, yet what might they be?
>>
>> People using other residential instead, increasing problems elsewhere.
>
> That simply calls for the installation of more speed humps. Eventually
> they'll be universally standard, installed in all residential areas.
> Problem solved.

Eventually you've screwed up every street. But you're anti-driving and
for jumping bicycles off em so I know you don't care.

>> Damage to vehicles moving at or below the speed limit.

> ... by a smooth 3.5" hump that's 14 feet long? That's your boogey man,
> but it's not real. If it is, provide documentation from a reputable
> source - say, the on-line data from Houston or Austin or the ITE that
> discusses these in detail.

I'll file that under 'perfect bike lanes'. They are still annoying and by
your own admission require people to slow below the speed limit, that is
unless of course, your fellow hump lovers are speeders.

>> Irritating to people on the block who didn't know what the busybodies
>> were up to.

> I noted that Houston requires a neighborhood survey before the humps go
> in. In other areas (like the neighborhood a few miles from here) the
> discussion ahead of time was well publicized. If some TV addict doesn't
> respond, he loses his right to complain.

Lucky for them. In IL, especially c(r)ook county, the idea is not to notify
the public until it's too late to change things without a massive effort.

>> People finding out that if they go _faster_ they are navigated more
>> easily, thusly increasing the speed of some drivers.

> I think we have a clue as to why you and your buddies have damaged your
> heat shields!

If you can't come up with something rational, insult.

>> Probably a couple I missed, but that's the short list.

> Too bad you couldn't come up with any non-imaginary, non-negligible ones!

To you. Not to people who drive and are sick and tired of LCD bull****
like this.

> And against that list, we have the wishes of taxpayers who actually live
> in the neighborhood - and vote for their government. Who have kids who
> play, walk and bike in or near the streets. Who have elderly parents
> who try to cross the street safely. Who want to sleep without noise of
> fast-moving toy cars.

Can't go without the emotional appeal. How does this emotional appeal not
work with my suggested solutions of keeping traffic off the residential
streets entirely or slowing it by other means? Oppps, it does work for my
solutions too!

> Sorry, Brent, but these folks vote time and again for speed humps. In
> the real world, you're losing.

General ignorance doesn't make your stupidity any more acceptable. People
time and time again do what TV tells them to, it doesn't mean anything
except that someone sold them on the idea. I doubt alternative ideas are
even mentioned. After all, look at how you reacted to my ideas to achieve
the same goal! You've probably done everything but compare me to hitler
all because I favor different solutions to slow or prevent traffic on
residential streets.

Do you treat your neighbors who have different ideas to achieve the same
goals as harshly as you've treated me? Why do you feel the need to
crush alterative ideas such that you'll stoop to personal attack and
outright lies to accomplish it? Is really achieving the same goal by
different means so horrid to you?

Or maybe, your true goal is something different entirely. That would make
sense given your behavior. And I would suspect that would be to do away
with driving. For that I suggest simply removing the road or droping
concrete barriers at both ends.

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 05:50 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> You're whining that speed humps are not acceptable to _you_. These
>> things are clearly popular, and increasingly requested, in many areas.
>
>
> That's because the people requesting them haven't thought things through
> completely.

And yet, after years and years of actual experience, people are liking
them more and more. The promises of doom by you and Brent have proved
false.

> The link that you yourself posted earlier in this thread mentioned
> increased response time and slower speed of emergency vehicles as a
> drawback. If that isn't a deal killer, I don't know what is!

Then you don't know what is.

Response time decreases on the order of ten seconds per speed hump. In
our neighborhood, that could never amount to more than 45 seconds.

In the mind of a "speed is everything" boy, that's terrible. In the
real world, it's going to be negligible in almost every case. If there
ever is a case when it's significant, the saving of lives of kids and
elderly pedestrians will more than make up for it.

>
> What the hell are you talking about? I stated that a Dodge Dart's
> ground clearance was within a few fractions of an inch of that of some
> other cars which you referred to as unacceptably low and "cartoonish."
> If you don't believe me, prove me wrong.

You haven't even proven it's relevant. When did you scrape your Dodge
Dart on a 3.5" x 14' speed hump? What was the damage, exactly? How
much did it cost you to fix it?

To be blunt, I think you're tossing us another red herring. I don't
believe such a thing ever occurred. At any reasonable speed, it's
geometrically impossible.

>> [fk:] Perhaps you can explain to me how a Dodge Dart scrapes its
>> undercarriage on a hump with the geometry described here:
>> http://www.ite.org/traffic/table.htm
>>
>> 3.5" high, 14 feet long. A Dodge Dart will scrape? Explain this
>> geometrically. IOW, please - at least try to keep your arguments
>> plausible!
>
>
> I've never seen anything like that.

Then you've never seen the item we're discussing. No wonder you're so
confused!

> Perhaps you should get the word out to your fellow busybodies that they
> need to specifically request ITE-compliant speed humps rather than the
> garden variety ones - or worse yet, tall bumps - that being thrown up
> everywhere.

"Everywhere"?? Again, you're fantasizing.

>
> Maybe you've just got a better grade of speed bump where you live. Most
> of the ones around here are rather tall, I'd estimate at least 6".

To gain any shred of credibility, you'll need to get out there with a
ruler and a digital camera, and post detail pictures showing the
measurement of the speed bump and its location.

The demonic 6" bumps you fear are not installed in any public roads I've
ever seen. Even the ones in the plaza with the bookstore near here (I
referred to them earlier, and we were there this evening) are no more
than 3" high.

If you can't provide good evidence, I'm assuming these sharp, 6",
in-road speed bumps are more of your imagination.

>
>>
>>>> [fk:]
>>>> This really is sounding more and more like an operator problem.
>> I don't know what other possibility there could be!
>
>
> Um, that I actually have a valid point, that in my experience most
> "traffic calming" road features are badly and improperly implemented?

No, I was talking about _realistic_ possibilities. I thought that was
clear.

>
>> Yes. Answer the questions. Did _everyone_ scrape their resonators?
>> Did _anyone_ else scrape their undercarriage? Or was it just one boy
>> whose combination of car choice and driving habits caused him trouble?
>> Sounds like the latter!
>
>
> Quite a few vehicles would scrape.

Evidence?

I didn't sit outside at night
> listening for the sound of scraping metal, but my roommates all
> complained...

That very phrase tells the story. You and your roomies congratulating
each other on how brilliant you are in recognizing this terrible problem
- that you can't drive your cars as fast as you like. It's a classic image.

But then, someday, you grow up.

>>
>> So I suggest you start a public crusade to point out the alleged
>> tragedies associated with these increasingly popular devices. Explain
>> that your super-cute car has to slow way, way down, and how terrible
>> that is. Talk about the terrible damage to Brent's hidden heat
>> shield, and how much that will cost him in the next Concours d'Elegance.
>>
>
> I don't know about you, but I take property damage very seriously. I
> respect others' property and I expect you to respect mine.

And I promise never to damage your car. If you're smart, you'll slow
down so you don't damage your car.

> It's also apparent that you don't like my
> car for some reason

Not at all! I think Miatas are cute, in a Minnie Mouse way. They're
just the thing for a 16-year-old girl's first set of wheels.

and have deemed it unacceptable, despite my showing
> that its ground clearance is actually fairly typical for a small
> passenger car.

?? To show that, you'd have to post more than the Miata's ground
clearance. You'd have to post comparative values for many small
passenger cars. I'm _sure_ I didn't miss that post!

>
> However, if *my* property is unimportant to you, what about the property
> of the fire department? The local ambulance service? Surely *those* at
> least are of some concern to you?

Imaginary problems are not my concern. Houston hasn't had to replace
its fire truck fleet because of speed humps, and there's no mention of a
plague of deaths caused by 40-second-slower ambulances.

>
>> I'm sure that neighborhood residents across the country will suddenly
>> see the light, and will learn to accept the roar of speeding vehicles
>> and the danger to their families, when you put it all in context! ;-)
>>
>
> How does it follow that the *lack* of big, nasty lumps in the road will
> immediately be followed by speeding vehicles?

<Sigh> It's _so_ much easier when those in the discussion have a bit
more on the ball!

Look, Nate: These things are invariably installed IN RESPONSE TO a
speeding problem. IOW, the speeders come first; _then_ the speed humps.

Furthermore, were you
> aware that in the vast majority of cases, people who lobby for increased
> speed limit enforcement in residential neighborhoods are shocked to
> discover that the people driving fastest, and ticketed most often are -
> wait for it - the residents themselves?

:-) "Hey Minnie, we're back in Fantasyland!"

Evidence, Nate? We know your imagination is good. How good is your
evidence?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 05:54 AM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>Your alleged problems are boogey men. Speed humps cause problems only
>>for drivers too dense to slow down.
>
>
> As in any speed above parked.

Certainly not in my experience!

You must have never encountered a 3.5" x 14' speed hump. IOW, you must
have no idea what we're discussing!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

October 1st 04, 06:00 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Your alleged problems are boogey men. Speed humps cause problems only
>>>for drivers too dense to slow down.
>>
>>
>> As in any speed above parked.
>
> Certainly not in my experience!
>
> You must have never encountered a 3.5" x 14' speed hump. IOW, you must
> have no idea what we're discussing!

On a 40mph posted speed limit arterial road with 50 mph traffic they did
a half ass job of putting in a crossing for a second set of tracks.
Because of this it goes from the concrete road surface to an ashpault
incline up to the tracks for the right westbound lane. It's about 3.5 inches
over 6' and I take it at 35-40mph and it's annoying, but I don't brake
for it. The other three lanes aren't quite as high.

So your arguement is to make the speed humps so gradual as to be drivable
at 15mph above the posted speed limit? Seems like another useless feel
good 'solution' to me. I am sure the speeders you are complaining about
will soon learn that such a thing can be driven at 40mph.

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 06:22 AM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry, Brent, but these folks vote time and again for speed humps. In
>>the real world, you're losing.
>
>
> General ignorance doesn't make your stupidity any more acceptable. People
> time and time again do what TV tells them to, it doesn't mean anything
> except that someone sold them on the idea. I doubt alternative ideas are
> even mentioned. After all, look at how you reacted to my ideas to achieve
> the same goal! You've probably done everything but compare me to hitler
> all because I favor different solutions to slow or prevent traffic on
> residential streets.

The solutions you've presented were these, as I recall:

Re-design the arterial roads in the area to remove all traffic backup.
Except, as explained, the village is not allowed to do that; and the
historic center of the village would have to be destroyed to do that,
even if it were allowed.

Narrow the streets so people drive slower in the residential area.
Except, in an example given by another poster, boulevard islands were
tried in one area and proved unworkable - as well as much more expensive.

Beyond that, we have your fantasy of fixing speeding on tiny
neighborhood streets by raising the speed limits on distant freeways;
and stopping all traffic into the village by using Jersey barriers -
equally fantastical ideas.

You've proposed nothing that is as immediately effective and as cost
effective as speed humps.

> Do you treat your neighbors who have different ideas to achieve the same
> goals as harshly as you've treated me?

I've mentioned speed humps only twice in public meetings. These were
well-attended village-wide meetings organized to set priorities for the
village council, to give them public feedback and guidance. I also
mentioned them once in a phone call to a prominent member of a local
civic group, who lived on a street with a serious cut-through-speeding
problem.

In each case, the mention of speed humps met with strong approval.
After the second meeting, I actually had people coming up to me and
praising the idea. I had no dissenters.

Unfortunately, the mayor feared the idea, saying they were not in the
MUTCD, and might be illegal. Since then, they've been proven legal; and
they've been installed in another nearby jurisdiction and met with great
approval there, so I imagine we'll get them one day.

So, in summary, you, Nate and Matthew are the only people I've ever
heard disagree with these things. Most people seem to understand a good
idea when they hear one.

Why do you feel the need to
> crush alterative ideas such that you'll stoop to personal attack and
> outright lies to accomplish it?

The "personal attack" you mention is probably just this: I suspect,
although you deny it, that you place your "right" to speed above the
concerns of others. I know that you are disparaging a proven solution
now, arguing for impossible alternatives as a distraction. And I know
that in the past, you argued long and hard for ceasing speed limit
enforcement in my village - a village you know nothing about. You've
also argued for complete removal of speed limits on certain freeways,
and raising speed limits on the rest of them. As further evidence, you
talk about scraping your car on a speed hump - something which normally
happens only at fairly extreme speeds. And I recall you talking about
traffic cops carefully observing your Mustang, even following you as you
drove it.

I'll admit, you could be innocent of that charge. You could be, as you
sometimes claim, the slowest driver on the road - but so much of what
you've said gives strong clues in the other direction.

And if you're _not_ into irresponsible or illegal driving, William of
Occam would be scratching his head in wonder!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

October 1st 04, 06:45 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> time and time again do what TV tells them to, it doesn't mean anything
>> except that someone sold them on the idea. I doubt alternative ideas are
>> even mentioned. After all, look at how you reacted to my ideas to achieve
>> the same goal! You've probably done everything but compare me to hitler
>> all because I favor different solutions to slow or prevent traffic on
>> residential streets.

> The solutions you've presented were these, as I recall:

I don't a rerun with your spin, I know what I suggested. The fact is
you've gone to extremes because I dare to have different solutions than
you for the same problem. That's the point I am making here.

>> Do you treat your neighbors who have different ideas to achieve the same
>> goals as harshly as you've treated me?

> I've mentioned speed humps only twice in public meetings. These were
> well-attended village-wide meetings organized to set priorities for the
> village council, to give them public feedback and guidance. I also
> mentioned them once in a phone call to a prominent member of a local
> civic group, who lived on a street with a serious cut-through-speeding
> problem.

> In each case, the mention of speed humps met with strong approval.
> After the second meeting, I actually had people coming up to me and
> praising the idea. I had no dissenters.

That's nice. But it doesn't answer the question.

> Why do you feel the need to
>> crush alterative ideas such that you'll stoop to personal attack and
>> outright lies to accomplish it?

> The "personal attack" you mention is probably just this: I suspect,
> although you deny it, that you place your "right" to speed above the
> concerns of others.

That's what you are doing right there, because I oppose your solution you
have to make false acusations such as that repeatedly. I simply wonder if
you do similiar things irl, and given you evaded the question my guess is
now yes.

> I know that you are disparaging a proven solution
> now, arguing for impossible alternatives as a distraction.

They are not impossible Frank. I own two residential properties, in two
different towns, built decades apart. Each uses a different solution of
the ones I suggest. I have no problems with speeders on either of my
streets. But you ignore this. You declare the solutions unworkable,
impossible, as if they can't be done anywhere.

> And I know
> that in the past, you argued long and hard for ceasing speed limit
> enforcement in my village - a village you know nothing about.

Here you lie again. Again you disparage(sp?) me because I disagree.
I said then if you want slower speeds, build a slower road because that's
more EFFECTIVE than a cop with a radar gun. That's what I argued for
Frank. But then, as now, you distort everything so you can make your
personal attacks.

The fact you now argue for speed humps, making a slower road, is my
victory in that thread. You are now doing, in concept what I said was
more effective, reducing the 85th percentile speed of the road. You are
just want to do it in a poor way. I have the confindence that time will
prove me correct here as well.

> You've
> also argued for complete removal of speed limits on certain freeways,
> and raising speed limits on the rest of them.

Damn right. US interstates have some of the lowest speed limits in the
world. And most of those nations with higher speed limits enjoy safer
limited acess highways.

> I'll admit, you could be innocent of that charge. You could be, as you
> sometimes claim, the slowest driver on the road - but so much of what
> you've said gives strong clues in the other direction.

There are no clues Frank. There is just no way for you not stoop to the
lowest levels to discredit anyone who disagrees with you in the
slightest.

> And if you're _not_ into irresponsible or illegal driving, William of
> Occam would be scratching his head in wonder!

And since to reach your 'conclusions' you have make up views for me that
I have never argued....

Why don't you go back to arguing about helmets or something with a bigger
void between the sides like that?

Nate Nagel

October 1st 04, 10:07 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

(a bunch of tripe)

Frank,

I've tried having a serious discussion with you, and you appear to be
able to respond with nothing more than insults and condescension.
Therefore, I'm going to assume that you have nothing useful to say.
BTW, what's with the smilies? I thought they were supposed to be used
to indicate humor, but an insult with a smiley is not humorous.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 1st 04, 11:06 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> However, I'm willing to bet that allowing higher travel speeds on
>>>> roads on which it's safe to do so will not only shift traffic away
>>>> from your residential streets onto those roads, but also increase
>>>> compliance with speed laws across the board as they will not be
>>>> regarded as the joke that they are now.
>>>
>>>
>>> You'd likely lose that bet. In Minnesota, according to the state
>>> police, the prevalence and magnitude of speeding increased after speed
>>> limits were raised to 65 mph on the highways. There's an article in
>>> the St. Paul Pioneer Press about 10 days ago on the topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suspect that's due to a combination of the speed limits *STILL*
>> being set too low...
>
>
> Of course! There are many boys who feel _any_ speed limit is "too low."
> We seem to have one of them here, in Nate!

A speed limit is really not needed on an Interstate highway. However,
with 85th percentile speeds in the range of 80-85 MPH, a 65 MPH speed
limit is still 15-20 MPH underposted. I haven't a clue what typical
travel speeds are in Minnesota, but that's typical for this area (MD,
near DC) Of course, we still have a 65 MPH state max speed limit; we
just raised the limit on a few stretches of the DC Beltway from *55.*
(yeah, like that ever actually happened outside of rush hour.) If you
drive all the way to WV the roads are hillier and windier but the speed
limit is a heady 70 MPH. Oddly enough, driving in WV is more relaxing,
as you don't have to worry so much about the revenue patrol.

>
> And if he attains his fantasy of no speed limits, then nobody will be in
> violation of speed limits!
>

*ding* give that man a cookie! No speeding tickets either, giving the
cops the opportuntity to actually go after people driving dangerously
instead of being stuck on revenue^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hradar patrol duty.
However, I realize that's never going to happen here, I'll settle for
speed limits based on roadway design speed and proper traffic surveys
though. A nice side benefit to that would be less speed differential
between vehicles, as the few people who follow the limits now will speed
up, and the few nutbars who actually drive as fast as they feel
comfortable (I guess they figure their odds of getting spotted by a cop
are small enough that it's not worth slowing down) might slow down a
little as an 80 MPH speed limit wouldn't be too oppressive to follow but
a 55 MPH speed limit is so far below a decent cruising speed it's not
worth worrying about.

For an illustration of what I'm talking about, take a stretch of highway
that I drive regularly. It's six lanes, ruler-straight, and flat. I
honestly have never gone fast enough to feel like I needed to slow down
in the absence of other traffic (and I've inadvertantly hit some pretty
impressive speeds trying to get away from crazed and/or inattentive
drivers trying to change lanes into me.) However, since the speed limit
is 55 MPH or 65 MPH depending on where you're at, I tend to drive about
62-63ish or 72-73ish as I'd like to not go too much slower than the
traffic that's passing me and would like to get to my destination
eventually, but also don't want to get a ticket. If you raised the
speed limit to 75 MPH, I might drive 80 MPH. If you raised the speed
limit to 80, however, I doubt I would want to travel any faster than
that simply because that seems to be the maximum speed that *other*
drivers want to travel, so going significantly faster than that
increases one's risk of an incident. Above and beyond that, the typcal
mass-market car starts to feel rather unhappy over 90 MPH or so and
truth be told probably shouldn't be expected to maintain that speed for
any length of time, so that factor alone keeps highway travel speeds
down (at least in the US. Germans build real cars...) Really I think
raw speed is about *last* on the list of problems that we need to
address when talking about an Interstate highway. I'd *start* with
teaching people how to use their mirrors and directionals, followed by
mandatory beatings for merging into traffic too slowly and improper lane
use (which is probably related to the poor merging thing) now there are
four items that could make driving *much* more pleasant!

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Just zis Guy, you know?

October 1st 04, 12:40 PM

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:06:44 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote:

>A speed limit is really not needed on an Interstate highway.

Unless you define "needed" in terms of preventing people killing
themselves and others, I guess.

Speedophiles make a big deal about the Autobahn being safer than US
highways, but conveniently forget that (a) much of the Autobahn is
actually covered by speed limits and (b) the Autobahn has a
considerably worse crash record than, say, motorways in the UK, which
are speed limited.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 02:48 PM

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>You must have never encountered a 3.5" x 14' speed hump. IOW, you must
>>have no idea what we're discussing!
>
>
> On a 40mph posted speed limit arterial road with 50 mph traffic they did
> a half ass job of putting in a crossing for a second set of tracks.
> Because of this it goes from the concrete road surface to an ashpault
> incline up to the tracks for the right westbound lane. It's about 3.5 inches
> over 6' and I take it at 35-40mph and it's annoying, but I don't brake
> for it. The other three lanes aren't quite as high.
>
> So your arguement is to make the speed humps so gradual as to be drivable
> at 15mph above the posted speed limit? Seems like another useless feel
> good 'solution' to me. I am sure the speeders you are complaining about
> will soon learn that such a thing can be driven at 40mph.

And yet there are thousands of these things installed in thousands of
neighborhoods across the country, including one about three miles from
here. And the residents are satisfied that they significantly slow
speeds. And studies by traffic engineers clearly document significant
speed reductions.

Here's a quote from the ITE site:

Potential Impacts:

* no effect on non-emergency access
* speeds determined by height and spacing; speeds between humps
have been observed to be reduced between 20 and 25 percent on average
* based on a limited sample of sites, typical crossing speeds (85th
percentile) of 19 mph have been measured for 3½ inch high, 12 foot humps
and of 21 mph for 3 inch high, 14 foot humps; speeds have been observed
to rise to 27 mph within 200 feet downstream
* speeds typically increase approximately 0.5 mph midway between
humps for each 100 feet of separation
* studies indicate that traffic volumes have been reduced on
average by 18 percent depending on alternative routes available
* studies indicate that collisions have been reduced on average by
13 percent on treated streets (not adjusted for traffic diversion)

Surely, you can't expect us to take your RR track anecdote as seriously
as the actual measured evidence, can you?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Brent P

October 1st 04, 03:38 PM

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:

> drive all the way to WV the roads are hillier and windier but the speed
> limit is a heady 70 MPH. Oddly enough, driving in WV is more relaxing,
> as you don't have to worry so much about the revenue patrol.

Having been to WV this year, I will second that. Lane displine was
remarkable compared to IL. Driving the van, and I hate driving that beast
of a vehicle was actually not much of a problem this time. Not like it is
in WI and IL.

Brent P

October 1st 04, 03:45 PM

In article >, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:06:44 -0400, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>>A speed limit is really not needed on an Interstate highway.
>
> Unless you define "needed" in terms of preventing people killing
> themselves and others, I guess.

Please explain how the 50mph speed limit on the dan ryan is doing that
when the flow speed can be as high as 80mph and motorcyclists are lane
splitting at 100-120mph? It's an ineffective measure that tries to save
the idiots from themselves and punishing the responsible.

> Speedophiles make a big deal about the Autobahn being safer than US
> highways, but conveniently forget that (a) much of the Autobahn is
> actually covered by speed limits and (b) the Autobahn has a
> considerably worse crash record than, say, motorways in the UK, which
> are speed limited.

Cite? I provided a cite for autobahn-US. Let's see one for UK motorway.

UK speed limits on limited access highways are just about as ignored as
US limits on similiar roads. The only reason for increased compliance is
because they are higher.

UK speed limits are about revenue as well. The recent issue of R&T
covered a story of a UK radar trap. It wasn't getting any hits so the
cops went up the road and found a man with a sign alerting drivers of
it's presence. He was achieving near 100% compliance with the speed limit
with his home-made sign. The cops arrested him for interfering with their
revenue enhancement activities. If it was about safety, they should thank
him.

Brent P

October 1st 04, 03:55 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>You must have never encountered a 3.5" x 14' speed hump. IOW, you must
>>>have no idea what we're discussing!
>>
>>
>> On a 40mph posted speed limit arterial road with 50 mph traffic they did
>> a half ass job of putting in a crossing for a second set of tracks.
>> Because of this it goes from the concrete road surface to an ashpault
>> incline up to the tracks for the right westbound lane. It's about 3.5 inches
>> over 6' and I take it at 35-40mph and it's annoying, but I don't brake
>> for it. The other three lanes aren't quite as high.
>>
>> So your arguement is to make the speed humps so gradual as to be drivable
>> at 15mph above the posted speed limit? Seems like another useless feel
>> good 'solution' to me. I am sure the speeders you are complaining about
>> will soon learn that such a thing can be driven at 40mph.
>
> And yet there are thousands of these things installed in thousands of
> neighborhoods across the country, including one about three miles from
> here. And the residents are satisfied that they significantly slow
> speeds. And studies by traffic engineers clearly document significant
> speed reductions.

Sorry frank, every speed hump in the nation isn't your perfect ITE speed
hump. Sorry. You seem to be very much out of touch with reality. Let me
guess, you think every bike lane in the nation is ITE ideal too.

> Surely, you can't expect us to take your RR track anecdote as seriously
> as the actual measured evidence, can you?

Oh, you want to measure 85th percentile speeds. When I said that's the
way things should be done you did your whole insult rutine. You didn't
need any data, you didn't need alter the road, you just needed a cop with
a radar gun. Thanks for proving I'm correct once again. I have the
confindence that your half-ass speed hump plan will fail as did your cop
with radar gun plan.

Oh BTW, seems the ITE agrees with me that these things annoy bicyclists:
http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm
"bicyclists prefer that it not cover or cross a bike lane"

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 04:55 PM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> [Brent P:]
>>>Do you treat your neighbors who have different ideas to achieve the same
>>>goals as harshly as you've treated me?
>
>
>>I've mentioned speed humps only twice in public meetings. ...
>>In each case, the mention of speed humps met with strong approval.
>
> That's nice. But it doesn't answer the question.

On this issue, once this solution was proposed, thre were no "different
ideas." Everybody immediately accepted the speed humps - except the
mayor, with mistaken worries about legality. Because of that, they
installed stop signs every block on another cut-through road.

FWIW, in private conversation, I explained to the mayor why I thought
the humps were legal, so I suppose there was some disagreement there,
but as usual, it was very civil.

If there's a difference in how neighbors or committee members are
treated compared to Usenet denizens, it may be caused by limitations of
the medium. On Usenet, people can propose really wild ideas ("Fix all
the interstates first, _then_ fix your neighborhood!") and never see the
eyes rolling, the soft coughing, the isolating body language that you
get in a normal meeting. In real life, people note and respond to these
subtle signals - they understand when the group isn't buying their pitch.

Here, unfortunately, someone can spew endlessly, a la Vandeman, and
somehow maintain the illusion that they have the only true received
wisdom - despite the fact that most posters disagree with them, and
bring real evidence that they're wrong.

They tend to get more and more shrill, and sadly, shrillness begets
negative reactions. On Usenet, people tend to say what they think.

Now, I'll admit that I've spoken with force at times in public meetings
- for example, when I had the floor and my opponent on an issue tried to
interrupt. But with rare exceptions, people I discuss issues with are
courteous and reasonably rational; and I'm as courteous and even more
rational. It's a benefit of doing one's homework on issues like this.

> They are not impossible Frank. I own two residential properties, in two
> different towns, built decades apart. Each uses a different solution of
> the ones I suggest. I have no problems with speeders on either of my
> streets. But you ignore this. You declare the solutions unworkable,
> impossible, as if they can't be done anywhere.

I wonder how you'd view two different proposals with special property
tax assessments: a) Fix speeding through this neighborhood by plowing
up the center of the road and planting "boulevard" medians, cost to each
resident $500, moderate chance that they'll slow traffic; or b) Install
speed humps each 300 feet, cost to each resident $100, proven ability to
slow traffic.

I can tell you how the choice would go around here. In fact, I can tell
you that choice (a) would never be proposed, because no council member
could seriously promote it. In fact, recall that the streets in
question are only 18 feet wide. Option (a) is actually impossible
without widening the road.

> I said then if you want slower speeds, build a slower road because that's
> more EFFECTIVE than a cop with a radar gun.

Similarly, if someone on Council seriously proposed tearing up the
arterials through the village center to build a slower road, the next
sentence spoken would be to tell him that was absolutely illegal. He'd
look like a fool in front of the constituents in attendance.

Besides, it has the opposite effect of what you've proposed in _this_
thread! Back then, you were saying to narrow and slow the arterials.
Now you're saying to speed up the arterials.

If there's a constant, it's your tendency to speak from a position of
ignorance, to propose unworkable ideas and reject on-the-ground
explanations of why they're unworkable!

> The fact you now argue for speed humps, making a slower road, is my
> victory in that thread.

If you want to count that as a personal victory, that's fine by me.
Feel free to pat yourself on the back. Of course, back then we were
talking about the arterials through town, and now we're talking about
residential neighborhood streets.

In general, I'm OK with village speeds being kept under control by cops
with radar guns; I'm OK with village speeds being kept under control by
designing slower-looking roads, with center plantings and other visual
clues (so long as lanes remain wide enough for safe sharing with motor
vehicles and bicycles); and I'm OK with village speeds being kept under
control by self-enforcing traffic calming measures like speed humps. In
every case, I prefer proven and cost-effective solutions over those that
are unproven and expensive.

You've argued vociferously against two of those, and you've contradicted
yourself on the third. You've been consistent, though, in wanting
faster traffic. If you truthfully drive as slowly as you claim, I
continue to wonder about that discrepency - and I wonder why you've had
so many typical speeder problems!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 04:59 PM

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 06:06:44 -0400, Nate Nagel >
> wrote:
>
>
>>A speed limit is really not needed on an Interstate highway.
>
>
> Unless you define "needed" in terms of preventing people killing
> themselves and others, I guess.
>
> Speedophiles make a big deal about the Autobahn being safer than US
> highways, but conveniently forget that (a) much of the Autobahn is
> actually covered by speed limits and (b) the Autobahn has a
> considerably worse crash record than, say, motorways in the UK, which
> are speed limited.
>
> Guy

Guy, you're depriving a boy of his fantasies. Isn't that a little
cruel? ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 05:36 PM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>And yet there are thousands of these things installed in thousands of
>>neighborhoods across the country, including one about three miles from
>>here. And the residents are satisfied that they significantly slow
>>speeds. And studies by traffic engineers clearly document significant
>>speed reductions.
>
>
> Sorry frank, every speed hump in the nation isn't your perfect ITE speed
> hump.

It doesn't need to be. As I see it, even a sharp speed bump in a
residential roadway will do what I want - lower speeds in residential
neighborhoods.

The details of a "perfect ITE" speed hump are intended to mollify the
folks with delicate cars, or delicate sensibilities. The "Princess and
the Pea" drivers, if you will.

So it sounds like my job is to advocate _some_ type of speed hump or
bump. Your job is to make sure that those actually installed meet ITE
recommendations. If there are too many imperfect speed humps installed,
you should probably waste less time on Usenet!

>>Surely, you can't expect us to take your RR track anecdote as seriously
>>as the actual measured evidence, can you?
>
>
> Oh, you want to measure 85th percentile speeds. When I said that's the
> way things should be done you did your whole insult rutine. You didn't
> need any data, you didn't need alter the road, you just needed a cop with
> a radar gun. Thanks for proving I'm correct once again.

:-) You are absolutely delusional!

Stating the 85th percentile speed is a valid way of telling how fast
people _are_ driving.

Whether that's the speed they _should_ drive is a separate issue!
Admittedly, speeding advocates have promoted as dogma that these are
equivalent - but a reasonably intelligent person should see that things
like the presence of an elementary school, the desire of pedestrians to
safely cross roads, etc. should be taken into account.

I have the
> confindence that your half-ass speed hump plan will fail as did your cop
> with radar gun plan.

There are only two problems with what you claim in that sentence:

1) Speed humps are working well almost everywhere they're implemented.

2) Our "cop with radar" is also working well!

Carry on, Brent.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Brent P

October 1st 04, 06:46 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>And yet there are thousands of these things installed in thousands of
>>>neighborhoods across the country, including one about three miles from
>>>here. And the residents are satisfied that they significantly slow
>>>speeds. And studies by traffic engineers clearly document significant
>>>speed reductions.
>>
>>
>> Sorry frank, every speed hump in the nation isn't your perfect ITE speed
>> hump.
>
> It doesn't need to be. As I see it, even a sharp speed bump in a
> residential roadway will do what I want - lower speeds in residential
> neighborhoods.

So will making the streets appear more narrow and other known solutions.
But you don't like those because they don't screw up the surface of the
road.

> The details of a "perfect ITE" speed hump are intended to mollify the
> folks with delicate cars, or delicate sensibilities. The "Princess and
> the Pea" drivers, if you will.

So you trot out the 'perfect hump' that exists about as frequently as the
perfect bike lane and act as if it's what is in common usage when you
know better. There's your honesty problem again.

> So it sounds like my job is to advocate _some_ type of speed hump or
> bump. Your job is to make sure that those actually installed meet ITE
> recommendations. If there are too many imperfect speed humps installed,
> you should probably waste less time on Usenet!

No, my job is to oppose speed humps of all kinds in favor of better
solutions that aren't half ass retrofits.

>>>Surely, you can't expect us to take your RR track anecdote as seriously
>>>as the actual measured evidence, can you?

>> Oh, you want to measure 85th percentile speeds. When I said that's the
>> way things should be done you did your whole insult rutine. You didn't
>> need any data, you didn't need alter the road, you just needed a cop with
>> a radar gun. Thanks for proving I'm correct once again.

>:-) You are absolutely delusional!

Not at all. Your arguing for speed humps alone is admitting I was correct
then.

> Stating the 85th percentile speed is a valid way of telling how fast
> people _are_ driving.

And what I told you before if you want lower speeds, you need to deal
with what people actually drive, not the sign. But you insisted all you
needed was a sign and a cop. You didn't need any road features to lower
the actual speeds.

> Whether that's the speed they _should_ drive is a separate issue!
> Admittedly, speeding advocates have promoted as dogma that these are
> equivalent - but a reasonably intelligent person should see that things
> like the presence of an elementary school, the desire of pedestrians to
> safely cross roads, etc. should be taken into account.

Again you show ignorance of the 85th percentile METHOD.

>> I have the
>> confindence that your half-ass speed hump plan will fail as did your cop
>> with radar gun plan.

> There are only two problems with what you claim in that sentence:
> 1) Speed humps are working well almost everywhere they're implemented.
> 2) Our "cop with radar" is also working well!

You have an odd definition of 'well'.

Zoot Katz

October 1st 04, 06:55 PM

Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:36:08 GMT,
>, Alan Baker
> wrote:

>Use your brain: there is no *way* that motorcycle was doing 205.

Sure there is.
The fastest production motorcycle is the Suzuki Hayabusa GSX1300R at
194 mph. It's possible to have clocked faster speeds with a modified
Hayabusa producing 300+ hp.
Somebody claimed they attained 198 mph on a Kawasaki ZX9R.
The fastest motorcycle speed ever is 322.15 mph. That wasn't on a
production bike though.
The highest speed an individual has crashed a motorcycle and survived
is estimated at 200 mph.
--
zk

Brent P

October 1st 04, 07:14 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> That's nice. But it doesn't answer the question.

> On this issue, once this solution was proposed,

It was a general question Frank. Do you treat people who have different
solutions than you in real life the same way you do on usenet?

<paragraphs spent avoiding a yes-no question deleted>

>> different towns, built decades apart. Each uses a different solution of
>> the ones I suggest. I have no problems with speeders on either of my
>> streets. But you ignore this. You declare the solutions unworkable,
>> impossible, as if they can't be done anywhere.

> I wonder how you'd view two different proposals with special property
> tax assessments: a) Fix speeding through this neighborhood by plowing
> up the center of the road and planting "boulevard" medians, cost to each
> resident $500, moderate chance that they'll slow traffic; or b) Install
> speed humps each 300 feet, cost to each resident $100, proven ability to
> slow traffic.
> I can tell you how the choice would go around here. In fact, I can tell
> you that choice (a) would never be proposed, because no council member
> could seriously promote it. In fact, recall that the streets in
> question are only 18 feet wide. Option (a) is actually impossible
> without widening the road.

Planting trees doesn't cost much. Neither does painting a centerline.
On street parking is free. An atertial problem may be fixed with
different traffic light timing/programming, again cheap. But as usual you
ignore options that are cheaper than humps.

> vehicles and bicycles); and I'm OK with village speeds being kept under
> control by self-enforcing traffic calming measures like speed humps. In
> every case, I prefer proven and cost-effective solutions over those that
> are unproven and expensive.
>
> You've argued vociferously against two of those,

I've argued against idiotic traffic calming solutions like humps. I've
been for calming solutions like narrowing and the appearance of narrowing
for years and cited such in that thread of long ago. Proven effective.
Various cheaper than speed hump techniques have been suggested in this
regards. Those you dismiss out of hand.

> and you've contradicted yourself on the third.

I haven't contradicted myself on anything frank. Your debate technique
has been of 99% misrepresentation and insult.

> You've been consistent, though, in wanting faster traffic.

Faster traffic? How am I going to make traffic go faster than it already
is on the interstate? The speed limit doesn't determine traffic speeds.

> If you truthfully drive as slowly as you claim, I
> continue to wonder about that discrepency - and I wonder why you've had
> so many typical speeder problems!

The only problem here frank is you are dishonest. There is no discrepency
between wanting 25mph residential traffic and /// rural interstates. They
are two very different types of road. One is supposed to be small and
slow, the other is supposed to be for high speed travel. There is no
discrepency between riding a bicycle on arterials and wanting
85th percentile method determined speed limits on the same. The reason is
because the properly set speed limit creates better flow, improving
conditions and allowing faster traffic to pass smoothly instead of
creating conflicts for the same road space.

I've tried to explain this to you anti-driving folks many times. But you
just want to make things painful for driving. Well I'll tell you what
makes driving painful. Dig a big ass trench across arterial roads.
At least 2 E-W arterials between work and home are torn up. One
completely closed, the other down to one lane westbound. It's been
causing massive backups on all of the open ones. Thankfully I can
just pick up my bicycle and carry it across the trench. Annoying, but
it keeps me out of the backup.

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 09:53 PM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>
>>So it sounds like my job is to advocate _some_ type of speed hump or
>>bump. Your job is to make sure that those actually installed meet ITE
>>recommendations. If there are too many imperfect speed humps installed,
>>you should probably waste less time on Usenet!
>
>
> No, my job is to oppose speed humps of all kinds in favor of better
> solutions that aren't half ass retrofits.

OK, whatever project you want to take on. But I notice that you're
losing. There are more speed humps installed every day. Many cities
have literal backlogs of requests, which they're getting to as fast as
they can. Enjoy!

>
>>>I have the
>>>confindence that your half-ass speed hump plan will fail as did your cop
>>>with radar gun plan.
>
>
>>There are only two problems with what you claim in that sentence:
>>1) Speed humps are working well almost everywhere they're implemented.
>>2) Our "cop with radar" is also working well!
>
>
> You have an odd definition of 'well'.

Hey, they slow traffic down to the desired speeds. That's pretty practical!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 1st 04, 10:02 PM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>>That's nice. But it doesn't answer the question.
>
>
>
>>On this issue, once this solution was proposed,
>
>
> It was a general question Frank. Do you treat people who have different
> solutions than you in real life the same way you do on usenet?

Briefly, no. In real life, I tend to avoid people who spew nonsense.
True, I've met a _few_ Vandeman/Peterson/Zaumen clones in real life, but
only a very few.

I'll admit to engaging in debates with one or two of them. It can be a
sort of guilty pleasure. But mostly I do what everyone else does - I
just leave them alone.

> Planting trees doesn't cost much. Neither does painting a centerline.
> On street parking is free. An atertial problem may be fixed with
> different traffic light timing/programming, again cheap. But as usual you
> ignore options that are cheaper than humps.

And as usual, you throw out a few vague theoretical ideas, despite the
fact that the real situation - already described - can't make use of them.

A broken record is even more irritating when the endless repetition is
flat-out wrong!

>
>
>>vehicles and bicycles); and I'm OK with village speeds being kept under
>>control by self-enforcing traffic calming measures like speed humps. In
>>every case, I prefer proven and cost-effective solutions over those that
>>are unproven and expensive.
>>
>>You've argued vociferously against two of those,
>
>
> I've argued against idiotic traffic calming solutions like humps. I've
> been for calming solutions like narrowing and the appearance of narrowing
> for years and cited such in that thread of long ago. Proven effective.

Data? ITE claime such data "isn't available." One poster discussed
lanes that were narrowed, to no good effect at all. What have you got
that indicates your proof?

> I've tried to explain this to you anti-driving folks many times. But you
> just want to make things painful for driving. Well I'll tell you what
> makes driving painful. Dig a big ass trench across arterial roads.

:-) Is that your current suggestion?

BTW, wipe your chin. You're frothing again. ;-)

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Brent P

October 1st 04, 10:28 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

> losing. There are more speed humps installed every day. Many cities
> have literal backlogs of requests, which they're getting to as fast as
> they can. Enjoy!

I can't be everywhere. But they aren't showing up where I am.

Brent P

October 1st 04, 10:41 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>That's nice. But it doesn't answer the question.
>>
>>
>>
>>>On this issue, once this solution was proposed,
>>
>>
>> It was a general question Frank. Do you treat people who have different
>> solutions than you in real life the same way you do on usenet?
>
> Briefly, no. In real life, I tend to avoid people who spew nonsense.
> True, I've met a _few_ Vandeman/Peterson/Zaumen clones in real life, but
> only a very few.

Ok frank. It's clear you are going to do nothing now but be insulting.
The vandeman comment is below the belt. You've gone too far now.

Chalo

October 1st 04, 11:00 PM

Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
> The demonic 6" bumps you fear are not installed in any public roads I've
> ever seen. Even the ones in the plaza with the bookstore near here (I
> referred to them earlier, and we were there this evening) are no more
> than 3" high.
>
> If you can't provide good evidence, I'm assuming these sharp, 6",
> in-road speed bumps are more of your imagination.

Agreed. Even parking berms are not 6" high. I think his numbers are
a reflection of his subjective perception rather than any sort of
measurement. If Nate can furnish photo evidence of a speed moderating
device anywhere that is more than 4" high, I would be extremely
surprised.

Of course, _any_ speed bump or hump seems mountainous when you run
over one at speed!

Chalo Colina

Nate Nagel

October 1st 04, 11:49 PM

Chalo wrote:

> Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
>>The demonic 6" bumps you fear are not installed in any public roads I've
>>ever seen. Even the ones in the plaza with the bookstore near here (I
>>referred to them earlier, and we were there this evening) are no more
>>than 3" high.
>>
>>If you can't provide good evidence, I'm assuming these sharp, 6",
>>in-road speed bumps are more of your imagination.
>
>
> Agreed. Even parking berms are not 6" high. I think his numbers are
> a reflection of his subjective perception rather than any sort of
> measurement. If Nate can furnish photo evidence of a speed moderating
> device anywhere that is more than 4" high, I would be extremely
> surprised.

You want me to go back to my old neighborhood and measure the damned
thing for you? If it will really make you happy, but it's about 50
miles out of my way and I won't be able to get back there for at least
two weeks.

You are correct in your assessment, though, these are about the height
of an unusually high curb.

>
> Of course, _any_ speed bump or hump seems mountainous when you run
> over one at speed!

at *any* speed, when they're that tall.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Brent P

October 1st 04, 11:54 PM

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:

> You are correct in your assessment, though, these are about the height
> of an unusually high curb.

After I parked I did examine the stealth hump. It was about 3/4" shy of
the top of the big square curb. These big square curbs are a danger to
opening the passenger side door to give a reference of how tall they are.
They are just barely (.25") under the door in most cases, sometimes
scrape, sometimes the door cannot be opened.

One guy was parked with one end of his car on one of the marked humps and
the other end not on the hump. It really looked odd.

Nate Nagel

October 2nd 04, 12:02 AM

Zoot Katz wrote:

> 1 Oct 2004 13:14:18 -0700,
> >,
> cager scum (Nate Nagel) snivelled:
>
>
>>No, the speed limit should be set to a level that accomodates the
>>wishes of the majority of road users (i.e. 85th percentile method.)
>>It's clear that people are willing to accept the slight increased risk
>>of traveling 80+ MPH so why not just accept that that's the way it is
>>and work within those parameters to make the roads as safe and
>>pleasant as they can be?
>
>
> Because you and the other indolent brats would still drive at speeds
> that are unsafe. Then there's all those other drivers, you know, the
> ones who are always getting "in your way", who choose to not drive at
> those speeds. They would be very unsafe due to their limited or
> impaired faculties and/or dangerously un maintained stinking deadly
> crap that is permitted on the roads.
>
> Keep whining, scud jockey. You just look more ridiculous all the time.

Here's a free clue: people are already driving at those speeds. It's
just a matter of do we want to make the roads safer or not?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 2nd 04, 01:18 AM

Zoot Katz wrote:

> Fri, 01 Oct 2004 19:02:14 -0400, >,
> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>
>
>>Here's a free clue: people are already driving at those speeds. It's
>>just a matter of do we want to make the roads safer or not?
>
>
> Get this, scud monkey, I care spit if all of you asswipes slaughter
> yourselves and each other with your stinky toys. My concern is how you
> behave around pedestrians and cyclists. I support any traffic calming
> method required to get your compliance with posted speed limits in
> areas where your ****wagons are hazards to the more vulnerable road
> users. You know, the ones who pay for your free parking.
> Choke.

Wow, what a rant. Too bad we were talking about Interstates and to a
lesser extent other highways, to which your rant has no relevance.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Arif Khokar

October 2nd 04, 02:31 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> In all the citations that were given to
> justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
> mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.

Which would be irrelevant on controlled or limited access highways.

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 02:35 AM

Alan Baker wrote:

> ... traffic
> engineers have studied the problem and have determined that setting the
> limit at the 85th percentile speed of all the speeds that people choose
> results road safety.

This has been discussed before on some of these groups, of course. And
what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.

It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
extensive bridge work.

As you might expect, the drivers delayed by the congestion were _very_
comfortable making up a few lost seconds in that school zone. The fact
that there were pre-schoolers there for day care, kindergarten kids, and
kids in grades 1-5 didn't matter much to them.

Heavy enforcement brought that problem under reasonable control. But
the "85th Percentile" crowd probably doesn't even acknowledge it _was_ a
problem, since, after all, there were no motorists placed at risk.

Kindergarteners don't drive, so they don't count, it seems.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Nate Nagel

October 2nd 04, 02:39 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Zoot Katz wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Because you and the other indolent brats would still drive at speeds
>> that are unsafe. Then there's all those other drivers, you know, the
>> ones who are always getting "in your way", who choose to not drive at
>> those speeds. ...
>>
>> Keep whining, scud jockey. You just look more ridiculous all the time.
>
>
> I get some satisfaction out of the fact that those brats almost
> invariably pass one "slower" driver (i.e. "at the speed limit" slow),
> then run up behind the next "slow" driver, where they once again wait
> and whine and gnash their teeth.
>
> It's an interesting form of self-punishment, and one they're not smart
> enough to understand!
>

I realize you're beling deliberately obtuse, but that wouldn't happen if
you obeyed some of the other traffic laws besides the speed limit, and
actually kept right except to pass. It's actually possible for people
to drive at different speeds and still play nice with each other - so
long as all involved act like responsible adults.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 02:39 AM

Zoot Katz wrote:

> ...
> Because you and the other indolent brats would still drive at speeds
> that are unsafe. Then there's all those other drivers, you know, the
> ones who are always getting "in your way", who choose to not drive at
> those speeds. ...
>
> Keep whining, scud jockey. You just look more ridiculous all the time.

I get some satisfaction out of the fact that those brats almost
invariably pass one "slower" driver (i.e. "at the speed limit" slow),
then run up behind the next "slow" driver, where they once again wait
and whine and gnash their teeth.

It's an interesting form of self-punishment, and one they're not smart
enough to understand!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Alan Baker

October 2nd 04, 02:41 AM

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > ... traffic
> > engineers have studied the problem and have determined that setting the
> > limit at the 85th percentile speed of all the speeds that people choose
> > results road safety.
>
> This has been discussed before on some of these groups, of course. And
> what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
> safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
> justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
> mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.

Cyclists are a bit of a problem, but *pedestrians*???? You think that
drivers at the 85th percentile are jumping the curb?

>
> It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
> cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
> arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
> side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
> extensive bridge work.

Have you ever noticed how every now and then drivers will get caught out
by an advisory speed limit on a access ramp? Why is that? Because almost
every such speed limit they encounter is posted ludicrously *low*. So
when they actually get one that's posted close to appropriately, they're
not ready for it.

Badly set limits send the message that *all* speed limits aren't worth
respecting. If all roads were posted at an appropriate speed for and
then you encountered a sign for a lower speed, wouldn't you expect it to
indicate a special circumstance that you might not be able to see?

>
> As you might expect, the drivers delayed by the congestion were _very_
> comfortable making up a few lost seconds in that school zone. The fact
> that there were pre-schoolers there for day care, kindergarten kids, and
> kids in grades 1-5 didn't matter much to them.

Because they've been taught not to respect the limits by all the ones
that are set so badly; the vast majority.

>
> Heavy enforcement brought that problem under reasonable control. But
> the "85th Percentile" crowd probably doesn't even acknowledge it _was_ a
> problem, since, after all, there were no motorists placed at risk.
>
> Kindergarteners don't drive, so they don't count, it seems.

That is a ridiculous statement.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 02:51 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
> safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
> justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
> mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.

I ride arterials alot. The worst ones to ride are the severely
underposted ones. Passing traffic tries to use the right lane because
people feel justified blocking the passing lane. These conflicts for
space are what I don't like when bicycling. The closer the speed limit is
to the 85th percentile the less frequent these conflicts in my
experience. I don't care if the guy is doing 2mph or 200mph, I don't
want him trying to occupy the space I'm in. By making for better flow
the problem is lessened.

> It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
> cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
> arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
> side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
> extensive bridge work.

_METHOD_ _METHOD_ You people keep bringing up this as if it invalidates
things. A key concept of the 85th percentile speed limit is to make speed
limits mean something so that when there is a school or some other
feature that requires people to slow down despite no obvious change, the
sign actually alerts them to it and they slow down.

Instead, speed limits cry wolf all the time, and then the complaints that
people aren't following the speed limit where they really need to. Maybe
that's because the posted speed limit is meaningless the majority of the
time.

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 02:53 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Zoot Katz wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Because you and the other indolent brats would still drive at speeds
>> that are unsafe. Then there's all those other drivers, you know, the
>> ones who are always getting "in your way", who choose to not drive at
>> those speeds. ...
>>
>> Keep whining, scud jockey. You just look more ridiculous all the time.
>
> I get some satisfaction out of the fact that those brats almost
> invariably pass one "slower" driver (i.e. "at the speed limit" slow),
> then run up behind the next "slow" driver, where they once again wait
> and whine and gnash their teeth.
>
> It's an interesting form of self-punishment, and one they're not smart
> enough to understand!

Not me Frank. One driver who passed me on the way home was like that
through. He damn near rearended the last vehicle in line at a red light
when he was compelled to pass me. (I rode the bike to and from work today)

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 02:54 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
>
> You've never been followed by a cop while obeying the law to the letter?

The only time I've been followed by a cop was when I just happened to be
in front of him.

Oh, and one time a policeman pulled me over to let me know my motorcycle
taillight was burned out. It was actually very friendly.

I've never been followed like Brend described. IIRC, they were
shadowing his every move. He seemed quite paranoid about it. Now why
would they choose to do that to him? They obviously can't do it to
everyone! What had they seen in the past?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 03:07 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> I've never been followed like Brend described. IIRC, they were
> shadowing his every move. He seemed quite paranoid about it. Now why
> would they choose to do that to him? They obviously can't do it to
> everyone! What had they seen in the past?

You're a work of art. You're too good for Kerry. Contact Dan Rather for a
job.

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 03:22 AM

Tim McNamara wrote:

> (Brent P) writes:
>
>>Somewhere in there is the reason people think the street you live on
>>is a short cut. Find out why they think it is a short cut and fix
>>the problem that causes that.
>
>
> I told you why they think it's a short cut, Brent. You don't seem to
> be able to accept it because it doesn't jive with your world view.
> You keep trying to make reality fit your theory.

As he does with me. He's absolutely confident his grandiose theories
fit every situation in the world. He's so confident that if we attempt
to explain the place _we live_ in detail, he either tells us we're
wrong, or stops listening while whining "I'm not playing your game."

Describing that mind as "closed" is understating it.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 03:26 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Mark Weaver wrote:
>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Simply not true, most drivers won't exceed 90 MPH or so under any
>>> conditions. Heck, most CARS won't exceed 90 MPH.
>>
>>
>>
>> I challenge you to find ANY car sold in the US in the last 5 years that
>> won't go 90. In fact, you'll probably have a hard time finding one that
>> can't hit 100. Here's a page from Car And Driver's latest minivan
>> comparison:
>>
>> http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6647&page_number=4
>>
>>
>> Top speeds vary from 108-118 mph and those are all *governor*
>> controlled--with a chip change they'd probably all do 120. And these are
>> friggin' minivans. That doesn't mean minivan owners are driving at those
>> speeds, but 0-60 times are a competitve advantage even for those
>> vehicles,
>> and some of them now do 0-60 in the mid 7 second range (which is kind of
>> nutty).
>>
>> Mark

Doggone, Mark, there you go again - destroying the boy's fantasies! ;-)

>>
>
> Possibly true of very new cars, but as of 10-20 years ago very *not*
> true. Heck, I had the original "hot hatch" (Rabbit GTI) and, um, I know
> this guy that decided to find out what the top speed was. I, um, he
> recalls it being somewhere in the neighborhood of 105-110 MPH.

Yeah. Thanks. And Brent gets offended when we claim that you guys want
to speed.

Maybe you two should have a heart-to-heart talk. Get on the same page.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 03:31 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Certainly I've come near to getting in trouble
> before because of applying that "extra" to advisory curve speed signs...
> when you navigate a "25 MPH" curve at 50 every day and then you see a
> 25 MPH advisory sign on an unfamiliar road... and the curve tightens...
> and what that sign meant was really "your tires will start howling at 30
> MPH" that's a Bad Thing (tm) But that's a little off topic, neh?

Not at all. It's a direct confession that boys and their toys will
speed, thinking their "skills" justify that behavior. And they will
screw up occasionally, because they're not nearly as competent as they
imagine.

This is why that age group has a comparatively lousy safety record.
And why we can't trust their judgement, especially when they drive
through a residential neighborhood.

And hey, thanks for justifying what we've been saying.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 03:36 AM

Brent P wrote:

>
> As it sounds by what little information you provide, a first step might
> be really cheap. A couple of 'no right on red' signs. If that's why it's
> a short cut, because of right on red, then that may put an end to it.
> Because only one person need obey it to stop a string a of right on red
> turners it will cease to be a short cut. It may take the same time or
> longer than the unknown alternatives. It's not perfect, it punishes the
> good drivers with the bad, but it's less annoying than the speed humps.
>

I realize that you're trying to address Tim's situation, not mine, but
I'll just point out that your solution would be useless in this case.
Here, they turn into this neighborhood to avoid a light one block
further on. And AFAIK, there's no legal way to prohibit cut-through
speeders from turning right, yet give residents permission to do so.
Except by gating the community, of course - which is yet another
impractical solution.

Sometimes you really do have to be in the place in question, on the
ground, to have a hope of understanding. This is why your theories fail.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Alan Baker

October 2nd 04, 03:38 AM

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Certainly I've come near to getting in trouble
> > before because of applying that "extra" to advisory curve speed signs...
> > when you navigate a "25 MPH" curve at 50 every day and then you see a
> > 25 MPH advisory sign on an unfamiliar road... and the curve tightens...
> > and what that sign meant was really "your tires will start howling at 30
> > MPH" that's a Bad Thing (tm) But that's a little off topic, neh?
>
> Not at all. It's a direct confession that boys and their toys will
> speed, thinking their "skills" justify that behavior. And they will
> screw up occasionally, because they're not nearly as competent as they
> imagine.

No. It shows that people learn from experience. If you encounter sign
after sign that indicate a speed half as fast as what is obviously safe,
you learn to trust that relationship.

Posting speed limits inappropriately leads to disrespect for *all* speed
limit signs.

>
> This is why that age group has a comparatively lousy safety record.
> And why we can't trust their judgement, especially when they drive
> through a residential neighborhood.
>
> And hey, thanks for justifying what we've been saying.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Tom Keats

October 2nd 04, 03:43 AM

In article >,
Nate Nagel > writes:

> Wow, what a rant. Too bad we were talking about Interstates and to a
> lesser extent other highways, to which your rant has no relevance.

Highways can and do slash through cities. Some cities are even
afflicted and intruded upon with expressways.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 03:45 AM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>You are correct in your assessment, though, these are about the height
>>of an unusually high curb.
>
>
> After I parked I did examine the stealth hump. It was about 3/4" shy of
> the top of the big square curb.

Is there a reason you're not giving us the height in inches?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Alan Baker

October 2nd 04, 03:53 AM

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >> In all the citations that were given to justify setting the speed
> >> limit at the 85th percentile, there was no mention of road safety of
> >> pedestrians or cyclists.
> >
> >
> > Which would be irrelevant on controlled or limited access highways.
>
> And as I've said before, I'm not particularly concerned about moderate
> speeding on those highways.
>
> However, we're hearing from some 85th percentile fans who think it
> should apply everywhere.

No. They should form the *basis* for speed limits everywhere.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 03:54 AM

Brent P wrote:

>
> Dammit people. wake up. You've been working this way for what? 40-50-60
> years? It isn't working. You're loosing. You're at the point where you
> are calling for wrecking the road surface to slow people down. Each round
> of this nonsense and the problems get worse.

You stubbornly insist things are somehow worse in neighborhoods with
speed humps. Yet the drivers go more slowly. There are fewer crashes.
The residents love them. Residents of other areas clamor for them.
Cities institute waiting lists, to control which neighborhoods get them
the soonest.

If this is "worse", if this is "loosing" [sic], I think I can stand it!

Of course, those who want to do 40 in a 25 zone are displeased. But you
know, life is like that sometimes!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 03:57 AM

Arif Khokar wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Arif Khokar wrote:
>>
>>> And other limited access road networks in Europe have higher fatality
>>> rates than the Autobahnen despite the fact that they have speed
>>> limits. There is no correlation or causality between low speed
>>> limits and fatality rates when speed limits are widely ignored.
>
>
>> I was under the impression that speed limits in GB were somewhat
>> leniently enforced, other than the photo radars, is that not the case
>> anymore?
>
>
> I can't really say since I've never driven in the UK ;)

I have, and I don't recall any significant difference on the motorways.
Traffic on country roads tends to be faster than here, from what I
recall. And apparently, this is what contributes to worse safety for
pedestrians and cyclists.

Of course, driving fans tend to treat those fatalities as negligible.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 03:59 AM

Arif Khokar wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> In all the citations that were given to justify setting the speed
>> limit at the 85th percentile, there was no mention of road safety of
>> pedestrians or cyclists.
>
>
> Which would be irrelevant on controlled or limited access highways.

And as I've said before, I'm not particularly concerned about moderate
speeding on those highways.

However, we're hearing from some 85th percentile fans who think it
should apply everywhere.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 04:05 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>> I get some satisfaction out of the fact that those brats almost
>> invariably pass one "slower" driver (i.e. "at the speed limit" slow),
>> then run up behind the next "slow" driver, where they once again wait
>> and whine and gnash their teeth.
>>
>> It's an interesting form of self-punishment, and one they're not smart
>> enough to understand!
>>
>
> I realize you're beling deliberately obtuse, but that wouldn't happen if
> you obeyed some of the other traffic laws besides the speed limit, and
> actually kept right except to pass. It's actually possible for people
> to drive at different speeds and still play nice with each other - so
> long as all involved act like responsible adults.

I realize you're being accidentally and naturally obtuse, but it's
actually possible for someone to be going, oh, 38 in the left lane,
passing someone doing 33 in the right lane, and yet frustrate the hell
out of a yahoo who feels he's clever and important enough to do 50 mph
in a 35 zone.

It's also possible to drive 35 in a 35 zone, and frustrate that same
jerk because there are only two lanes - and dammit, the person in front
just doesn't realize he should pull off the road to let the important
young man get by!!

Finally, it's possible for someone to make snide comments, while
blatantly demonstrating that they haven't given a moment's thought to
real-life situations on real roads. Like those above. Talk about obtuse!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 04:19 AM

Alan Baker wrote:

> In article >,
> Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
>>
>>This has been discussed before on some of these groups, of course. And
>>what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
>>safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
>>justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
>>mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.
>
>
> Cyclists are a bit of a problem, but *pedestrians*???? You think that
> drivers at the 85th percentile are jumping the curb?

Yes, pedestians. The vast majority of pedestrian fatalities happen in
crosswalks. One very common type is the left turning driver rushing to
beat on coming traffic. "Oops, I didn't see him, officer." Higher
traffic speeds make these turns more difficult, and contribute. And
higher traffic speeds _strongly_ affect the injury and death rates of
pedestrian and cylist victims of these idiots.

But many Car & Driver subscribers don't have this on their radar. If
you're not in a car, you don't count.

>
>
>>It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
>>cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
>>arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
>>side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
>>extensive bridge work.
>
>
> Badly set limits send the message that *all* speed limits aren't worth
> respecting. If all roads were posted at an appropriate speed for and
> then you encountered a sign for a lower speed, wouldn't you expect it to
> indicate a special circumstance that you might not be able to see?
>
>
>
>>As you might expect, the drivers delayed by the congestion were _very_
>>comfortable making up a few lost seconds in that school zone. The fact
>>that there were pre-schoolers there for day care, kindergarten kids, and
>>kids in grades 1-5 didn't matter much to them.
>
>
> Because they've been taught not to respect the limits by all the ones
> that are set so badly; the vast majority.
>
>
>>Heavy enforcement brought that problem under reasonable control. But
>>the "85th Percentile" crowd probably doesn't even acknowledge it _was_ a
>>problem, since, after all, there were no motorists placed at risk.
>>
>>Kindergarteners don't drive, so they don't count, it seems.
>
>
> That is a ridiculous statement.

Of course it's ridiculous. But watch a 19-year-old with a loud exhaust
drive through a school zone sometime. He'll be more interested in
showing how macho he is than in keeping someone's kid sister alive. To
him, the kids don't count.

And honestly, it doesn't matter _why_ he thinks that particular speed
limit is unrealistic. We don't need to be endangering little kids to
work toward distant, hypothetical cures of your little irritations.

Slow down. The world really does not revolve around you, your precious
car, and your travel time.

A few months ago, we had one teenaged driver kill some buddies. He was
doing over 80 in a 25 zone, according to one who barely survived. I'm
_certain_ he thought that road was "underposted."

They say that when the cops arrived on the scene and started prying the
bodies out of the wreckage, he was saying "This wasn't supposed to
happen. This wasn't supposed to happen."

Of course it wasn't. He was, no doubt, confident of his skill and his
superior judgement. Much like those posting here.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Alan Baker

October 2nd 04, 04:20 AM

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>This has been discussed before on some of these groups, of course. And
> >>what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
> >>safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
> >>justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
> >>mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.
> >
> >
> > Cyclists are a bit of a problem, but *pedestrians*???? You think that
> > drivers at the 85th percentile are jumping the curb?
>
> Yes, pedestians. The vast majority of pedestrian fatalities happen in
> crosswalks. One very common type is the left turning driver rushing to
> beat on coming traffic. "Oops, I didn't see him, officer." Higher
> traffic speeds make these turns more difficult, and contribute. And
> higher traffic speeds _strongly_ affect the injury and death rates of
> pedestrian and cylist victims of these idiots.

No. Those accidents are a result of people rushing for a light, which
they can do at any speed.

>
> But many Car & Driver subscribers don't have this on their radar. If
> you're not in a car, you don't count.

Oh, do shut up.

>
>
> >
> >
> >>It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
> >>cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
> >>arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
> >>side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
> >>extensive bridge work.
> >
> >
> > Badly set limits send the message that *all* speed limits aren't worth
> > respecting. If all roads were posted at an appropriate speed for and
> > then you encountered a sign for a lower speed, wouldn't you expect it to
> > indicate a special circumstance that you might not be able to see?
> >
> >
> >
> >>As you might expect, the drivers delayed by the congestion were _very_
> >>comfortable making up a few lost seconds in that school zone. The fact
> >>that there were pre-schoolers there for day care, kindergarten kids, and
> >>kids in grades 1-5 didn't matter much to them.
> >
> >
> > Because they've been taught not to respect the limits by all the ones
> > that are set so badly; the vast majority.
> >
> >
> >>Heavy enforcement brought that problem under reasonable control. But
> >>the "85th Percentile" crowd probably doesn't even acknowledge it _was_ a
> >>problem, since, after all, there were no motorists placed at risk.
> >>
> >>Kindergarteners don't drive, so they don't count, it seems.
> >
> >
> > That is a ridiculous statement.
>
> Of course it's ridiculous. But watch a 19-year-old with a loud exhaust
> drive through a school zone sometime. He'll be more interested in
> showing how macho he is than in keeping someone's kid sister alive. To
> him, the kids don't count.

The school zone isn't made safer by under posting the rest of the roads.

>
> And honestly, it doesn't matter _why_ he thinks that particular speed
> limit is unrealistic. We don't need to be endangering little kids to
> work toward distant, hypothetical cures of your little irritations.

But it doesn't endanger kids. It helps them. It gives drivers with more
common sense (the vast majority) more reason to respect the limit, and
it frees up police manpower to do things such as monitor speed in school
zones.
>
> Slow down. The world really does not revolve around you, your precious
> car, and your travel time.

Oh, do shut up. It's about the fact that the vast majority of people are
making completely reasonable choices and our governments would rather
tax them than do things that might actually improve safety such as
tightening licensing standards.

>
>
> A few months ago, we had one teenaged driver kill some buddies. He was
> doing over 80 in a 25 zone, according to one who barely survived. I'm
> _certain_ he thought that road was "underposted."

No. He was being an asshole.

>
> They say that when the cops arrived on the scene and started prying the
> bodies out of the wreckage, he was saying "This wasn't supposed to
> happen. This wasn't supposed to happen."
>
> Of course it wasn't. He was, no doubt, confident of his skill and his
> superior judgement. Much like those posting here.

Was he even close to the 85th percentile speed for that road? How much
would you like to be he wasn't?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 04:20 AM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
>>safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
>>justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
>>mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.
>
>
> I ride arterials alot. The worst ones to ride are the severely
> underposted ones. Passing traffic tries to use the right lane because
> people feel justified blocking the passing lane. These conflicts for
> space are what I don't like when bicycling. The closer the speed limit is
> to the 85th percentile the less frequent these conflicts in my
> experience. I don't care if the guy is doing 2mph or 200mph, I don't
> want him trying to occupy the space I'm in. By making for better flow
> the problem is lessened.
>
>
>>It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
>>cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
>>arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
>>side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
>>extensive bridge work.
>
>
> _METHOD_ _METHOD_ You people keep bringing up this as if it invalidates
> things. A key concept of the 85th percentile speed limit is to make speed
> limits mean something so that when there is a school or some other
> feature that requires people to slow down despite no obvious change, the
> sign actually alerts them to it and they slow down.
>
> Instead, speed limits cry wolf all the time, and then the complaints that
> people aren't following the speed limit where they really need to. Maybe
> that's because the posted speed limit is meaningless the majority of the
> time.

So how many kids should we sacrifice while we work toward your "final
solution"?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Alan Baker

October 2nd 04, 04:21 AM

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
> > In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >
> >>what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
> >>safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
> >>justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
> >>mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.
> >
> >
> > I ride arterials alot. The worst ones to ride are the severely
> > underposted ones. Passing traffic tries to use the right lane because
> > people feel justified blocking the passing lane. These conflicts for
> > space are what I don't like when bicycling. The closer the speed limit is
> > to the 85th percentile the less frequent these conflicts in my
> > experience. I don't care if the guy is doing 2mph or 200mph, I don't
> > want him trying to occupy the space I'm in. By making for better flow
> > the problem is lessened.
> >
> >
> >>It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
> >>cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
> >>arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
> >>side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
> >>extensive bridge work.
> >
> >
> > _METHOD_ _METHOD_ You people keep bringing up this as if it invalidates
> > things. A key concept of the 85th percentile speed limit is to make speed
> > limits mean something so that when there is a school or some other
> > feature that requires people to slow down despite no obvious change, the
> > sign actually alerts them to it and they slow down.
> >
> > Instead, speed limits cry wolf all the time, and then the complaints that
> > people aren't following the speed limit where they really need to. Maybe
> > that's because the posted speed limit is meaningless the majority of the
> > time.
>
> So how many kids should we sacrifice while we work toward your "final
> solution"?

What do you think you're talking about? Wouldn't raising limits to where
they should be on ordinary roads leave the police with more time to
monitor speeds in school zones?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 05:13 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> As it sounds by what little information you provide, a first step might
>> be really cheap. A couple of 'no right on red' signs. If that's why it's
>> a short cut, because of right on red, then that may put an end to it.
>> Because only one person need obey it to stop a string a of right on red
>> turners it will cease to be a short cut. It may take the same time or
>> longer than the unknown alternatives. It's not perfect, it punishes the
>> good drivers with the bad, but it's less annoying than the speed humps.

> I realize that you're trying to address Tim's situation, not mine, but
> I'll just point out that your solution would be useless in this case.
> Here, they turn into this neighborhood to avoid a light one block
> further on. And AFAIK, there's no legal way to prohibit cut-through
> speeders from turning right, yet give residents permission to do so.
> Except by gating the community, of course - which is yet another
> impractical solution.

Another device that is used to improve traffic flow and to prevent cut
throughs (two applications for the same theory) is totally prohibiting
certain turns durring commute times. But you'll blather on about how this
can never work for you blah blah blah. how it can never work anywhere
blah blah blah. how it's just speeders wanting to go as fast as they want
blah blah blah. However it's in practice in a number of areas I both ride
and drive through.

I even have problems with drivers when I make one particular left hand
turn on the bicycle (I've never done it in a car) because it's no left
turn except 7-9am on weekdays. I'd usually be making the turn about
5-6pm on a weekday or any time on the weekend. The drivers I suppose
don't read the sign, just see the left turn arrow with the line through
it. It's there to keep people from backing up the arterial _and_ from
using the residential area as a short cut.

But I know, you'll just insult me and dismiss this out of hand. You don't
want to hear about what's working elsewhere unless it's a speed hump.

> Sometimes you really do have to be in the place in question, on the
> ground, to have a hope of understanding. This is why your theories fail.

Frank, the problem is you are totally unwilling to examine anything other
than speed humps. Totally unwilling to admit that other measures work in
other places, to you only speed humps work in other places. Other places
are evidence speed humps will work for you yet at the same other places
means it can never work in your special little corner of the universe.
It's a cute double standard, but hey whatever floats your boat, because
it's clear you don't even want to consider other solutions, even if they
are cheaper and easier and have fewer drawbacks.

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 05:16 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You are correct in your assessment, though, these are about the height
>>>of an unusually high curb.
>>
>>
>> After I parked I did examine the stealth hump. It was about 3/4" shy of
>> the top of the big square curb.
>
> Is there a reason you're not giving us the height in inches?

Because I would have to measure my car and my car wasn't with me when
I wrote that post. Now it's raining and you're not worth getting wet for.

If you're so damn interested, find a '97 mustang, measure from the ground
to the bottom of the door skin.

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 05:25 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
> A few months ago, we had one teenaged driver kill some buddies. He was
> doing over 80 in a 25 zone, according to one who barely survived. I'm
> _certain_ he thought that road was "underposted."

Frank, how would you like it if someone started making parallels between
you and people who molest children? That would be on par with what you
are doing above. This behavior of yours is uncalled for.

You could post the speed limit at 5mph and put in a bunch of speed bumps.
The idiot kid would use the thing as a jumping ramp. You aren't going to
stop this crap, you're just going to make things more difficult for the
law abiding citizens you don't cause problems. Who don't run down little
kids. People like you love to point at the crazy teenager who offed
himself or killed somebody else doing some stupid crap and say that
anyone who doesn't agree with the speed kills mantra is for that. It's
like democrats who go around saying that bush wants dirty air and
republicans who say terrorists will attack if kerry is elected. You're in
the same league as them. What is your malfunction? Nobody wants
terrorists to attack, nobody wants dirty air, and nobody wants teenagers
doing 80 on a residential street.

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 05:28 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> _METHOD_ _METHOD_ You people keep bringing up this as if it invalidates
>> things. A key concept of the 85th percentile speed limit is to make speed
>> limits mean something so that when there is a school or some other
>> feature that requires people to slow down despite no obvious change, the
>> sign actually alerts them to it and they slow down.
>>
>> Instead, speed limits cry wolf all the time, and then the complaints that
>> people aren't following the speed limit where they really need to. Maybe
>> that's because the posted speed limit is meaningless the majority of the
>> time.

> So how many kids should we sacrifice while we work toward your "final
> solution"?

How many children have you molested today frank?

Tom Keats

October 2nd 04, 06:26 AM

In article <n5q7d.94231$wV.50246@attbi_s54>,
(Brent P) writes:
> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>> A few months ago, we had one teenaged driver kill some buddies. He was
>> doing over 80 in a 25 zone, according to one who barely survived. I'm
>> _certain_ he thought that road was "underposted."
>
> Frank, how would you like it if someone started making parallels between
> you and people who molest children? That would be on par with what you
> are doing above. This behavior of yours is uncalled for.

No, it isn't.

And thank you for being motoring's Goodwill Ambassador.

You've just spoken volumes.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 06:39 AM

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
>
>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Cyclists are a bit of a problem, but *pedestrians*???? You think that
>>>drivers at the 85th percentile are jumping the curb?
>>
>>Yes, pedestians. The vast majority of pedestrian fatalities happen in
>>crosswalks. One very common type is the left turning driver rushing to
>>beat on coming traffic. "Oops, I didn't see him, officer." Higher
>>traffic speeds make these turns more difficult, and contribute. And
>>higher traffic speeds _strongly_ affect the injury and death rates of
>>pedestrian and cylist victims of these idiots.
>
>
> No. Those accidents are a result of people rushing for a light, which
> they can do at any speed.

As I (and others) mentioned, and you ignored, there is a _strong_
correlation between the probability of pedestrian fatality and vehicle
speed.

>>But many Car & Driver subscribers don't have this on their radar. If
>>you're not in a car, you don't count.
>
>
> Oh, do shut up.

Oops. I touched a nerve. How long have you subscribed? ;-)

>
>>>>Kindergarteners don't drive, so they don't count, it seems.
>>>
>>>
>>>That is a ridiculous statement.
>>
>>Of course it's ridiculous. But watch a 19-year-old with a loud exhaust
>>drive through a school zone sometime. He'll be more interested in
>>showing how macho he is than in keeping someone's kid sister alive. To
>>him, the kids don't count.
>
>
> The school zone isn't made safer by under posting the rest of the roads.

"The rest of the roads" contain people trying to cross them on foot, or
bicyclists trying to ride to their destination, or perhaps Amish buggies
taking their passengers to work or to stores.

The point is, the "85th percentile" advocates pay no attention to injury
or fatality rates for these legal road users. Again: if a person's not
in a car, they literally don't count.

You may do what you like with limited access roads. But on other roads,
there _are_ other things to consider besides the desires of the drivers.
And the essense of the "85%" rule of thumb is, give the drivers
whatever they desire.

>>Slow down. The world really does not revolve around you, your precious
>>car, and your travel time.
>
> Oh, do shut up.

Hmm. Did I touch another nerve? Are you typically obsessed with your
travel time?

Or are you merely at the limit of your thinking ability?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 06:43 AM

Alan Baker wrote:

> In article >,
> Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
>>So how many kids should we sacrifice while we work toward your "final
>>solution"?
>
>
> What do you think you're talking about? Wouldn't raising limits to where
> they should be on ordinary roads leave the police with more time to
> monitor speeds in school zones?

What is an "ordinary road"? Is it a place where pedestrians never have
to cross the street? Is it miles from any place a kid would ever want
to walk? Is it a road that doesn't go by a library, or a church, or a
restaurant, or a park?

All your posting is doing is confirming that you have no regard for
anyone not in a car.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 06:59 AM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>I realize that you're trying to address Tim's situation, not mine, but
>>I'll just point out that your solution would be useless in this case.
>>Here, they turn into this neighborhood to avoid a light one block
>>further on. And AFAIK, there's no legal way to prohibit cut-through
>>speeders from turning right, yet give residents permission to do so.
>>Except by gating the community, of course - which is yet another
>>impractical solution.
>
>
> Another device that is used to improve traffic flow and to prevent cut
> throughs (two applications for the same theory) is totally prohibiting
> certain turns durring commute times. But you'll blather on about how this
> can never work for you blah blah blah. how it can never work anywhere
> blah blah blah. how it's just speeders wanting to go as fast as they want
> blah blah blah. However it's in practice in a number of areas I both ride
> and drive through.

You show an astonishing confidence that you know more about my
neighborhood than I do!

Five lane arterial. This street tees into it, about 1000 feet before a
traffic light. And when certain drivers see a red light ahead, they
zoom into a right turn into this neighborhood, zigzag through several
intersections and past two schools, then turn out again onto another
arterial.

If the village posted a "no right turn M-F, 4:30 - 6:00 PM" or something
similar, this is what would happen:

1) local residents would be prohibited from driving into their own
neighborhood - except, I suppose, by driving around the other way.
Would you put up with that?

2) Parents picking up kids at late school functions would have that same
problem.

3) The cut through drivers would ignore the sign, UNLESS a cop was there
to enforce it.

IOW, we'd trade the cop-with-radar-gun that you despise, for a
cop-watching-for-illegal-turns.

Perhaps, in your world view, this is somehow an improvment. But it
seems this would be more desirable only for those people trying to
distract cops from enforcing speed limits.

However, in that sense, it _is_ consistent with your other ideas.

> But I know, you'll just insult me and dismiss this out of hand. You don't
> want to hear about what's working elsewhere unless it's a speed hump.

If there were another, more practical solution, I'd certainly consider
it. But you fail to understand that this situation has existed for
many, many years, and that I (and others) have done a great deal of
homework on it. You're very unlikely to come up with something that
hasn't been thought about, discussed and rejected for practical reasons.
You're _especially_ unlikely to do that given your refusal to learn
anything about the local situation.

> Frank, the problem is you are totally unwilling to examine anything other
> than speed humps. Totally unwilling to admit that other measures work in
> other places, to you only speed humps work in other places. Other places
> are evidence speed humps will work for you yet at the same other places
> means it can never work in your special little corner of the universe.
> It's a cute double standard, but hey whatever floats your boat, because
> it's clear you don't even want to consider other solutions, even if they
> are cheaper and easier and have fewer drawbacks.

I'm continually amazed that you'd think you're somehow more
knowledgeable about this than the people who live in this community!
Willful ignorance is the foundation of your confidence. That's a shaky
foundation, Brent.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 07:02 AM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You are correct in your assessment, though, these are about the height
>>>>of an unusually high curb.
>>>
>>>
>>>After I parked I did examine the stealth hump. It was about 3/4" shy of
>>>the top of the big square curb.
>>
>>Is there a reason you're not giving us the height in inches?
>
>
> Because I would have to measure my car and my car wasn't with me when
> I wrote that post. Now it's raining and you're not worth getting wet for.
>
> If you're so damn interested, find a '97 mustang, measure from the ground
> to the bottom of the door skin.

Whew! This sounds like a very, very elaborate evasion! Imagine
requiring a Mustang to measure a bump height!

Most people would just stick a ruler out the door and measure. Unless,
of course, they knew they'd be embarrassed by the result!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 07:09 AM

In article >, Tom Keats wrote:

> No, it isn't.

Anything for the cause, no matter how low you have to go.

> And thank you for being motoring's Goodwill Ambassador.
>
> You've just spoken volumes.

It's clear nothing has changed over in r.b.s.... Go have another helmet
war or something.

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 07:14 AM

Zoot Katz wrote:
>
>
> **** that, put in cameras. I strongly support red light and radar
> cameras. Let robots monitor the metal lemmings. And make the fines
> hefty enough to pay for the system. No court. You're caught, pay up.
> Keep moving.
>
> Cops have more important jobs to do. Like maybe even look for some hit
> & run killers.

I agree with this, too. Of course, it goes over badly with the "I have
a right to crash red lights & speed" crowd.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 07:19 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> As I (and others) mentioned, and you ignored, there is a _strong_
> correlation between the probability of pedestrian fatality and vehicle
> speed.

Frank makes the crashing-well case for 5mph speed limits. Don't bother
fixing anything, just make people drive a walking pace!

>> The school zone isn't made safer by under posting the rest of the roads.

> "The rest of the roads" contain people trying to cross them on foot, or
> bicyclists trying to ride to their destination, or perhaps Amish buggies
> taking their passengers to work or to stores.

Why don't you just argue for banning driving Frank? After all, that's
pretty much what you want.

> The point is, the "85th percentile" advocates pay no attention to injury
> or fatality rates for these legal road users. Again: if a person's not
> in a car, they literally don't count.

Again, I ride the roads I drive. Do you think I want to make the roads
more dangerous for myself when I use my bicycle? Probably, or maybe
you'll just call me a liar about riding. That would be par for the course
with you.

> You may do what you like with limited access roads. But on other roads,
> there _are_ other things to consider besides the desires of the drivers.
> And the essense of the "85%" rule of thumb is, give the drivers
> whatever they desire.

I'm not always a driver Frank. I do "wierd" stuff, like walk in
pedestrian hostile suburbs. The two blocks between work and the little
place I like to a sasuage sammich at is a particularly crappy walk, with
no sidewalks. Road is posted at 35mph, traffic generally doesn't exceed
30-35mph during the day. Town is a speed trap. Yet the pedestrain
facilities are still nonexistant. Slow speed and ped unfriendly. I also
have been using this same segment of road with my bicycle for years. It's
no better or worse than any other arterial to ride.

Of course you'll dismiss this as all lies... because it doesn't suit you
that someone who walks, rides a bicycle, etc and so forth would also be
for properly set 85th percentile speed limits.

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 07:21 AM

Brent P wrote:

> Nobody wants
> terrorists to attack, nobody wants dirty air, and nobody wants teenagers
> doing 80 on a residential street.

Nobody here wants teenagers doing _40_ on a residential street. That's
why it's posted 25.

But in this conversation, that's not good enough. To satisfy the
motorheads, we've got to prove to a kid in Chicago that there's _some_
way to enforce this speed limit, hundreds of miles away, beyond revising
America's speed limits _upward_ across the board. We've got to prove to
a Car & Driver subscriber that cars actually can and do maim pedestrians
legally crossing the road. We've got to prove to a Miata driver that 3"
undulations won't destroy his cute little car.

I know I'm wasting my time. The reality is, people have their own
interests and their own paradigms. Some folks live for community
service, some live for their soap operas, and others live to drive fast
in their cars. And logic has no effect on a person's priorities in life.

Carry on, guys. Just stay out of my neighborhood.

Oh, and for amusement, you can check in to Houston's speed hump site.
See how they're progressing with more and more installations.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 07:30 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> Another device that is used to improve traffic flow and to prevent cut
>> throughs (two applications for the same theory) is totally prohibiting
>> certain turns durring commute times. But you'll blather on about how this
>> can never work for you blah blah blah. how it can never work anywhere
>> blah blah blah. how it's just speeders wanting to go as fast as they want
>> blah blah blah. However it's in practice in a number of areas I both ride
>> and drive through.

> You show an astonishing confidence that you know more about my
> neighborhood than I do!

I didn't say anything about your neighborhood above frank. Your
dishonesty is showing, better tuck it in.

> Five lane arterial. This street tees into it, about 1000 feet before a
> traffic light. And when certain drivers see a red light ahead, they
> zoom into a right turn into this neighborhood, zigzag through several
> intersections and past two schools, then turn out again onto another
> arterial.

Why on earth do they leave the arterial for?

> If the village posted a "no right turn M-F, 4:30 - 6:00 PM" or something
> similar, this is what would happen:

> 1) local residents would be prohibited from driving into their own
> neighborhood - except, I suppose, by driving around the other way.
> Would you put up with that?

> 2) Parents picking up kids at late school functions would have that same
> problem.
>
> 3) The cut through drivers would ignore the sign, UNLESS a cop was there
> to enforce it.
>
> IOW, we'd trade the cop-with-radar-gun that you despise, for a
> cop-watching-for-illegal-turns.
>
> Perhaps, in your world view, this is somehow an improvment. But it
> seems this would be more desirable only for those people trying to
> distract cops from enforcing speed limits.
>
> However, in that sense, it _is_ consistent with your other ideas.

Oh, the drawbacks to other ideas are meaningful, the drawbacks to speed
humps you don't care. Those sound about as bad as the speed hump
and speed limit drawbacks to me. You're just looking for any trivial
reason to dismiss anything else.

Seriously, if I had to go the long way around? Well, if speed humps were
put in, I'd have to go the long way around too. It's a draw in that
regard. At least I could use the road going out, which I couldn't without
risking damange with a hump. I'd have to go the long way around BOTH ways
with the hump. Only one way with the no turn sign.

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 07:32 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> Because I would have to measure my car and my car wasn't with me when
>> I wrote that post. Now it's raining and you're not worth getting wet for.
>>
>> If you're so damn interested, find a '97 mustang, measure from the ground
>> to the bottom of the door skin.
>
> Whew! This sounds like a very, very elaborate evasion! Imagine
> requiring a Mustang to measure a bump height!
>
> Most people would just stick a ruler out the door and measure. Unless,
> of course, they knew they'd be embarrassed by the result!

The stealth hump is about 35 miles away. dumbass.

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 07:39 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> Nobody wants
>> terrorists to attack, nobody wants dirty air, and nobody wants teenagers
>> doing 80 on a residential street.
>
> Nobody here wants teenagers doing _40_ on a residential street. That's
> why it's posted 25.

Ahh, frank is just going to repeat the same dishonesty with a lower
number.

> But in this conversation, that's not good enough.

Yep.

< To satisfy the
> motorheads, we've got to prove to a kid in Chicago that there's _some_
> way to enforce this speed limit, hundreds of miles away, beyond revising
> America's speed limits _upward_ across the board. We've got to prove to
> a Car & Driver subscriber that cars actually can and do maim pedestrians
> legally crossing the road. We've got to prove to a Miata driver that 3"
> undulations won't destroy his cute little car.

Frank goes off the deep end.

> I know I'm wasting my time. The reality is, people have their own
> interests and their own paradigms. Some folks live for community
> service, some live for their soap operas, and others live to drive fast
> in their cars. And logic has no effect on a person's priorities in life.

Frank insults again.

> Carry on, guys. Just stay out of my neighborhood.

Nobody has been telling you what to do frank. You just seem to think
speed humps are for your neighborhood and everywhere else. I tried to
open your eyes to other things. Keep your blinders on.

Tom Keats

October 2nd 04, 08:22 AM

In article <XCr7d.55012$He1.19681@attbi_s01>,
(Brent P) writes:
> In article >, Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> Anything for the cause, no matter how low you have to go.

/Your/ words. Not mine.

>> And thank you for being motoring's Goodwill Ambassador.
>>
>> You've just spoken volumes.
>
> It's clear nothing has changed over in r.b.s.... Go have another helmet
> war or something.

Whatever. Just please try not to kill or hurt anyone
as you try to manoeuver your big fat vehicle around.

FWIW, I'm not posting from r.b.s.

And you've just spoken even more volumes.

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

Just zis Guy, you know?

October 2nd 04, 10:26 AM

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:18:31 -0400, Nate Nagel >
wrote in message >:

>Too bad we were talking about Interstates and to a
>lesser extent other highways, to which your rant has no relevance.

Other than the obvious fact that they were originally paved thanks in
part to pressure from bicyclists' organisations :o)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Nate Nagel

October 2nd 04, 12:58 PM

Tom Keats wrote:

> In article >,
> Nate Nagel > writes:
>
>
>>Wow, what a rant. Too bad we were talking about Interstates and to a
>>lesser extent other highways, to which your rant has no relevance.
>
>
> Highways can and do slash through cities. Some cities are even
> afflicted and intruded upon with expressways.
>

True, but a true Interstate should not have pedestrians, cyclists, or
parking spaces...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 2nd 04, 01:26 PM

Zoot Katz wrote:

> Sat, 02 Oct 2004 03:21:31 GMT,
> >, Alan Baker
> > wrote:
>
>
>>What do you think you're talking about? Wouldn't raising limits to where
>>they should be on ordinary roads leave the police with more time to
>>monitor speeds in school zones?
>
>
> **** that, put in cameras. I strongly support red light and radar
> cameras. Let robots monitor the metal lemmings. And make the fines
> hefty enough to pay for the system. No court. You're caught, pay up.
> Keep moving.
>
> Cops have more important jobs to do. Like maybe even look for some hit
> & run killers.

You obviously aren't familiar with the way cameras are implemented
around here. The RLC's are frequently installed in places where the
yellow lights are unusually short for the speed of traffic on a given
road, and/or the lights are actually shortened after the cameras are
installed. The speed cameras are usually installed in the most grossly
underposted stretches of road. Two that I can think of off the top of
my head (both in DC) are US-50 near North Dakota and DC-295 between
US-50 and Alexandria (I-495.) Both feed Interstate highways (US-50
actually becomes I-595 in Maryland, although it is not signed as such.
I believe that I-595 is the stretch from Kenilworth Ave. to the Bay
Bridge, but I wouldn't swear to it. DC-295 cuts the corner on I-495 and
also is itself an Interstate in certain stretches) and are (well, were)
commonly traveled at 65ish MPH. The speed limit on both roads is in the
neighborhood of 40-45 MPH although both are indistinguishable from roads
that are posted much higher. (no cross streets, limited access,
multiple lanes, etc.)

It's a money grab, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with safety.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 04:50 PM

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>
>>As I (and others) mentioned, and you ignored, there is a _strong_
>>correlation between the probability of pedestrian fatality and vehicle
>>speed.
>
>
> Frank makes the crashing-well case for 5mph speed limits. Don't bother
> fixing anything, just make people drive a walking pace!
>
>
>>>The school zone isn't made safer by under posting the rest of the roads.
>
>
>>"The rest of the roads" contain people trying to cross them on foot, or
>>bicyclists trying to ride to their destination, or perhaps Amish buggies
>>taking their passengers to work or to stores.
>
>
> Why don't you just argue for banning driving Frank? After all, that's
> pretty much what you want.
>
>
>>The point is, the "85th percentile" advocates pay no attention to injury
>>or fatality rates for these legal road users. Again: if a person's not
>>in a car, they literally don't count.
>
>
> Again, I ride the roads I drive. Do you think I want to make the roads
> more dangerous for myself when I use my bicycle? Probably, or maybe
> you'll just call me a liar about riding. That would be par for the course
> with you.
>
>
>>You may do what you like with limited access roads. But on other roads,
>>there _are_ other things to consider besides the desires of the drivers.
>> And the essense of the "85%" rule of thumb is, give the drivers
>>whatever they desire.
>
>
> I'm not always a driver Frank. I do "wierd" stuff, like walk in
> pedestrian hostile suburbs. The two blocks between work and the little
> place I like to a sasuage sammich at is a particularly crappy walk, with
> no sidewalks. Road is posted at 35mph, traffic generally doesn't exceed
> 30-35mph during the day. Town is a speed trap. Yet the pedestrain
> facilities are still nonexistant. Slow speed and ped unfriendly. I also
> have been using this same segment of road with my bicycle for years. It's
> no better or worse than any other arterial to ride.
>
> Of course you'll dismiss this as all lies... because it doesn't suit you
> that someone who walks, rides a bicycle, etc and so forth would also be
> for properly set 85th percentile speed limits.

No, I dismiss it all as obvious straw man arguments and other logical
fallacies.

The straw man sections are in the first few paragraphs. I never called
for 5 mph speed limits. I never called for banning all driving. But
those ideas are a lot easier to refute than my actual points, aren't they?

I'd say the final paragraph is a sort of inductive fallacy. You've found
one place with slower driving speeds and no sidewalks, and you feel that
absolutely proves slower speeds are without value. That's an obvious
logical disconnect.

In between those are your claim that you ride a bicycle. Actually, I've
always believed that claim. But it seems to me that when a choice has
to be made, you'll lobby to make things better for motorists, even if
they make things worse for bicyclists, pedestrians and others.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 04:57 PM

Brent P wrote:

>
> Seriously, if I had to go the long way around? Well, if speed humps were
> put in, I'd have to go the long way around too.

Driving an unmodified, properly maintained Mustang at the proper speed
over a properly designed speed hump, you will have no problem.

I know because I have actually done exactly that. At the moment, I
can't tell you the model year of the Mustang, but I can find out by
e-mailing the owner.

IOW: There, there, Brent. That boogeyman won't _really_ get you! It's
all right.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 05:00 PM

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
> It's a money grab, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with safety.
>

So drive the speed limit whether you like it or not. Or else, pay.

Why is this hard to understand??

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 05:09 PM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> Hmm. Did I touch another nerve? Are you typically obsessed with your
> travel time?
>
> Or are you merely at the limit of your thinking ability?
No, many of us think that you come off as a know-it-all
who thinks that everyone else is wrong because they
do not agree with your take on things. I personally would
not want to have to listen to one of your lectures in
college.

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 05:13 PM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> In between those are your claim that you ride a bicycle. Actually, I've
> always believed that claim. But it seems to me that when a choice has
> to be made, you'll lobby to make things better for motorists, even if
> they make things worse for bicyclists, pedestrians and others.
If a balance has to be struck, I would indeed make it in favor
of cars and trucks as this is the primary reason why we build
roads.

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 05:24 PM

"Brent P" > wrote in message
news:XCr7d.55012$He1.19681@attbi_s01...
> In article >, Tom Keats wrote:
>
> > No, it isn't.
>
> Anything for the cause, no matter how low you have to go.
>
> > And thank you for being motoring's Goodwill Ambassador.
> >
> > You've just spoken volumes.
>
> It's clear nothing has changed over in r.b.s.... Go have another helmet
> war or something.
Where do you think I am posting from? You have a 1 in 4 chance.

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 05:26 PM

"Brent P" > wrote in message
news:DQn7d.398559$8_6.200668@attbi_s04...
> I don't care if the guy is doing 2mph or 200mph
I would rather not have someone pass me doing 200 mph.
Not my idea of a fun time.

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 05:39 PM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> Finally, it's possible for someone to make snide comments, while
> blatantly demonstrating that they haven't given a moment's thought to
> real-life situations on real roads. Like those above. Talk about obtuse!
Right. You should read what you just wrote. Repeat this several
times and maybe you will understand why it appears that you
were writing about yourself.

Eric S. Sande

October 2nd 04, 05:44 PM

>It's a money grab, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with safety.

Yeah, an outright commuter tax would be better but the likelihood of
getting a commuter tax law passed in DC is low.

Still, I can't think of a better way to make the suckers pay for the
infrastructure they tear up and the services they use nine to five,
it's better than taxing the pee out of the residents (which is the
current model).

Why should a population of 600,000 have to shoulder the burden of
an additional 600,000 person load every day? As far as I'm concerned
let's put speed cameras everywhere, we have the technology all ready
with the surveillance cameras.

Unfortunately traffic here is all ready at crawling speed, what we
really need is toll booths on all the approaches. Want to drive a
car into DC? Fine. Ten dollars, please. Want to park a car in DC,
anywhere, for a day? Fine. Ten dollars, please.

Can't show proof of residency at the coffee shop? Fine. Ten dollars,
please. This could get so ridiculous so fast that we'd get our damn
commuter tax.

And we need it. As a resident of the District I do not favor statehood,
the pupose of a stateless District much as Ottawa or Canberra is in part
to provide a neutral Federal ground beholden to no state or province.

But it is too much to ask of the natural residents of the District to
support the bestial habits of the Virginians, Marylanders, and, I may
add, some misconstrued Delawarians, Pennsylvanians, and West Virginans,
that proud yet obfuscated tribe, who insist on driving to work.

Cannot we reason together? I say they must pay, inasmuch as other US
cities have a commuter tax so must the District.

--

_______________________ALL AMIGA IN MY MIND_______________________
------------------"Buddy Holly, the Texas Elvis"------------------

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 05:45 PM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah. Thanks. And Brent gets offended when we claim that you guys want
> to speed.
I can certainly state that I will never see the top speed of
my car. They have a top speed of just over 160 mph when
they are stock, and mine is no longer stock. It would probably
do close to 170 mph, but I would never want to try this
even on a race track.

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 05:51 PM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> Sometimes you really do have to be in the place in question, on the
> ground, to have a hope of understanding. This is why your theories fail.
There should be some alternatives to speed humps that would
help out. My neighbor has resorted to parking his company
car on the street and it has indeed slowed people down. The
neighborhood streets that have cars parked on them do not
have a lot of speeders. It just isn't easy to maneuver through
the parked cars at speeds over 25 mph.

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 05:55 PM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> Five lane arterial. This street tees into it, about 1000 feet before a
> traffic light. And when certain drivers see a red light ahead, they
> zoom into a right turn into this neighborhood, zigzag through several
> intersections and past two schools, then turn out again onto another
> arterial.
Install a really tight round about near the schools that will
force people to slow down to 20 mph or less to get through it.

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 05:58 PM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> Driving an unmodified, properly maintained Mustang at the proper speed
> over a properly designed speed hump, you will have no problem.
I can tell you for a fact that Mustangs are higher off the ground
than my Corvette. I looked at a new Mustang Cobra last fall,
but decided to trade my truck in on a new truck instead.

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 06:06 PM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> So drive the speed limit whether you like it or not. Or else, pay.
>
> Why is this hard to understand??
I read an article where a city was forced to increase the time
for the yellow light because the company that installed the
red light cameras had shortened the timing in order to catch
people who couldn't clear the light.

For instance, if you were driving through at 25 mph in a
35 mph zone, they would catch you because you wouldn't
have time to clear the intersection in the allotted time.

The company installing the lights was getting a percentage
of the ticket revenue in exchange for a better price on the
photo radar units. That was their motivation for modifying
the timing. They got caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

George Conklin

October 2nd 04, 06:29 PM

"Mark Jones" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> "Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In between those are your claim that you ride a bicycle. Actually, I've
>> always believed that claim. But it seems to me that when a choice has
>> to be made, you'll lobby to make things better for motorists, even if
>> they make things worse for bicyclists, pedestrians and others.
> If a balance has to be struck, I would indeed make it in favor
> of cars and trucks as this is the primary reason why we build
> roads.
>
>

By slowing down traffic, if bicycles were common on the roads, not only
would accident rates soar, but the cost of lost time would be in the
trillions of $ what with traffic slowed to that of a bicycle rider.

Zoot Katz

October 2nd 04, 06:46 PM

Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:51:18 GMT,
t>,
"Mark Jones" > wrote:

> It just isn't easy to maneuver through
>the parked cars at speeds over 25 mph.

Yet you silly scum clots figure it's okay to blast through cross walks
at 40+ just so a pedestrian doesn't dare step out in front of you. I
mean, you might have to take your foot off the accelerator for two
seconds. It's so much easier to just push down. And it is so much fun
to watch them jump back onto the curb.

I think most crosswalks would be better if they were raised ones. Make
them into speed tables to force compliance. Give the streets back to
the people who live there. They should have precedence over scud
jockeys just passing through.
--
zk

Zoot Katz

October 2nd 04, 06:48 PM

Sat, 02 Oct 2004 08:26:17 -0400, >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:

>You obviously aren't familiar with the way cameras are implemented
>around here.

I am familiar enough with your whining to know that cameras are an
excellent method for gaining compliance with the existing laws.

Your bulldadda doesn't wash, whiner. Most municipalities with
red-light cameras discover they're not revenue generators because the
less stupid cagers stop running red-lights at those intersections.
--
zk

Zoot Katz

October 2nd 04, 07:02 PM

Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:29:36 GMT,
t>,
"George Conklin" > wrote:

> By slowing down traffic, if bicycles were common on the roads, not only
>would accident rates soar, but the cost of lost time would be in the
>trillions of $ what with traffic slowed to that of a bicycle rider.

You're sounding dumber than ever with that bulldadda. I love riding by
you festering in your impotent carapace while you sit stalled by the
scud clump still miles away up the road. BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

"The model American male devotes more than 1,600 hours a year to
his car. He sits in it while it goes and while it stands idling. He
parks it and searches for it. He earns the money to put down on it and
to meet the monthly installments. He works to pay for gasoline, tolls,
insurance, taxes, and tickets. He spends four of his sixteen waking
hours on the road or gathering his resources for it. And this figure
does not take into account the time consumed by other activities
dictated by transport: time spent in hospitals, traffic courts, and
garages; time spent watching automobile commercials or attending
consumer education meetings to improve the quality of the next buy."

"The model American puts in 1,600 hours to get 7,500 miles: less
than five miles per hour. In countries deprived of a transportation
industry, people manage to do the same, walking wherever they want to
go, and they allocate only 3 to 8 per cent of their society's time
budget to traffic instead of 28 per cent. What distinguishes the
traffic in rich countries from the traffic in poor countries is not
more mileage per hour of life-time for the majority, but more hours of
compulsory consumption of high doses of energy, packaged and unequally
distributed by the transportation industry."

From "Energy and Equity" by Ivan Illich
--
zk

Zoot Katz

October 2nd 04, 07:12 PM

Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:55:25 GMT,
et>,
"Mark Jones" > wrote:

>Install a really tight round about near the schools that will
>force people to slow down to 20 mph or less to get through it.

A roundabout and curb bulbs do slow most traffic to less dangerous
speeds but they also incite you brats who consider themselves "above
average" drivers to race through like its a slalom course.
--
zk

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 08:14 PM

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:51:18 GMT,
> t>,
> "Mark Jones" > wrote:
>
> > It just isn't easy to maneuver through
> >the parked cars at speeds over 25 mph.
>
> Yet you silly scum clots figure it's okay to blast through cross walks
> at 40+ just so a pedestrian doesn't dare step out in front of you. I
> mean, you might have to take your foot off the accelerator for two
> seconds. It's so much easier to just push down. And it is so much fun
> to watch them jump back onto the curb.
>
> I think most crosswalks would be better if they were raised ones. Make
> them into speed tables to force compliance. Give the streets back to
> the people who live there. They should have precedence over scud
> jockeys just passing through.
You should go take your meds. They might calm you down.

Mark Jones

October 2nd 04, 08:15 PM

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:55:25 GMT,
> et>,
> "Mark Jones" > wrote:
>
> >Install a really tight round about near the schools that will
> >force people to slow down to 20 mph or less to get through it.
>
> A roundabout and curb bulbs do slow most traffic to less dangerous
> speeds but they also incite you brats who consider themselves "above
> average" drivers to race through like its a slalom course.

You have no suggestions or solutions, only complaints.

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 09:37 PM

Mark Jones wrote:

> "Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>In between those are your claim that you ride a bicycle. Actually, I've
>>always believed that claim. But it seems to me that when a choice has
>>to be made, you'll lobby to make things better for motorists, even if
>>they make things worse for bicyclists, pedestrians and others.
>
> If a balance has to be struck, I would indeed make it in favor
> of cars and trucks as this is the primary reason why we build
> roads.

Why are today's kids so ignorant of history?

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 2nd 04, 09:38 PM

Eric S. Sande wrote:

>>It's a money grab, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with safety.
>
>
> Yeah, an outright commuter tax would be better but the likelihood of
> getting a commuter tax law passed in DC is low.
>
> Still, I can't think of a better way to make the suckers pay for the
> infrastructure they tear up and the services they use nine to five,
> it's better than taxing the pee out of the residents (which is the
> current model).
>
> Why should a population of 600,000 have to shoulder the burden of
> an additional 600,000 person load every day? As far as I'm concerned
> let's put speed cameras everywhere, we have the technology all ready
> with the surveillance cameras.
>
> Unfortunately traffic here is all ready at crawling speed, what we
> really need is toll booths on all the approaches. Want to drive a
> car into DC? Fine. Ten dollars, please. Want to park a car in DC,
> anywhere, for a day? Fine. Ten dollars, please.

As I understand it, they've implemented something like this in the
center of London. It's working well, from what I hear. I don't know
the details, though.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

George Conklin

October 2nd 04, 09:43 PM

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Sat, 02 Oct 2004 17:29:36 GMT,
> t>,
> "George Conklin" > wrote:
>
>> By slowing down traffic, if bicycles were common on the roads, not only
>>would accident rates soar, but the cost of lost time would be in the
>>trillions of $ what with traffic slowed to that of a bicycle rider.
>
> You're sounding dumber than ever with that bulldadda. I love riding by
> you festering in your impotent carapace while you sit stalled by the
> scud clump still miles away up the road. BWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!
>

Lowering the national speed limits in 1974 helped clog up the roads by
making allowing fewer vehicles to pass a given point over a fixed period.
To lower that speed to 10 mph for bicycles would be an economic disaster.

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 09:54 PM

In article >, Tom Keats wrote:

> Whatever. Just please try not to kill or hurt anyone
> as you try to manoeuver your big fat vehicle around.

I didn't know a cannondale R600 was a 'big fat vehicle'

Zoot Katz

October 2nd 04, 09:55 PM

Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:15:00 GMT,
et>, "Mark Jones"
> wrote:

>You have no suggestions or solutions, only complaints.

I've been suggesting all along that the exhaust be routed into the car
instead of to the outside. Somehow you whiners want to complain about
that too. So, I will berate you and your preferred transportation mode
because it's a threat to everyone.
Choke.
--
zk

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 09:58 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> I'm not always a driver Frank. I do "wierd" stuff, like walk in
>> pedestrian hostile suburbs. The two blocks between work and the little
>> place I like to a sasuage sammich at is a particularly crappy walk, with
>> no sidewalks. Road is posted at 35mph, traffic generally doesn't exceed
>> 30-35mph during the day. Town is a speed trap. Yet the pedestrain
>> facilities are still nonexistant. Slow speed and ped unfriendly. I also
>> have been using this same segment of road with my bicycle for years. It's
>> no better or worse than any other arterial to ride.
>>
>> Of course you'll dismiss this as all lies... because it doesn't suit you
>> that someone who walks, rides a bicycle, etc and so forth would also be
>> for properly set 85th percentile speed limits.

> No, I dismiss it all as obvious straw man arguments and other logical
> fallacies.

> The straw man sections are in the first few paragraphs. I never called
> for 5 mph speed limits. I never called for banning all driving.

Re-read. You're making a case FOR 5mph speed limits. By saying you want
speeds where peds will survive an impact with a car, you are effectively
making a case for 5mph speeds and/or the elimination of driving entirely.
Because there really isn't a safe speed for the collision of a motor
vehicle with a person.

We have to work on a system where by the ped and motor vehicle or ped and
bicyclist (another no-safe-speed collision type) simply do not collide.
This may or may not mean lower speeds.

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 10:06 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>
>> Seriously, if I had to go the long way around? Well, if speed humps were
>> put in, I'd have to go the long way around too.
>
> Driving an unmodified, properly maintained Mustang at the proper speed
> over a properly designed speed hump, you will have no problem.

Yet the catalyst still scraped at 15mph on a 30mph street. (chicago
default speed limit)

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 10:09 PM

In article t>, Mark Jones wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Driving an unmodified, properly maintained Mustang at the proper speed
>> over a properly designed speed hump, you will have no problem.
> I can tell you for a fact that Mustangs are higher off the ground
> than my Corvette. I looked at a new Mustang Cobra last fall,
> but decided to trade my truck in on a new truck instead.

The body is... but the way the exhaust is mounted puts the last set of
catalysts as the low point. I've never measured it, but I haven't bought
an aftermarket X pipe because it uses bigger catalysts to achieve greater
flow without changing emissions. The problem is they further reduce
ground clearance.

Brent P

October 2nd 04, 10:11 PM

In article et>, Mark Jones wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> news:DQn7d.398559$8_6.200668@attbi_s04...
>> I don't care if the guy is doing 2mph or 200mph
> I would rather not have someone pass me doing 200 mph.
> Not my idea of a fun time.

If he's 12 feet away it's better than someone about to hook my handlebars
with the side mirror at 20mph.

Nate Nagel

October 2nd 04, 10:49 PM

Frank Krygowski > wrote in message >...
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Certainly I've come near to getting in trouble
> > before because of applying that "extra" to advisory curve speed signs...
> > when you navigate a "25 MPH" curve at 50 every day and then you see a
> > 25 MPH advisory sign on an unfamiliar road... and the curve tightens...
> > and what that sign meant was really "your tires will start howling at 30
> > MPH" that's a Bad Thing (tm) But that's a little off topic, neh?
>
> Not at all. It's a direct confession that boys and their toys will
> speed, thinking their "skills" justify that behavior. And they will
> screw up occasionally, because they're not nearly as competent as they
> imagine.
>

Well, since I've only had that happen to me a couple times, and I've
managed to controlled-four-wheel-drift my way out of trouble each
time, I can't be *completely* unskilled, neh?

> This is why that age group has a comparatively lousy safety record.

And what age group might that be?

> And why we can't trust their judgement, especially when they drive
> through a residential neighborhood.
>

Warning, warning, logical inconsistency.

> And hey, thanks for justifying what we've been saying.

Who's "we?"

nate

Arif Khokar

October 3rd 04, 02:20 AM

Brent P wrote:

> I didn't know a cannondale R600 was a 'big fat vehicle'

Well, compared to the minicycles that circus clowns use ... ;)

George Conklin

October 3rd 04, 02:22 AM

"Zoot Katz" > wrote in message
...
> Sat, 02 Oct 2004 19:15:00 GMT,
> et>, "Mark Jones"
> > wrote:
>
>>You have no suggestions or solutions, only complaints.
>
> I've been suggesting all along that the exhaust be routed into the car
> instead of to the outside. Somehow you whiners want to complain about
> that too. So, I will berate you and your preferred transportation mode
> because it's a threat to everyone.
> Choke.
> --
> zk

Public transit uses MORE fuel than cars do per btu per passenger mile.

Mark Jones

October 3rd 04, 03:08 AM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> Why are today's kids so ignorant of history?
Enlighten us as to why you think we build roads.

Mark Jones

October 3rd 04, 03:15 AM

"Brent P" > wrote in message
news:4QE7d.308873$Fg5.291739@attbi_s53...
> In article et>, Mark
Jones wrote:
> >
> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
> > news:DQn7d.398559$8_6.200668@attbi_s04...
> >> I don't care if the guy is doing 2mph or 200mph
> > I would rather not have someone pass me doing 200 mph.
> > Not my idea of a fun time.
>
> If he's 12 feet away it's better than someone about to hook my handlebars
> with the side mirror at 20mph.
Even if I was doing my normal 1/4 mile speed of 105 mph, having
someone pass by me going 95 mph faster isn't something I ever
want to do.

Brent P

October 3rd 04, 03:52 AM

In article et>, Mark Jones wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> news:4QE7d.308873$Fg5.291739@attbi_s53...
>> In article et>, Mark
> Jones wrote:
>> >
>> > "Brent P" > wrote in message
>> > news:DQn7d.398559$8_6.200668@attbi_s04...
>> >> I don't care if the guy is doing 2mph or 200mph
>> > I would rather not have someone pass me doing 200 mph.
>> > Not my idea of a fun time.
>>
>> If he's 12 feet away it's better than someone about to hook my handlebars
>> with the side mirror at 20mph.
> Even if I was doing my normal 1/4 mile speed of 105 mph, having
> someone pass by me going 95 mph faster isn't something I ever
> want to do.

The point I was making is that having the passing vehicle further away is
more important than it's speed.

Nate Nagel

October 3rd 04, 05:33 AM

Mark Jones wrote:

> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> news:4QE7d.308873$Fg5.291739@attbi_s53...
>
>>In article et>, Mark
>
> Jones wrote:
>
>>>"Brent P" > wrote in message
>>>news:DQn7d.398559$8_6.200668@attbi_s04...
>>>
>>>>I don't care if the guy is doing 2mph or 200mph
>>>
>>>I would rather not have someone pass me doing 200 mph.
>>>Not my idea of a fun time.
>>
>>If he's 12 feet away it's better than someone about to hook my handlebars
>>with the side mirror at 20mph.
>
> Even if I was doing my normal 1/4 mile speed of 105 mph, having
> someone pass by me going 95 mph faster isn't something I ever
> want to do.
>

Well, you'd better not try bracket racing against any funny cars then <G>

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Frank Krygowski

October 3rd 04, 06:52 PM

Zoot Katz wrote:

> Sat, 02 Oct 2004 16:55:25 GMT,
> et>,
> "Mark Jones" > wrote:
>
>
>>Install a really tight round about near the schools that will
>>force people to slow down to 20 mph or less to get through it.
>
>
> A roundabout and curb bulbs do slow most traffic to less dangerous
> speeds but they also incite you brats who consider themselves "above
> average" drivers to race through like its a slalom course.

And, of course, if the roundabout does any good, it would do it only in
the vicinity of the roundabout.

But Mark's idea of adding road features to slow traffic is fine. To
make his idea more effective, the road features should occur more
frequently than just at one spot; and they should be less expensive than
a roundabout.

Hence, the idea of the speed humps.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 3rd 04, 07:01 PM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>The straw man sections are in the first few paragraphs. I never called
>>for 5 mph speed limits. I never called for banning all driving.
>
>
> Re-read. You're making a case FOR 5mph speed limits.

If you say it once, I can point out that it's a strawman argument, a
common (if slightly dishonest) debating trick.

Since you say it again after your trick has been pointed out, I must
point out it's now a deliberate lie.

At this point, you can either admit you're lying, or you can prove I'm
wrong by citing the specific quote where I seriously advocate 5 mph
speed limits. Alternately, you can go back to your usual evasion.

My bet is, you lack the guts for the first choice, and you lack the
facts to back up the second choice. So I expect a quick evasive
maneuver - probably a change of subject.

You're up, Brent.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 3rd 04, 07:13 PM

Nate Nagel wrote:
> ... I've only had that happen to me a couple times, and I've
> managed to controlled-four-wheel-drift my way out of trouble each
> time, I can't be *completely* unskilled, neh?

If you're doing "controlled-four-wheel-drifts" on public roads, you must
be completely irresponsible, and not particularly intelligent.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 3rd 04, 07:48 PM

Mark Jones wrote:

> "Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Why are today's kids so ignorant of history?
>
> Enlighten us as to why you think we build roads.

Seriously??

Are you actually unaware that roads predate cars and trucks by several
millenia?

Roads are built for transportation. But transportation includes many
modes that have nothing to do with cars and trucks. Pedestrians,
bicycles, horses and horse-drawn vehicles, farm tractors and trailers,
construction equipment, etc. are all examples of things that roads have
been, and are, built to accommodate.

It's a common idea among motorists that these alternatives have no right
to the road. But that idea is false. In fact, cars are in a sense the
interlopers. You actually need special permission - in the form of
licenses and registration - to operate your car on the road.

It's good to keep this in mind.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 3rd 04, 08:08 PM

Brent P wrote:

>
> The problem is politics in the USA. Anyone against RLC's gets the 'frank
> treatment'. People for RLCs will claim the objectors are for running red
> lights and are selfish people who'd kill children to save a second on
> their commute,etc etc. Meanwhile the real objection to RLC's, that they
> don't fix the intersection's underlying problems and can be tweaked to
> work against the citizens, even those who have no intention to ever run a
> red light.

How interesting! Brent is against all of the following:

a) Enforcing the state-mandated speed limits in my village, a village he
knows nothing about.

b) Speed humps, even though they are well accepted and successful in
thousands and thousands of installations

c) Cameras which automatically catch red light runners.

I assume you're also against cameras which automatically catch speeders,
of course. It fits in with your consistent philosophy of making things
wonderful for all motorists, even those driving illegally and irresponsibly.

Yet we know _you_ always drive responsibly!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Nate Nagel

October 3rd 04, 10:37 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> ... I've only had that happen to me a couple times, and I've
>> managed to controlled-four-wheel-drift my way out of trouble each
>> time, I can't be *completely* unskilled, neh?
>
>
> If you're doing "controlled-four-wheel-drifts" on public roads, you must
> be completely irresponsible, and not particularly intelligent.
>

You've never driven I-79 north from Morgantown to Pittsburgh, have you?
There's a 270 degree turn in the middle of a freaking Interstate - not
an offramp or onramp, the main highway itself - that has a caution sign
suggesting 25 MPH... and really, 30 MPH is all you can push it to, at
least in the car I was driving at the time (my girlfriend's Cavalier.)
How this could occur is left as an exercise for the reader. It
obviously violates the Interstate design guidelines.

I did learn from that experience, believe me. I did that exactly
*once.* I fail to see, however, how one would reasonably be expected to
anticipate such a road feature on an Interstate highway without prior
knowledge of it.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 3rd 04, 10:47 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem is politics in the USA. Anyone against RLC's gets the
>> 'frank treatment'. People for RLCs will claim the objectors are for
>> running red lights and are selfish people who'd kill children to save
>> a second on their commute,etc etc. Meanwhile the real objection to
>> RLC's, that they don't fix the intersection's underlying problems and
>> can be tweaked to work against the citizens, even those who have no
>> intention to ever run a red light.
>
>
> How interesting! Brent is against all of the following:
>
> a) Enforcing the state-mandated speed limits in my village, a village he
> knows nothing about.
>
> b) Speed humps, even though they are well accepted and successful in
> thousands and thousands of installations
>

Hello, if they are "well accepted and successful," why are we having
this discussion? Shouldn't I just agree with you?

> c) Cameras which automatically catch red light runners.
>
> I assume you're also against cameras which automatically catch speeders,
> of course. It fits in with your consistent philosophy of making things
> wonderful for all motorists, even those driving illegally and
> irresponsibly.
>

*I* am against the cameras, because I have seen them abused for revenue
purposes. A good rule of thumb is to automatically oppose any automatic
device which gives out fines, because almost inevitably, someone,
somewhere will abuse that device for financial gain.

> Yet we know _you_ always drive responsibly!
>

that's not logically inconsistent, unlike many of your assertions.

Geez, I lose my killfile for one day, and I am suddenly and sadly
reminded just many moronic posts are made to this newsgroup every
frickin' day.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 01:56 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>> If you're doing "controlled-four-wheel-drifts" on public roads, you
>> must be completely irresponsible, and not particularly intelligent.
>>
>
> You've never driven I-79 north from Morgantown to Pittsburgh, have you?

Why yes, actually I have.

> There's a 270 degree turn in the middle of a freaking Interstate - not
> an offramp or onramp, the main highway itself - that has a caution sign
> suggesting 25 MPH... and really, 30 MPH is all you can push it to, at
> least in the car I was driving at the time (my girlfriend's Cavalier.)
....
>
> I did that exactly
> *once.* I fail to see, however, how one would reasonably be expected to
> anticipate such a road feature on an Interstate highway without prior
> knowledge of it.

I'm sure _you_ fail to see that.

OTOH, that road carries - what - perhaps 50,000 vehicles per day?

It's my bet that there are _very_ few people who have had to do a
"controlled four wheel drift" to make it through that turn. In fact, on
a typical day, I expect 49,999 out of 50,000 people are able to handle
it as a normal event on the road.

This may say something about your percentile ranking in real-world
driving skills.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 01:57 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> If you're doing "controlled-four-wheel-drifts" on public roads, you
>>> must be completely irresponsible, and not particularly intelligent.
>>>
>>
>> You've never driven I-79 north from Morgantown to Pittsburgh, have you?
>
>
> Why yes, actually I have.
>
>
>> There's a 270 degree turn in the middle of a freaking Interstate -
>> not an offramp or onramp, the main highway itself - that has a caution
>> sign suggesting 25 MPH... and really, 30 MPH is all you can push it
>> to, at least in the car I was driving at the time (my girlfriend's
>> Cavalier.)
>
> ...
>
>>
>> I did that exactly *once.* I fail to see, however, how one would
>> reasonably be expected to anticipate such a road feature on an
>> Interstate highway without prior knowledge of it.
>
>
> I'm sure _you_ fail to see that.
>
> OTOH, that road carries - what - perhaps 50,000 vehicles per day?
>
> It's my bet that there are _very_ few people who have had to do a
> "controlled four wheel drift" to make it through that turn. In fact, on
> a typical day, I expect 49,999 out of 50,000 people are able to handle
> it as a normal event on the road.

Because they've become aware of the unusual conditions. However, a
person from another area who hasn't had any interaction with the locals
might assume, based on prior experience, that "25 MPH" on a sign really
means something like 45-50 MPH in the real world, as it does in many
places. Unless there's other traffic in close proximity (the fact that
everyone familiar with the road would slow way down might be a clue to
an observant driver) there's really no way to tell.

However, the marks on the concrete barriers give evidence that more than
a few drivers have been caught unaware by this unusual feature.

>
> This may say something about your percentile ranking in real-world
> driving skills.
>

It just illustrates my point that speed signs should have meaning, so
that they are not ignored when they really are trying to tell you
something important. Had I been conditioned to associate real meaning
with curve advisory speeds, I would have slowed down far more than I
did. But when every 55 MPH offramp has a 25 or 30 MPH advisory sign...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Brent P

October 4th 04, 02:08 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>The straw man sections are in the first few paragraphs. I never called
>>>for 5 mph speed limits. I never called for banning all driving.
>>
>>
>> Re-read. You're making a case FOR 5mph speed limits.
>
> If you say it once, I can point out that it's a strawman argument, a
> common (if slightly dishonest) debating trick.

> Since you say it again after your trick has been pointed out, I must
> point out it's now a deliberate lie.
>
> At this point, you can either admit you're lying, or you can prove I'm
> wrong by citing the specific quote where I seriously advocate 5 mph
> speed limits. Alternately, you can go back to your usual evasion.

> My bet is, you lack the guts for the first choice, and you lack the
> facts to back up the second choice. So I expect a quick evasive
> maneuver - probably a change of subject.
>
> You're up, Brent.

You should have read the rest of the post frank. Your snippage and reply
shows your true nature. And even if I was doing what you claim, it's only
your SOP. Why are you bitching about what you do in practically every post?

Anyway, once you bring up survivability of motor vehicle - ped collisions
you are making an arguement for walking pace speeds or not driving at
all. Simply put, there is NO SAFE SPEED for a car to hit a person. None,
zero. If you are going to try and make these collisions survivable,
you'll need to start limiting speed to the signal digits. It's the only
way to make this happen.

Now, you may argue that 25mph means more of a chance to get to 5mph
before impact. However, it's unlikely to have that kind of warning of an
impending collision with a ped. The pedestrian will often do something
sudden and unexpected or appear right in front of the driver having poped
out from behind a parked van or similiar visual obstruction that would
already serve to lower speeds to 25mph. Because of this, the impact will
often be very close to the speed the driver was going before the ped
put himself into the path of the motorist. Thusly, if you want peds to
survive these collisions you must lower that initial speed to a value
that is survivable. Somewhere in the signal digits mph.

There is no strawman here. There is simply no safe speed to hit a
pedestrian with a car IMO. None. When you bring up survivability of such
a collision up, then I read it as you want peds to survive collisions
with motor vehicles. For them to have a high chance of survival, speeds
must be drastically limited to the point of impractiability. The only
solution thusly is to prevent such collisions.

Will a 25mph speed limit work to do that? Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends
on the conditions of the area. But in most cases I would argue no. Either
the road conditions already cause drivers to do 25mph or less, or the
road runs at a higher speed and the speed limit sign is unlikely to
change that.

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 02:14 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The problem is politics in the USA. Anyone against RLC's gets the
>>> 'frank treatment'. People for RLCs will claim the objectors are for
>>> running red lights and are selfish people who'd kill children to save
>>> a second on their commute,etc etc. Meanwhile the real objection to
>>> RLC's, that they don't fix the intersection's underlying problems and
>>> can be tweaked to work against the citizens, even those who have no
>>> intention to ever run a red light.
>>
>>
>>
>> How interesting! Brent is against all of the following:
>>
>> a) Enforcing the state-mandated speed limits in my village, a village
>> he knows nothing about.
>>
>> b) Speed humps, even though they are well accepted and successful in
>> thousands and thousands of installations
>>
>
> Hello, if they are "well accepted and successful," why are we having
> this discussion? Shouldn't I just agree with you?

??? Yes, of course you should.

I'm a little surprised you have to ask!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Brent P

October 4th 04, 02:21 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>
>> The problem is politics in the USA. Anyone against RLC's gets the 'frank
>> treatment'. People for RLCs will claim the objectors are for running red
>> lights and are selfish people who'd kill children to save a second on
>> their commute,etc etc. Meanwhile the real objection to RLC's, that they
>> don't fix the intersection's underlying problems and can be tweaked to
>> work against the citizens, even those who have no intention to ever run a
>> red light.
>
> How interesting! Brent is against all of the following:

here's where frank makes up a bunch of ****.

> a) Enforcing the state-mandated speed limits in my village, a village he
> knows nothing about.

Wrong. I don't give a **** what your village does. I am against building
roads that can handle speeds higher than what the desired traffic speed
is.

> b) Speed humps, even though they are well accepted and successful in
> thousands and thousands of installations

I have found that other methods work much better with fewer drawbacks.

> c) Cameras which automatically catch red light runners.

As stated above, these cameras are used instead of fixing underlying
problems with the intersections. They also encourage improper light
timing to make money. When RLC equiped intersections have their
underlying problems addressed, violations drop to near zero. Unlike
Frank, who doesn't want do a damn thing about preventing collisions, but
would rather collect fines, I want to increase the safety of the road.

> I assume you're also against cameras which automatically catch speeders,
> of course. It fits in with your consistent philosophy of making things
> wonderful for all motorists, even those driving illegally and irresponsibly.

Speed cameras are fine once speed limits are set responsibly. In their
existing application on underposted roads, speed cameras do nothing. They
do not change speeds when drivers don't know about them. And when drivers
know about them, they don't make money. As per recent story from the UK
where a man with a sign warned of a speed camera ahead. It dropped the
hits on the speed camera to near zero. The cops arrested the man and he
was fined for interfering with police. But isn't it supposed to be about
safety? The camera didn't bring about complaince. The man with the sign
did. How was the camera improving safety without the man's sign? Hint, it
wasn't. It wasn't doing a damn thing but racking in cash.

> Yet we know _you_ always drive responsibly!

Yes. I am unlike you Frank in that I actually want safer roads. You just
want to control people and punish them when they don't obey.

fbloogyudsr

October 4th 04, 02:28 AM

"Brent P" > wrote
> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Anyway, once you bring up survivability of motor vehicle - ped collisions
> you are making an arguement for walking pace speeds or not driving at
> all. Simply put, there is NO SAFE SPEED for a car to hit a person. None,
> zero. If you are going to try and make these collisions survivable,
> you'll need to start limiting speed to the signal digits. It's the only
> way to make this happen.

I might point out that there is also no safe speed for a bicyclist to
hit a pedestrian, either.

Floyd

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 02:30 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
>> It's my bet that there are _very_ few people who have had to do a
>> "controlled four wheel drift" to make it through that turn. In fact,
>> on a typical day, I expect 49,999 out of 50,000 people are able to
>> handle it as a normal event on the road.
>
>
> Because they've become aware of the unusual conditions.

Again: I've driven that road - several times, actually. Honestly, I
don't even remember the turn that nearly had you sliding. In other
words, it was a non-event, something that I simply drove through with no
problems. (And at least one of those times, I was pulling a trailer!)

However, a
> person from another area who hasn't had any interaction with the locals
> might assume, based on prior experience, that "25 MPH" on a sign really
> means something like 45-50 MPH in the real world, as it does in many
> places. Unless there's other traffic in close proximity (the fact that
> everyone familiar with the road would slow way down might be a clue to
> an observant driver) there's really no way to tell.
>
> However, the marks on the concrete barriers give evidence that more than
> a few drivers have been caught unaware by this unusual feature.

Maybe 50,000 drivers per day pass there? Over 18 million per year?
Probably so.

How many marks did you see? A dozen? It's doubtful it was even 50, right?

Some simple math should show you where your driving skills rank. You
need to drive slower.

Had I been conditioned to associate real meaning
> with curve advisory speeds, I would have slowed down far more than I
> did. But when every 55 MPH offramp has a 25 or 30 MPH advisory sign...

I know, I know. "But when every 55 MPH offramp has a 25 or 30 MPH
advisory sign, it's all so CONFUSING!"

You need to drive slower, Nate.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 02:31 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>
>>> It's my bet that there are _very_ few people who have had to do a
>>> "controlled four wheel drift" to make it through that turn. In fact,
>>> on a typical day, I expect 49,999 out of 50,000 people are able to
>>> handle it as a normal event on the road.
>>
>>
>>
>> Because they've become aware of the unusual conditions.
>
>
> Again: I've driven that road - several times, actually. Honestly, I
> don't even remember the turn that nearly had you sliding. In other
> words, it was a non-event, something that I simply drove through with no
> problems. (And at least one of those times, I was pulling a trailer!)
>

You didn't drive the road I'm thinking of, then. It's alarming even if
you have been through there before.

> However, a
>
>> person from another area who hasn't had any interaction with the
>> locals might assume, based on prior experience, that "25 MPH" on a
>> sign really means something like 45-50 MPH in the real world, as it
>> does in many places. Unless there's other traffic in close proximity
>> (the fact that everyone familiar with the road would slow way down
>> might be a clue to an observant driver) there's really no way to tell.
>>
>> However, the marks on the concrete barriers give evidence that more
>> than a few drivers have been caught unaware by this unusual feature.
>
>
> Maybe 50,000 drivers per day pass there? Over 18 million per year?
> Probably so.
>
> How many marks did you see? A dozen? It's doubtful it was even 50, right?

Actually the whole barrier was either black or gouged last time I was
through there. I couldn't count them all.

>
> Some simple math should show you where your driving skills rank. You
> need to drive slower.
>

Where and when?

>
> Had I been conditioned to associate real meaning
>
>> with curve advisory speeds, I would have slowed down far more than I
>> did. But when every 55 MPH offramp has a 25 or 30 MPH advisory sign...
>
>
> I know, I know. "But when every 55 MPH offramp has a 25 or 30 MPH
> advisory sign, it's all so CONFUSING!"
>
> You need to drive slower, Nate.

Can you tell me where and when I should drive slower? Will the road
signs give me any useful information about when I should be slowing down?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 02:32 AM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The straw man sections are in the first few paragraphs. I never called
>>>>for 5 mph speed limits. I never called for banning all driving.
>>>
>>>
>>>Re-read. You're making a case FOR 5mph speed limits.
>>
>>If you say it once, I can point out that it's a strawman argument, a
>>common (if slightly dishonest) debating trick.
>
>>Since you say it again after your trick has been pointed out, I must
>>point out it's now a deliberate lie.
>>
>>At this point, you can either admit you're lying, or you can prove I'm
>>wrong by citing the specific quote where I seriously advocate 5 mph
>>speed limits. Alternately, you can go back to your usual evasion.
>
>>My bet is, you lack the guts for the first choice, and you lack the
>>facts to back up the second choice. So I expect a quick evasive
>>maneuver - probably a change of subject.
>>
>>You're up, Brent.
>
>
> You should have read the rest of the post frank. Your snippage and reply
> shows your true nature. And even if I was doing what you claim, it's only
> your SOP. Why are you bitching about what you do in practically every post?
>
> Anyway, once you bring up survivability of motor vehicle...

Q.E.D.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 02:43 AM

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 02:54 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is politics in the USA. Anyone against RLC's gets the
>>>> 'frank treatment'. People for RLCs will claim the objectors are for
>>>> running red lights and are selfish people who'd kill children to
>>>> save a second on their commute,etc etc. Meanwhile the real objection
>>>> to RLC's, that they don't fix the intersection's underlying problems
>>>> and can be tweaked to work against the citizens, even those who have
>>>> no intention to ever run a red light.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How interesting! Brent is against all of the following:
>>>
>>> a) Enforcing the state-mandated speed limits in my village, a village
>>> he knows nothing about.
>>>
>>> b) Speed humps, even though they are well accepted and successful in
>>> thousands and thousands of installations
>>>
>>
>> Hello, if they are "well accepted and successful," why are we having
>> this discussion? Shouldn't I just agree with you?
>
>
> ??? Yes, of course you should.
>
> I'm a little surprised you have to ask!
>
>

oh, by the way

http://www.geocities.com/nbumps/

not cherry picking, just the first site that shows up on a google search
for "speed bump damage." Note that the term "hump" is used to describe
many of these features, and yet they're nowhere near close enough to
your ITE ideal to not present problems.

Also note the mention of bumps up to 5" high... certainly enough to
scrape quite a few vehicles, and those that don't will certainly not
enjoy driving over them.

Finally, note that this is referring to various areas in Florida...
nowhere near the areas where either Brent or I claim to have seen
similar devices. Just goes to show you that this is most definitely
*not* a local problem...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Brent P

October 4th 04, 02:58 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> Anyway, once you bring up survivability of motor vehicle...

> Q.E.D.

So you don't want to discuss making collisions survivable for peds.
Makes one wonder why you brought it up in the first place.

Brent P

October 4th 04, 03:00 AM

In article >, fbloogyudsr wrote:

> I might point out that there is also no safe speed for a bicyclist to
> hit a pedestrian, either.

Yep. I thought about introducing it, but frank was having a hard enough
time with the topic.

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 03:50 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is politics in the USA. Anyone against RLC's gets the
>>>>> 'frank treatment'. People for RLCs will claim the objectors are for
>>>>> running red lights and are selfish people who'd kill children to
>>>>> save a second on their commute,etc etc. Meanwhile the real
>>>>> objection to RLC's, that they don't fix the intersection's
>>>>> underlying problems and can be tweaked to work against the
>>>>> citizens, even those who have no intention to ever run a red light.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How interesting! Brent is against all of the following:
>>>>
>>>> a) Enforcing the state-mandated speed limits in my village, a
>>>> village he knows nothing about.
>>>>
>>>> b) Speed humps, even though they are well accepted and successful in
>>>> thousands and thousands of installations
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hello, if they are "well accepted and successful," why are we having
>>> this discussion? Shouldn't I just agree with you?
>>
>>
>>
>> ??? Yes, of course you should.
>>
>> I'm a little surprised you have to ask!
>>
>>
>
> oh, by the way
>
> http://www.geocities.com/nbumps/
>
> not cherry picking, just the first site that shows up on a google search
> for "speed bump damage." Note that the term "hump" is used to describe
> many of these features, and yet they're nowhere near close enough to
> your ITE ideal to not present problems.
>
> Also note the mention of bumps up to 5" high... certainly enough to
> scrape quite a few vehicles, and those that don't will certainly not
> enjoy driving over them.
>
> Finally, note that this is referring to various areas in Florida...
> nowhere near the areas where either Brent or I claim to have seen
> similar devices. Just goes to show you that this is most definitely
> *not* a local problem...
>
> nate
>

reporting in from yet another corner of the country...

http://www.speedhumps.com/index.htm

so are they still "well accepted and successful?"

nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 12:43 PM

Zoot Katz wrote:

> Sun, 03 Oct 2004 14:55:54 -0400, >, Frank
> Krygowski > wrote:
>
>
>>The Mustang I mentioned earlier - model year 2000, V-6 engine, says the
>>owner by e-mail - would scrape on some VERY tall speed humps in an
>>apartment complex, unless driven over them very slowly. That was a
>>minor irritation to the owner - so he drove them very slowly. But that
>>car does perfectly fine on the standard speed humps on the residential
>>streets.
>
>
> Lots of cars like that scrape bottom when pulling into gas stations,
> parking lots and driveways. I know that there are cars that can't get
> into underground lots. You see the scrapes at many sorts of different
> places than speed humps. I guess they don't complain about those.

You guess wrong; all are examples of sloppy and/or substandard
construction. Bad curb cuts and incorrectly sloped ramps are just as
bad as speed bumps...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 02:42 PM

Brent P wrote:

>
> here's where frank makes up a bunch of ****.

Ever notice how some people's language deteriorates when they've made a
fool of themselves in a discussion?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Brent P

October 4th 04, 03:14 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>
>> here's where frank makes up a bunch of ****.
>
> Ever notice how some people's language deteriorates when they've made a
> fool of themselves in a discussion?

Ever notice how people turn to insult early when they cannot defend their
views any other way?

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 05:31 PM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Again: I've driven that road - several times, actually. Honestly, I
>> don't even remember the turn that nearly had you sliding. In other
>> words, it was a non-event, something that I simply drove through with
>> no problems. (And at least one of those times, I was pulling a trailer!)
>>
>
> You didn't drive the road I'm thinking of, then. It's alarming even if
> you have been through there before.
>

?? Are you pretending there's more than one I-79 between West Virginia
and the PA turnpike?

Sorry, but it's apparent that what's "alarming" to you and caused you to
go into emergency maneurver mode, is handled routinely by most other
drivers.

It's time to re-assess your driving skill. Think about this next time
you feel like pushing the envelope.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 05:37 PM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Shouldn't I just agree with you?
>>
>> ??? Yes, of course you should.
>>
>> I'm a little surprised you have to ask!
>>
>
> You're going to have to do better than stamping your feet and insisting
> you're right if you actually want to change my opinion.

:-) Actually, I've been pointing to data from traffic engineering
institutes, describing real experiences with real installations,
discussing elementary geometry, pointing to policies of large cities,
etc. etc.

I really don't expect to change your mind. You're like a Republican who
still expects to find huge WMD caches. "Evidence? We don't need no
steenkin' evidence!"

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 05:48 PM

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
> oh, by the way
>
> http://www.geocities.com/nbumps/
>
> not cherry picking, just the first site that shows up on a google search
> for "speed bump damage." Note that the term "hump" is used to describe
> many of these features, and yet they're nowhere near close enough to
> your ITE ideal to not present problems.

:-) Golly, you were able to find a private web site put up by another
anti-speed-regulation guy!! Well, in these days of personal websites,
is that surprising?

So what's the final word? Did the community decide to install the speed
humps or not? IOW, did this crackpot get his way, or did the local
lawmakers and the rest of the community decide he was, indeed, a crackpot?

It's clear there are two sides to this issue. But it's also clear that
in most (if not all) areas they're installed, the majority feel that the
speed humps have a net positive effect. And more are being installed
every day.

Drive slower, Nate.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 05:54 PM

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
> reporting in from yet another corner of the country...
>
> http://www.speedhumps.com/index.htm
>
> so are they still "well accepted and successful?"
>

They certainly are!

In contrast to your private site (which any crackpot with an issue can
put up) here's Houston's public works site:

http://www.publicworks.cityofhouston.gov/traffic/humps.htm

If you can find any evidence that they're taking out more humps than
they're installing, I'd be intereseted in seeing it.

As it is, it seems the main problem is finding the money to put these in
as quickly as residents request them.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 05:56 PM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>
>>>here's where frank makes up a bunch of ****.
>>
>>Ever notice how some people's language deteriorates when they've made a
>>fool of themselves in a discussion?
>
>
> Ever notice how people turn to insult early when they cannot defend their
> views any other way?

:-) It's not an insult. It's an observation. If observation of your
behavior bothers you, perhaps you should reform your behavior!

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Brent P

October 4th 04, 06:12 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> Ever notice how people turn to insult early when they cannot defend their
>> views any other way?
>
>:-) It's not an insult. It's an observation. If observation of your
> behavior bothers you, perhaps you should reform your behavior!

The above is just a general observation of your behavior Frank.

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 06:41 PM

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
>
> reporting in from yet another corner of the country...
>
> http://www.speedhumps.com/index.htm
>
> so are they still "well accepted and successful?"

From an attached article:

"In Fort Worth, getting a speed hump installed is a relatively simple
procedure as long as the street meets criteria. The street must be local
or residential; have two traffic lanes; traffic must not exceed 4,000
vehicles per day; and the speed limit must be 30 mph or less. A resident
or association can request a speed hump study as long as five residents
agree. Once a study is complete, two-thirds of residents within 600 feet
must agree to installation.

"Terry Haney, Tanglewood Neighborhood Association past president and
board member, is one city resident happy to get the humps in her
neighborhood. "It is a minor adjustment to be aware of your speed," she
said. "Once these changes are made, everyone will realize that it is
better."

"Ternus said only two neighborhoods that requested speed humps did not
get them because they were deemed to be major emergency outlets. He also
pointed out that the speed humps here are larger and have markings and
reflective lights so drivers can easily spot them.

"Although the requirements differ slightly from city to city, there are
ways to get speed humps removed. In Fort Worth, according to the Speed
Hump Report, if two-thirds of the property owners agree and the humps
have been in place for at least one year, they can be removed. However,
the ultimate decision lies with Ternus, who said there have been no
requests for removal and only a few "isolated" laments from residents
reporting an increase in traffic in their formerly quiet neighborhoods."

Sounds like these things are well accepted and successful to me!

Of course, speed enthusiasts will disagree. For them, I suggest
autocross as a hobby. On the roads, drive slower.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Matthew Russotto

October 4th 04, 07:00 PM

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
>It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
>cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
>arterial road

Sure. Think about it BEFORE you build it.

Matthew Russotto

October 4th 04, 07:12 PM

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
>"The rest of the roads" contain people trying to cross them on foot, or
>bicyclists trying to ride to their destination, or perhaps Amish buggies
>taking their passengers to work or to stores.

The drivers of Amish buggies seem to avoid the main road (US 30)
through Lancaster county, and even on the other roads they usually
ride on the shoulder. There are quite a few of them out on Sunday, on
many roads with limits much greater than 25mph. I don't think you'll
see them agitating for speed bumps, either; I doubt the horses would
like the bumps and the buggy passengers would like them less, as the
suspensions on those things are pretty primitive.

Matthew Russotto

October 4th 04, 07:20 PM

In article et>,
Mark Jones > wrote:
>"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
>> In between those are your claim that you ride a bicycle. Actually, I've
>> always believed that claim. But it seems to me that when a choice has
>> to be made, you'll lobby to make things better for motorists, even if
>> they make things worse for bicyclists, pedestrians and others.
>If a balance has to be struck, I would indeed make it in favor
>of cars and trucks as this is the primary reason why we build
>roads.

Frank thinks the balance should be struck in favor of children playing
in (not crossing) the street.

Matthew Russotto

October 4th 04, 07:22 PM

In article >,
Eric S. Sande > wrote:
>>It's a money grab, pure and simple, and has nothing to do with safety.
>
>Yeah, an outright commuter tax would be better but the likelihood of
>getting a commuter tax law passed in DC is low.

It's forbidden by Congress, in fact.

>Still, I can't think of a better way to make the suckers pay for the
>infrastructure they tear up and the services they use nine to five,
>it's better than taxing the pee out of the residents (which is the
>current model).

It's not non-residents which bust the D.C. budget; they're just a
convenient scapegoat for any administration.

October 4th 04, 07:24 PM

Daniel J. Stern > wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > "Terry Haney, Tanglewood Neighborhood Association past president and
> > board member, is one city resident happy to get the humps in her
> > neighborhood. "It is a minor adjustment to be aware of your speed," she
> > said. "Once these changes are made, everyone will realize that it is
> > better."
>
> Whenever I am on a street with speed bumps or "speed humps", I make sure
> to honk my truck's horn at each bump or hump, starting when my front
> wheels touch the bump, and ending after my rear wheels have cleared it.
> Since I always obey the speed limit in built-up areas, that can amount to
> a 1- or 2-second horn blast at each bump or hump. It's my way of
> cooperating with the likes of Terry Haney's need to know I'm obeying the
> speed limit and noticing her little speed control devices.

Great idea. I think all drivers ought to do that.

Brent P

October 4th 04, 07:32 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> "Terry Haney, Tanglewood Neighborhood Association past president and
> board member, is one city resident happy to get the humps in her
> neighborhood.

Somebody who has been pushing it because she wants them.

> "It is a minor adjustment to be aware of your speed," she
> said. "Once these changes are made, everyone will realize that it is
> better."

"everyone will realize" means that she has faced opposition in her
neighborhood in having humps put it. The above quote means she believes
that opposition will go away once they are installed and those people
will love the humps. However it's clear they don't agree now.
You just proved Nate's point. Good work Frank.

Brent P

October 4th 04, 07:35 PM

In article . edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:

> Whenever I am on a street with speed bumps or "speed humps", I make sure
> to honk my truck's horn at each bump or hump, starting when my front
> wheels touch the bump, and ending after my rear wheels have cleared it.
> Since I always obey the speed limit in built-up areas, that can amount to
> a 1- or 2-second horn blast at each bump or hump. It's my way of
> cooperating with the likes of Terry Haney's need to know I'm obeying the
> speed limit and noticing her little speed control devices.

That's a good idea. If speed humps are needed, that likely means there are
people that could enter the road immediately from a space we cannot
see while driving. An audiable alert is a good idea so these people are
aware a motor vehicle is approaching and don't step out. Much like a
one lane tunnel where each direction must take turns.

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 07:43 PM

RJ wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
>
>>
>>Whenever I am on a street with speed bumps or "speed humps", I make sure
>>to honk my truck's horn at each bump or hump, starting when my front
>>wheels touch the bump, and ending after my rear wheels have cleared it.
>>Since I always obey the speed limit in built-up areas, that can amount to
>>a 1- or 2-second horn blast at each bump or hump. It's my way of
>>cooperating with the likes of Terry Haney's need to know I'm obeying the
>>speed limit and noticing her little speed control devices.
>
>
> Great idea. I think all drivers ought to do that.

:-) I'm not surprised you think that! It's the third-world idea of
sophisticated driving: "When in doubt, lay on the horn."

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Matthew Russotto

October 4th 04, 07:44 PM

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>Nate Nagel wrote:
>> ... I've only had that happen to me a couple times, and I've
>> managed to controlled-four-wheel-drift my way out of trouble each
>> time, I can't be *completely* unskilled, neh?
>
>If you're doing "controlled-four-wheel-drifts" on public roads, you must
> be completely irresponsible, and not particularly intelligent.

You didn't snip enough context that time, Frank -- it's perfectly
clear to me that the alternative was something worse. Or would you
prefer driving off the road to doing a four-wheel drift?

Garth Almgren

October 4th 04, 08:08 PM

[Followup-To: RAD]
On 10/3/2004 12:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> How interesting! Brent is against all of the following:
>
> a) Enforcing the state-mandated speed limits

Hold up: That right there is enough of a reason to be against them.

Speed limits should be set according to best engineering practices, not
"one speed fits all" legislated mandates.

--
~/Garth |"I believe that it is better to tell the truth than a lie.
Almgren | I believe it is better to be free than to be a slave.
******* | And I believe it is better to know than to be ignorant."
for secure mail info) --H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

Daniel J. Stern

October 4th 04, 08:32 PM

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Frank Krygowski > wrote:

> >Whenever I am on a street with speed bumps or "speed humps", I make
> >sure to honk my truck's horn at each bump or hump, starting when my
> >front wheels touch the bump, and ending after my rear wheels have
> >cleared it. Since I always obey the speed limit in built-up areas, that
> >can amount to a 1- or 2-second horn blast at each bump or hump. It's my
> >way of cooperating with the likes of Terry Haney's need to know I'm
> >obeying the speed limit and noticing her little speed control devices.

> I'm not surprised you think that! It's the third-world idea of
> sophisticated driving: "When in doubt, lay on the horn."

It's nothing of the sort. There's no doubt about it: Speed bumps or
"humps" are a feel-good nonsolution to a problem that seldom actually
exists.

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 08:34 PM

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article >,
> Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
>>If you're doing "controlled-four-wheel-drifts" on public roads, you must
>> be completely irresponsible, and not particularly intelligent.
>
>
> You didn't snip enough context that time, Frank -- it's perfectly
> clear to me that the alternative was something worse. Or would you
> prefer driving off the road to doing a four-wheel drift?

The alternative was to be aware enough of upcoming road situations, and
to be sensible enough about judging the radius of a curve - then slowing
down to an appropriate speed. This is what everybody else does on that
road.

I understand that certain drivers argue that the "slowing down" part is
"something worse." But all that does is indicate the nature and depth
of the problem.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

October 4th 04, 08:38 PM

On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 14:43:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> wrote:

>RJ wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Whenever I am on a street with speed bumps or "speed humps", I make sure
>>>to honk my truck's horn at each bump or hump, starting when my front
>>>wheels touch the bump, and ending after my rear wheels have cleared it.
>>>Since I always obey the speed limit in built-up areas, that can amount to
>>>a 1- or 2-second horn blast at each bump or hump. It's my way of
>>>cooperating with the likes of Terry Haney's need to know I'm obeying the
>>>speed limit and noticing her little speed control devices.
>>
>>
>> Great idea. I think all drivers ought to do that.
>
>:-) I'm not surprised you think that! It's the third-world idea of
>sophisticated driving: "When in doubt, lay on the horn."

Not at all. It's just a serious recognition of the high danger that
must have existed before changing the street into an obstacle course.

Any risk that high has to be taken seriously. Blowing the horn to
help prevent someone from jumping in front of you while you are
negotiating the terrain over the speed bump is the least you can do
for promoting safety.

RJ

Brent P

October 4th 04, 08:43 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Matthew Russotto wrote:

>> You didn't snip enough context that time, Frank -- it's perfectly
>> clear to me that the alternative was something worse. Or would you
>> prefer driving off the road to doing a four-wheel drift?

> The alternative was to be aware enough of upcoming road situations, and
> to be sensible enough about judging the radius of a curve - then slowing
> down to an appropriate speed. This is what everybody else does on that
> road.

Which is what the signs *should* help to do. However the signs are
generally posted much below the actual maximum safe speed. So when one
sign is actually correct, it's surprising. This was the initial point.

Frank Krygowski

October 4th 04, 09:50 PM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
>>>You didn't snip enough context that time, Frank -- it's perfectly
>>>clear to me that the alternative was something worse. Or would you
>>>prefer driving off the road to doing a four-wheel drift?
>
>
>
>>The alternative was to be aware enough of upcoming road situations, and
>>to be sensible enough about judging the radius of a curve - then slowing
>>down to an appropriate speed. This is what everybody else does on that
>>road.
>
>
> Which is what the signs *should* help to do. However the signs are
> generally posted much below the actual maximum safe speed. So when one
> sign is actually correct, it's surprising. This was the initial point.
>

Hmmm. Well, if enthusiatic drivers can't handle getting the correct
information you're always advocating, there's not much hope for your
plans, is there?

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

Brent P

October 4th 04, 10:22 PM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>You didn't snip enough context that time, Frank -- it's perfectly
>>>>clear to me that the alternative was something worse. Or would you
>>>>prefer driving off the road to doing a four-wheel drift?
>>
>>
>>
>>>The alternative was to be aware enough of upcoming road situations, and
>>>to be sensible enough about judging the radius of a curve - then slowing
>>>down to an appropriate speed. This is what everybody else does on that
>>>road.
>>
>>
>> Which is what the signs *should* help to do. However the signs are
>> generally posted much below the actual maximum safe speed. So when one
>> sign is actually correct, it's surprising. This was the initial point.
>>
>
> Hmmm. Well, if enthusiatic drivers can't handle getting the correct
> information you're always advocating, there's not much hope for your
> plans, is there?

You have serious character disorder. You should seek treatment.

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 11:19 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> Shouldn't I just agree with you?
>>>
>>> ??? Yes, of course you should.
>>>
>>> I'm a little surprised you have to ask!
>>>
>>
>> You're going to have to do better than stamping your feet and
>> insisting you're right if you actually want to change my opinion.
>
>
> :-) Actually, I've been pointing to data from traffic engineering
> institutes, describing real experiences with real installations,
> discussing elementary geometry, pointing to policies of large cities,
> etc. etc.
>

where?

> I really don't expect to change your mind. You're like a Republican who
> still expects to find huge WMD caches. "Evidence? We don't need no
> steenkin' evidence!"

Actually, you've been acting like you're interviewing for a job as
Cheney's PR guy.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 11:29 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>
>> oh, by the way
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/nbumps/
>>
>> not cherry picking, just the first site that shows up on a google
>> search for "speed bump damage." Note that the term "hump" is used to
>> describe many of these features, and yet they're nowhere near close
>> enough to your ITE ideal to not present problems.
>
>
> :-) Golly, you were able to find a private web site put up by another
> anti-speed-regulation guy!! Well, in these days of personal websites,
> is that surprising?
>
> So what's the final word? Did the community decide to install the speed
> humps or not? IOW, did this crackpot get his way, or did the local
> lawmakers and the rest of the community decide he was, indeed, a crackpot?
>
>
> It's clear there are two sides to this issue.

But according to you, there's only one. Nice spin.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 11:35 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>>
>>> If you're doing "controlled-four-wheel-drifts" on public roads, you
>>> must be completely irresponsible, and not particularly intelligent.
>>
>>
>>
>> You didn't snip enough context that time, Frank -- it's perfectly
>> clear to me that the alternative was something worse. Or would you
>> prefer driving off the road to doing a four-wheel drift?
>
>
> The alternative was to be aware enough of upcoming road situations, and
> to be sensible enough about judging the radius of a curve - then slowing
> down to an appropriate speed. This is what everybody else does on that
> road.
>

Without prior knowledge of it, it's difficult to do so. Yes, there are
prominent warning signs telling one to slow to 25 MPH, but there are
similar signs on every exit ramp on many highways, most of which are
safely navigable at much higher speeds. Above and beyond that, the I-79
curve is a particularly deceptive situation, as it's contained by high
barriers which are painted a flat white, making it more difficult to
judge distance and curvature. Really, the only way to judge what is an
appropriate speed is to pay attention to the traffic around you, and if
there isn't any - well, the barriers tell the rest of the story.

> I understand that certain drivers argue that the "slowing down" part is
> "something worse." But all that does is indicate the nature and depth
> of the problem.
>

*YOU* try "slowing down" when you're already committed to a high-G
cornering maneuver. Go ahead. Obviously you fall under the category of
"people who think they know more about driving than they really do."

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 11:37 PM

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>
>>>You didn't snip enough context that time, Frank -- it's perfectly
>>>clear to me that the alternative was something worse. Or would you
>>>prefer driving off the road to doing a four-wheel drift?
>
>
>
>>The alternative was to be aware enough of upcoming road situations, and
>>to be sensible enough about judging the radius of a curve - then slowing
>>down to an appropriate speed. This is what everybody else does on that
>>road.
>
>
> Which is what the signs *should* help to do. However the signs are
> generally posted much below the actual maximum safe speed. So when one
> sign is actually correct, it's surprising. This was the initial point.
>

Oh, right, that's what I was trying to say! Frank got me so caught up
in explaining exactly what a Super Hawk was, who was driving, who owned
a Miata, and the fact that I-79 isn't an offramp that I nearly forgot :)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 4th 04, 11:41 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>> You didn't snip enough context that time, Frank -- it's perfectly
>>>> clear to me that the alternative was something worse. Or would you
>>>> prefer driving off the road to doing a four-wheel drift?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> The alternative was to be aware enough of upcoming road situations,
>>> and to be sensible enough about judging the radius of a curve - then
>>> slowing down to an appropriate speed. This is what everybody else
>>> does on that road.
>>
>>
>>
>> Which is what the signs *should* help to do. However the signs are
>> generally posted much below the actual maximum safe speed. So when one
>> sign is actually correct, it's surprising. This was the initial point.
>>
>
> Hmmm. Well, if enthusiatic drivers can't handle getting the correct
> information you're always advocating, there's not much hope for your
> plans, is there?
>

Again, you miss the point. There are occasionally situations where even
a skilled, perceptive driver may have difficulty using his judgement to
select a safe speed. That was what I was trying to demonstrate with the
I-79 example. However, pretty much everywhere I've driven in the US,
the driver is left to rely *only* on his own judgement to keep him safe,
as generally both speed limit and advisory signs on Interstates and
highways give no useful information whatsoever.

I once made the offhand remark that I thought most advisory sign speeds
were apparently arrived at by driving a clapped-out 60's era car with
drum brakes and bias ply tires through a given stretch of road and then
posting the comfortable speed in that vehicle. When I became older and
started working on older cars as a serious hobby, I discovered that I
was just about spot on in that assessment.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 5th 04, 01:47 AM

Nate Nagel

October 5th 04, 02:14 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Again: I've driven that road - several times, actually.
>>> Honestly, I don't even remember the turn that nearly had you
>>> sliding. In other words, it was a non-event, something that I
>>> simply drove through with no problems. (And at least one of
>>> those times, I was pulling a trailer!)
>>>
>>
>> You didn't drive the road I'm thinking of, then. It's alarming
>> even if you have been through there before.
>>
>
> ?? Are you pretending there's more than one I-79 between West
> Virginia and the PA turnpike?

there's only one.

http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I79.html

If you scroll down, you will see that my memory is, for once, 100%
correct. To be precise, the area I'm thinking of is the point at which
I-70 and I-79 become one highway, near Washington, PA.

to quote from the page:

> Another interchange that has had problems, but will be corrected, is
> the I-70/I-79 interchange east of Washington. PENNDOT is planning a
> $30 million project to rebuild the interchange and eliminate the
> hairpin curve where I-79 north merges into I-70 westbound. That
> location has been the scene of many accidents, many of which
> involving tractor-trailers traveling too fast and spilling their
> loads as they tried to negotiate the turn. Five-year-old Tonya
> Watson, of Portland, Oregon, died nearly 20 years ago when the truck
> her father was driving overturned on the curve, and suffocated when
> the padding in the sleeping bunk of the cab pressed against her
> throat. After that accident, the tall Jersey barrier was installed
> an additional signs and rumble strips were added to warn of the sharp
> curve. The speed limit was also lowered to 25 MPH.

The description of this area as an "interchange" is slightly misleading,
as it seems to imply that it is an offramp - it's not. If you are on
I-79 traveling north, and wish to continue on I-79 traveling north, and
do not take any marked exits, you end up navigating this 270-degree
mess. The actual exit at that location, I-79N to I-70E, is, ironically,
far easier to navigate. IMHO the "Jersey barriers" referred to on this
page actually make the road *less* safe, as they extend higher than the
eye level of a driver in a normal passenger car (unlike what most of us
think of as a Jersey barrier) and thus after dark one has no visual cues
as to how far away the curve is, how sharp the turn is, etc. other than
his own depth perception. Additionally, it looks very similar in both
appearance and signage to the offramp from I-76W to US-30 in Breezewood
- which is navigable at a much higher speed.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 5th 04, 03:03 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again: I've driven that road - several times, actually.
>>>> Honestly, I don't even remember the turn that nearly had you
>>>> sliding. In other words, it was a non-event, something that I
>>>> simply drove through with no problems. (And at least one of
>>>> those times, I was pulling a trailer!)
>>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't drive the road I'm thinking of, then. It's alarming
>>> even if you have been through there before.
>>>
>>
>> ?? Are you pretending there's more than one I-79 between West
>> Virginia and the PA turnpike?
>
>
> there's only one.
>
> http://www.pahighways.com/interstates/I79.html
>
> If you scroll down, you will see that my memory is, for once, 100%
> correct. To be precise, the area I'm thinking of is the point at
> which I-70 and I-79 become one highway, near Washington, PA.
>
> to quote from the page:
>
>> Another interchange that has had problems, but will be corrected,
>> is the I-70/I-79 interchange east of Washington. PENNDOT is
>> planning a $30 million project to rebuild the interchange and
>> eliminate the hairpin curve where I-79 north merges into I-70
>> westbound. That location has been the scene of many accidents,
>> many of which involving tractor-trailers traveling too fast and
>> spilling their loads as they tried to negotiate the turn.
>> Five-year-old Tonya Watson, of Portland, Oregon, died nearly 20
>> years ago when the truck her father was driving overturned on the
>> curve, and suffocated when the padding in the sleeping bunk of the
>> cab pressed against her throat. After that accident, the tall
>> Jersey barrier was installed an additional signs and rumble strips
>> were added to warn of the sharp curve. The speed limit was also
>> lowered to 25 MPH.
>
>
> The description of this area as an "interchange" is slightly
> misleading, as it seems to imply that it is an offramp - it's not.
> If you are on I-79 traveling north, and wish to continue on I-79
> traveling north, and do not take any marked exits, you end up
> navigating this 270-degree mess. The actual exit at that location,
> I-79N to I-70E, is, ironically, far easier to navigate. IMHO the
> "Jersey barriers" referred to on this page actually make the road
> *less* safe, as they extend higher than the eye level of a driver in
> a normal passenger car (unlike what most of us think of as a Jersey
> barrier) and thus after dark one has no visual cues as to how far
> away the curve is, how sharp the turn is, etc. other than his own
> depth perception. Additionally, it looks very similar in both
> appearance and signage to the offramp from I-76W to US-30 in
> Breezewood - which is navigable at a much higher speed.
>
> nate
>

more info:

http://www.gribblenation.com/hfotw/exit_50.html

to quote again:

> I-70 runs east-west here, I-79 comes in from the south and continues
> to the northwest multiplexed with I-70.
>
> This is one of the more dangerous places on the I-system. Northbound
> traffic on I-79 (from West Virginia and beyond) must descend a 70+
> meter grade in just over 1.5 km and immediately slow to about 30 km/h
> at the bottom of the hill to make the turn on the loop ramp of the
> 'trumpet' interchange at I-70 in order to continue on NB I-79 towards
> Pittsburgh. I-70 and I-79 are multiplexed for about 5 km around to
> the north side of Washington where they split, with I-70 going on
> westward towards Wheeling, WV.
>
> Also note the configuration of the NB ramps at the first interchange
> to the south (US 40).
>
> It is unknown to me whether or not any improvements/re-engineering is
> planned here, although it appears that it should not be too much of a
> problem to construct more direct 'fly-over' ramps for the I-79
> 'through' connections of this interchange.

are you *sure* you drove this stretch of road? It's damn near
impossible for anyone to drive through that mess and not go "what in the
unholy **** were they thinking?"

Also note on the map that the curve clearly decreases in radius, but at
a point that would not be visible to someone setting up for the curve -
a huge highway design no-no. I am guessing that the use of the word
"interchange" to describe this particular feature is the reason why I-79
is allowed to be an Interstate in the first place - since this
particular feature is so far removed from Interstate design standards
that it's ludicrous. Add to that the fact that the corresponding
"interchange" traveling southbound is a non-event, so that, say, a
traveler who leaves Pittsburgh to visit somewhere farther south doesn't
notice any special hazard on his outbound trip is even more likely to be
caught unaware on the return trip home.

To return to the original point of this whole example - it is clear that
there are times and places where greatly reduced speeds may be necessary
for safety reasons. This is one of them. It's also not immediately
obvious to a driver unfamiliar with the area *why* such a low speed is
required, but it most definitely is. Thus, warning signs are erected to
alert drivers to the hazard. However, there are also literally
thousands - maybe millions - of nearly identical signs posted elsewhere,
where such a low speed is *not* required. Thus, a driver not aware of
the special hazards of this one particular situation may very well
disregard them, as years of experience has taught him is safe. *This*
is the effect that I and others would like to combat, by raising speed
limits on major highways to reasonable levels, and, secondarily, making
advisory speed signs more accurately reflect reality as well.

I believe that the effect that I've described for one poorly designed
highway merge also applies equally to residential neighborhoods. To
someone who doesn't spend a whole lot of time thinking about traffic
safety (and let's be honest, there are a lot of people out there who
aren't all that bright) the disregard for speed limits bred from the
grossly underposted highway speed limits that we have can certainly
bleed over into driving through a "25 MPH" residential street. That's
an even more dangerous effect, as anyone who has navigated that stretch
of I-79 at 55 MPH certainly isn't about to try it again any time soon,
unless he *likes* drifting his car inches away from lots of really solid
looking concrete, but it's certainly possible to drive through a
residential neighborhood day after day at the same speed without ill
effect, just reinforcing the assumption that it's OK - until the one
instance where someone crosses the street at the wrong time...

But, of course, instead of addressing the root cause of the problem,
you're perfectly happy to create another one.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Mark Jones

October 5th 04, 04:09 AM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> In contrast to your private site (which any crackpot with an issue can
> put up) here's Houston's public works site:
>
> http://www.publicworks.cityofhouston.gov/traffic/humps.htm

I went there to see what these speed humps look like.

I have never seen one of these in use anywhere. The only thing
that I have seen used anywhere are speed bumps. I have seen
these used in parking lots and on city streets.

Mark Jones

October 5th 04, 04:13 AM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> Sounds like these things are well accepted and successful to me!
Sounds like a reason to really slow down and obstruct traffic.

Mark Jones

October 5th 04, 04:16 AM

"Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
...
> :-) I'm not surprised you think that! It's the third-world idea of
> sophisticated driving: "When in doubt, lay on the horn."
You could always drive through the area at 5 mph with your windows
down and the stereo blasting.

Brent P

October 5th 04, 04:19 AM

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:

> To return to the original point of this whole example - it is clear that
> there are times and places where greatly reduced speeds may be necessary
> for safety reasons. This is one of them. It's also not immediately
> obvious to a driver unfamiliar with the area *why* such a low speed is
> required, but it most definitely is. Thus, warning signs are erected to
> alert drivers to the hazard. However, there are also literally
> thousands - maybe millions - of nearly identical signs posted elsewhere,
> where such a low speed is *not* required. Thus, a driver not aware of
> the special hazards of this one particular situation may very well
> disregard them, as years of experience has taught him is safe. *This*
> is the effect that I and others would like to combat, by raising speed
> limits on major highways to reasonable levels, and, secondarily, making
> advisory speed signs more accurately reflect reality as well.

Personally, I've seen ramps that are practically straight posted with
25mph warning signs. Everytime I see a warning sign, it's
'do-they-really-mean-it-this-time. On IL 394 NB on to the calumet
expressway NB, there is construction going on. Tons of warning signs
about the sharp curve, slow down to 35mph. The lamest drivers in the
worst vehicles are taking it at 40-45mph. It's simply impossible to
know when they really mean it. It's about as good as having no sign at
all because sometimes the underposting is 3X other times it's 1.5X and
somewhere it's accurate. All it means is there is 'something' ahead to
look for without any accurate idea of what is ahead.

But I am sure this is an outgrowth of the scared driver is a safer driver
theories we've seen presented by the speed kills crowd before. That
keeping the driver in the dark will cause him to go slower. That somehow
the with holding of information is more than compensated by reduced
speed. It's not. There is no way keeping the driver in the dark as to the
hazards ahead make him any safer.

Frank Krygowski

October 5th 04, 05:46 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> The alternative was to be aware enough of upcoming road situations,
>> and to be sensible enough about judging the radius of a curve - then
>> slowing down to an appropriate speed. This is what everybody else
>> does on that road.
>>
>
> Without prior knowledge of it, it's difficult to do so. Yes, there are
> prominent warning signs telling one to slow to 25 MPH, but there are
> similar signs on every exit ramp on many highways, most of which are
> safely navigable at much higher speeds. Above and beyond that, the I-79
> curve is a particularly deceptive situation, as it's contained by high
> barriers which are painted a flat white, making it more difficult to
> judge distance and curvature. Really, the only way to judge what is an
> appropriate speed is to pay attention to the traffic around you, and if
> there isn't any - well, the barriers tell the rest of the story.
>
>> I understand that certain drivers argue that the "slowing down" part
>> is "something worse." But all that does is indicate the nature and
>> depth of the problem.
>>
>
> *YOU* try "slowing down" when you're already committed to a high-G
> cornering maneuver. Go ahead. Obviously you fall under the category of
> "people who think they know more about driving than they really do."

Wow! So many excuses! All you've failed to cover is, how do so many
people pass through there without having your problem? You can't be the
only one to experience it for the first time!

Interestingly, I may be driving that highway soon. I'll look at the
situation. Maybe I can count the scrape marks on the barriers, and the
broken pieces of cars littering the road. I doubt I'll come anywhere
close to sliding my car, though!

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 5th 04, 06:30 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
>> It's clear there are two sides to this issue.
>
>
> But according to you, there's only one. Nice spin.

Not at all! It's obvious there are people who like speed humps, and
people who don't.

It's also obvious which side is making more sense, and which side is
coming out ahead on the streets, where it matters.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 5th 04, 06:38 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
> The description of this area as an "interchange" is slightly misleading,
> as it seems to imply that it is an offramp - it's not. If you are on
> I-79 traveling north, and wish to continue on I-79 traveling north, and
> do not take any marked exits, you end up navigating this 270-degree
> mess. The actual exit at that location, I-79N to I-70E, is, ironically,
> far easier to navigate. IMHO the "Jersey barriers" referred to on this
> page actually make the road *less* safe, as they extend higher than the
> eye level of a driver in a normal passenger car (unlike what most of us
> think of as a Jersey barrier) and thus after dark one has no visual cues
> as to how far away the curve is, how sharp the turn is, etc. other than
> his own depth perception. Additionally, it looks very similar in both
> appearance and signage to the offramp from I-76W to US-30 in Breezewood
> - which is navigable at a much higher speed.

So many excuses, Nate, so many excuses!

I've negotiated that section of road several times, and it's so much a
non-issue that I don't even recall it. And I know I've done it at
night, as well.

There are certainly highways, and sections of highways, that cause
problems for certain drivers. Not everything is flat and straight, and
I don't think driving enthusiasts want it to be. But it's not the best
10%, or even 25% of drivers that have the problems with curves. Think
about that.

I think you simply need to drive slower. Or perhaps pay more attention
to the road ahead. This isn't rocket science.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 5th 04, 06:57 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

>
>
> are you *sure* you drove this stretch of road?

There's no other way to go by freeway from the Carolinas, through WV,
west of Pittsburgh and to the PA turnpike.

It's damn near
> impossible for anyone to drive through that mess and not go "what in the
> unholy **** were they thinking?"

My mental vocabulary is less offensive. I may have not liked the design
of the road, but a) I'd have expressed it differently, and b) I
obviously negotiated it without problems, and c) it was a small enough
issue that no, I don't even recall it.

>
> But, of course, instead of addressing the root cause of the problem,
> you're perfectly happy to create another one.
>

To return to the real issue: People see their neighborhoods and their
living conditions degraded by cut-through speeders. They want to make
the place safer and more pleasant for themselves and their families.
They muster the political strength to ask for solutions, meaning (at
least in some cities) they get a vote of approval from residents living
nearby.

You (and Brent) perceive a problem on the distant freeways. And you
think _nothing_ should be done to alleviate their problems until _your_
problem is solved to _your_ liking.

It's hard to believe anyone would take your argument seriously. And
from what I can tell, nobody but a few dedicated speeders do!
Certainly, it's not on the radar of any transportation agencies. In
fact - did you note that even the privately posted anti-speed-hump sites
don't mention your rationale?

Sometimes, Nate, the voice crying in the wilderness isn't a prophet.
Sometimes he's just a crazy guy answering the voices in his head.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 5th 04, 07:00 AM

Mark Jones wrote:

>
>>http://www.publicworks.cityofhouston.gov/traffic/humps.htm
>
>
> I went there to see what these speed humps look like.
>
> I have never seen one of these in use anywhere.

Fine. Keep watching. You'll see them some day. They're gaining in
popularity. I've driven over them in at least four separate cities,
maybe more.

The only thing
> that I have seen used anywhere are speed bumps. I have seen
> these used in parking lots and on city streets.

And speed bumps are - once again - not what I'm advocating.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 5th 04, 07:02 AM

Mark Jones wrote:

> "Frank Krygowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>:-) I'm not surprised you think that! It's the third-world idea of
>>sophisticated driving: "When in doubt, lay on the horn."
>
> You could always drive through the area at 5 mph with your windows
> down and the stereo blasting.

You could try that, too. Around here, those people get ticketed and
fined. Multiple offenses get the stereos confiscated, and beyond that
there's jail time.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Frank Krygowski

October 5th 04, 07:04 AM

Brent P wrote:

>
> Personally, I've seen ramps that are practically straight posted with
> 25mph warning signs. Everytime I see a warning sign, it's
> 'do-they-really-mean-it-this-time.

I am absolutely astounded that this is such a problem for you guys!

Really, what on earth do you do driving curving mountain roads? Do you
need a backseat driver to say "Hmmm - this looks like a 37 mph curve to
me. Better slow down."

Can't you judge these things properly on your own??

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Alan Baker

October 5th 04, 07:05 AM

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
> >
> > Personally, I've seen ramps that are practically straight posted with
> > 25mph warning signs. Everytime I see a warning sign, it's
> > 'do-they-really-mean-it-this-time.
>
> I am absolutely astounded that this is such a problem for you guys!
>
> Really, what on earth do you do driving curving mountain roads? Do you
> need a backseat driver to say "Hmmm - this looks like a 37 mph curve to
> me. Better slow down."
>
> Can't you judge these things properly on your own??

Do you really think that we (as a society) should spend money misleading
people as to what speed is appropriate for access ramps?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Brent P

October 5th 04, 07:12 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> You (and Brent) perceive a problem on the distant freeways. And you
> think _nothing_ should be done to alleviate their problems until _your_
> problem is solved to _your_ liking.

You treat symptoms frank. You strike me similiar to some engineers I have
worked with running from one problem to the next never looking at the
system as whole. Never seeing the cause and effect relationships between
things. You go from fighting one fire to next never understanding how to
lessen the work load and really solve the problems once and for all.

> It's hard to believe anyone would take your argument seriously.

Frank, mostly what you've done is insult anyone who disagrees with you and
talk down to them. That's what passes for your primary 'arguement'.

I take the road system and road safety as an engineering problem and I
set out to find root causes and find real, lasting changes for the better
just as I do on the job. You take the route of patching and
firefighting. I want thoughtful design, you want kludges.

Frank Krygowski

October 5th 04, 07:27 AM

Alan Baker wrote:

> In article >,
> Frank Krygowski > wrote:
>
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Personally, I've seen ramps that are practically straight posted with
>>>25mph warning signs. Everytime I see a warning sign, it's
>>>'do-they-really-mean-it-this-time.
>>
>>I am absolutely astounded that this is such a problem for you guys!
>>
>>Really, what on earth do you do driving curving mountain roads? Do you
>>need a backseat driver to say "Hmmm - this looks like a 37 mph curve to
>>me. Better slow down."
>>
>>Can't you judge these things properly on your own??
>
>
> Do you really think that we (as a society) should spend money misleading
> people as to what speed is appropriate for access ramps?
>

Oh, no, Alan! In fact, I think we need to get right to work on a system
that will automatically assess the make, model and year of the
approaching car; and the condition of its tires and suspension; and the
condition of the road - dry, rainy, icy, dusty, whatever; and the
capabilities of the driver - smart and competent, or dumb and dangerous?
Young and foolish or old and slow? Paying attention or talking on a
cell phone?

The system then needs to quickly compute the optimum speed for every
access ramp, and light up to let the driver know exactly how fast he
should drive. Why, if we can put a man on the moon, we can DO this!

Alternately, we can just expect a tiny bit of competence from licensed
drivers. And when they screw up by nearly sliding into a wall, we can
quit coddling them - as people on r.a.d seem prone to do, at least for
one of their own.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

Alan Baker

October 5th 04, 07:28 AM

In article >,
Frank Krygowski > wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Frank Krygowski > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Brent P wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Personally, I've seen ramps that are practically straight posted with
> >>>25mph warning signs. Everytime I see a warning sign, it's
> >>>'do-they-really-mean-it-this-time.
> >>
> >>I am absolutely astounded that this is such a problem for you guys!
> >>
> >>Really, what on earth do you do driving curving mountain roads? Do you
> >>need a backseat driver to say "Hmmm - this looks like a 37 mph curve to
> >>me. Better slow down."
> >>
> >>Can't you judge these things properly on your own??
> >
> >
> > Do you really think that we (as a society) should spend money misleading
> > people as to what speed is appropriate for access ramps?
> >
>
> Oh, no, Alan! In fact, I think we need to get right to work on a system
> that will automatically assess the make, model and year of the
> approaching car; and the condition of its tires and suspension; and the
> condition of the road - dry, rainy, icy, dusty, whatever; and the
> capabilities of the driver - smart and competent, or dumb and dangerous?
> Young and foolish or old and slow? Paying attention or talking on a
> cell phone?
>
> The system then needs to quickly compute the optimum speed for every
> access ramp, and light up to let the driver know exactly how fast he
> should drive. Why, if we can put a man on the moon, we can DO this!
>
>
> Alternately, we can just expect a tiny bit of competence from licensed
> drivers. And when they screw up by nearly sliding into a wall, we can
> quit coddling them - as people on r.a.d seem prone to do, at least for
> one of their own.

Oh, please. The simple fact -- and you know it as well as I -- is that
access ramp advisory speeds are *ludicrously* low almost *all* the time.

They should reflect an appropriate speed for an average vehicle, in good
weather, being properly driven. Instead, they are most frequently less
than half that speed.

Don't pretend it isn't so.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Arif Khokar

October 5th 04, 07:29 AM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Brent P wrote:

>> Personally, I've seen ramps that are practically straight posted with
>> 25mph warning signs. Everytime I see a warning sign, it's
>> 'do-they-really-mean-it-this-time.

> Really, what on earth do you do driving curving mountain roads?

It isn't much different here. Advisory speeds versus real speeds differ
by as much as 25 mph. There are curves signed with an advisory 55 mph
speed that I can easily take at 80 mph.

Brent P

October 5th 04, 07:34 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>>
>> Personally, I've seen ramps that are practically straight posted with
>> 25mph warning signs. Everytime I see a warning sign, it's
>> 'do-they-really-mean-it-this-time.

> I am absolutely astounded that this is such a problem for you guys!

Frank insults. No arguement.

> Really, what on earth do you do driving curving mountain roads?

There are no mountains in IL. I'll tell you when I encounter an actual
mountain road.

> Do you
> need a backseat driver to say "Hmmm - this looks like a 37 mph curve to
> me. Better slow down."

Frank insults again, being without arguement regarding inconsistant road
signage.

> Can't you judge these things properly on your own??

Frank's primary debate tactic continues to be one of personal attack.
This isn't about me Frank. It's about accurate signage. I'll find out
soon enough if the signage is accurate when driving. It would simply be
nicer if I could trust the sign and get accurate information sooner.

What's the purpose of the sign Frank? To give the driver information
sooner than he would otherwise get it. Why do you think they put signs up
like 'road construction ahead' so you know what's beyond visual range. I
only want the signs to be ACCURATE AND CONSISTANT. If they aren't going
to provide useful information, remove them. Do not put them up and save
the tax money for fixing frost heaves or something.

Arif Khokar

October 5th 04, 07:34 AM

Nate Nagel wrote:

> but there are
> similar signs on every exit ramp on many highways, most of which are
> safely navigable at much higher speeds.

I believe that some of the advisory signs correspond to the speed limit
of the road that one is exiting onto. At least that's what I've seen
with advisory signs for speeds that are way too low for the given
curvature of an exit ramp. Traffic engineers should seriously consider
using the "Reduced Speed Ahead" / "Speed Limit xx MPH" combination
instead of a meaningless advisory sign.

Brent P

October 5th 04, 07:37 AM

In article >, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Oh, no, Alan! In fact, I think we need to get right to work on a system
> that will automatically assess the make, model and year of the
> approaching car; and the condition of its tires and suspension; and the
> condition of the road - dry, rainy, icy, dusty, whatever; and the
> capabilities of the driver - smart and competent, or dumb and dangerous?
> Young and foolish or old and slow? Paying attention or talking on a
> cell phone?

Frank again goes for the personal. Consistantcy and accuracy. Speed is
actually a poor way of imparting the information IMO. But they could do
it a 52 dodge if they want. Just be consistant and accurate for that '52
dodge.

Nate Nagel

October 5th 04, 12:32 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>
>> The description of this area as an "interchange" is slightly
>> misleading, as it seems to imply that it is an offramp - it's not. If
>> you are on I-79 traveling north, and wish to continue on I-79
>> traveling north, and do not take any marked exits, you end up
>> navigating this 270-degree mess. The actual exit at that location,
>> I-79N to I-70E, is, ironically, far easier to navigate. IMHO the
>> "Jersey barriers" referred to on this page actually make the road
>> *less* safe, as they extend higher than the eye level of a driver in a
>> normal passenger car (unlike what most of us think of as a Jersey
>> barrier) and thus after dark one has no visual cues as to how far away
>> the curve is, how sharp the turn is, etc. other than his own depth
>> perception. Additionally, it looks very similar in both appearance
>> and signage to the offramp from I-76W to US-30 in Breezewood - which
>> is navigable at a much higher speed.
>
>
> So many excuses, Nate, so many excuses!
>
> I've negotiated that section of road several times, and it's so much a
> non-issue that I don't even recall it. And I know I've done it at
> night, as well.

Then you either generally drive 30 MPH or less on the freeway, or you
are spinning again.

>
> There are certainly highways, and sections of highways, that cause
> problems for certain drivers. Not everything is flat and straight, and
> I don't think driving enthusiasts want it to be. But it's not the best
> 10%, or even 25% of drivers that have the problems with curves. Think
> about that.
>
> I think you simply need to drive slower. Or perhaps pay more attention
> to the road ahead. This isn't rocket science.
>

Explain to me again how "paying attention" will help one detect a
decreasing radius curve that isn't possible to see from the approach.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel

October 5th 04, 12:41 PM

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> are you *sure* you drove this stretch of road?
>
>
> There's no other way to go by freeway from the Carolinas, through WV,
> west of Pittsburgh and to the PA turnpike.

Actually, you could have taken I-81 to US-15 to I-76, although that
passes *east* of Pittsburgh (closer to Harrisburg.)

>
> It's damn near
>
>> impossible for anyone to drive through that mess and not go "what in
>> the unholy **** were they thinking?"
>
>
> My mental vocabulary is less offensive.

Too bad your public one isn't. I've dropped the f-bomb a few times,
you've accused people of lying with no evidence while deliberately lying
yourself. I find that *far* more offensive.

> I may have not liked the design
> of the road, but a) I'd have expressed it differently, and b) I
> obviously negotiated it without problems, and c) it was a small enough
> issue that no, I don't even recall it.
>

If you don't even recall it, you didn't drive it, or, you've got serious
problems with memory and perception.

>>
>> But, of course, instead of addressing the root cause of the problem,
>> you're perfectly happy to create another one.
>>
>
> To return to the real issue: People see their neighborhoods and their
> living conditions degraded by cut-through speeders. They want to make
> the place safer and more pleasant for themselves and their families.
> They muster the political strength to ask for solutions, meaning (at
> least in some cities) they get a vote of approval from residents living
> nearby.

Sounds good so far, except I know where this is going - half-assed
band-aid "fixes" that don't address the real problem - *why* are people
speeding where they shouldn't?

>
> You (and Brent) perceive a problem on the distant freeways. And you
> think _nothing_ should be done to alleviate their problems until _your_
> problem is solved to _your_ liking.

"their" meaning neighborhood residents? Where did I say that? All I
said was that speed bumps and humps are often incorrectly implemented,
overused, and of a dangerous design. I don't believe I said that
nothing should be done, I said that I opposed the installation of speed
bumps and humps.

>
> It's hard to believe anyone would take your argument seriously. And
> from what I can tell, nobody but a few dedicated speeders do! Certainly,
> it's not on the radar of any transportation agencies.

Even the Maryland State Highway Administration has a pretty good
explanation of the 85th percentile method on its own web site and
advocates it as the proper method for setting a baseline speed limit,
absent the presence of special hazards not obviously visible to
motorists. Ironic that Maryland is still home to several grossly
underposted freeways...

> In fact - did you
> note that even the privately posted anti-speed-hump sites don't mention
> your rationale?

Why should they? They're not interested in the root cause, either -
they just know that some busybody and/or government entity has taken it
upon themselves to screw up the road they live on. Which is reason
enough to oppose them.

>
> Sometimes, Nate, the voice crying in the wilderness isn't a prophet.
> Sometimes he's just a crazy guy answering the voices in his head.
>

Again, insult every position you don't agree with or can't understand...

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel