On 11/13/2018 2:13 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Tuesday, November 13, 2018 at 10:47:39 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
Cocaine is hardly news until it turns tragic:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...list-bike.html

Yow. That's one rough looking 35 year old!

And the definition of "woman of good character" seems to have gotten far too
broad.

Always everywhere taxpayer funds will be wasted, if not
perniciously turned against taxpayers, one way or another:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-fly-by.html

I guess I wouldn't object to the idea of the signs; but the cost seems crazy.
That seems like the thing any subscriber of _Make_ magazine could build
for less than $100.

However, 10 mph is maddeningly slow on a bike. I'm not much of a fan of physical
segregation between bikes and cars, except in unusual situations. But I'd
welcome physical segregation between pedestrians and bikes in places like that.
It makes more sense to me than keeping bikes to "barely balance" speed.

I've probably said this before, but when our local metropark closed a road
(18 feet wide) and made it a bike-ped MUP, they imposed a 10 mph bike limit.
(No speed limit for runners or skaters, just bikes.) They attempted to enforce
it with an enclosed police scooter with a radar gun.

The cop tried to pull over one guy I knew. He was probably doing about 15 mph,
and he's not the type to ever endanger anyone, so it was probably empty
pavement where he did that.

He refused to pull over. He simply accelerated and rode away. Turns out that
scooter had a top speed that wasn't as great as his.

Elegant solution!

in re British 10mph signs, at least the UK spends less than
California, at $3million+ per day to not build a train
which, if actually built, can never break even on operations

https://ktla.com/2018/08/26/californ...lation-delays/

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971