Cities Turning to Bicycles

Brent P wrote:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:

So don't ask others to put up with the effects of your failed mission.


My failed mission? What's failed is the last 60 years of doing things
your way.

My way is installing speed humps in residential neighborhoods. The
concept is relatively new, certainly not 60 years old. And it's
apparently quite successful.


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

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Brent P wrote:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

What the hell am I arguing for? *You're* the one who arguing for
more coddling of bad drivers, not I.



There's too much mollycoddling going on here. Learn to drive. And
drive responsibly.



Your policies don't encourage anyone to do that. They encourage the
opposite. Your solutions aim for safety by reducing the competency
required to drive. Slavish obedency to signs set well below the actual
maximums, surface hazards to slow people down, cameras to punish
misdeeds.
Who's coddling here?


The coddling has been coming from auto enthusiasts who are whining about
why it's SO difficult to judge an appropriate speed for a freeway turn.

No whining.

Or who are defending people illegally and dangerously overdriving their
headlights on rural roads at night.


No overdriving either.

Both of those are fundamental "Driver's Education 1" mistakes. R.a.d.
folks shouldn't be defending them.


You are *so* missing the whole point of everyone's posts to this thread.


OTOH, given the incompetence of many drivers (even enthusiasts) it makes
no sense to wait to protect neighborhoods until they're all competent.
Not when a perfectly workable alternative exists, one that's being
implemented now and working well now.

"well?" I do not think that word means what you think it means.



Who's trying to lower standards and introduce more control measures?
People comform to the expectations placed on them. You seek to lower
the expectations.


I see no conflict between enforcing lower speeds in residential
neighborhoods and increasing expectations of drivers. In fact, if you
were successful in raising driving quality, people wouldn't be demanding
- and getting - these means of enforcement.


A very few people are demanding them. Unfortunately, the opposition
isn't vocal enough (yet.)

So don't ask others to put up with the effects of your failed mission.


Don't ask me to put up eith the effects of *your* failed mission, either.

nate


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

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Arif Khokar wrote:

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.


As with Brent, if that's your serious proposal, you should start working
on it. At least, write letters to the editor, or to your state DOT.

I agree.


If you're sufficiently convincing, you'll see a change. Traffic
engineers get lots of advice from the public, because nearly all
motorists are pretty expert in road design, legal issues, state budget
priorities, etc.


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were actually starting an intelligent post.
Now realize you were just being a prick, as usual.

nate

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

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

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.)


Oh good grief.

Heading north from North Carolina. Into Virginia. Into West Virginia.
Through Beckley, is it? And I think it's Route 19, the
finally-completed highway? Over the New River Gorge? Pick up the
interstate through the Morgantown area? And yes, WEST of Pittsburgh to
the Turnpike. All interstate except for WV 19, or whatever that number is.

Nate, you're making yourself look silly.


No, actually, *you* are, as if you had driven the road as you claim you
have, you would remember that feature. I dare say that that is one of
the few roadways that one can legitimately claim that *nobody* who has
driven through it ever forgets.

yes, your description is correct, but anyone with a computer could have
looked that up on a map in minutes.

nate

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

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Brent P wrote:

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.



To continue your analogy:

Brent the firefighter: "I keep telling you, the solution is to build
all our buildings from fireproor materials! Anything else is a kludge!"

Homeowners: "BUT OUR HOUSES ARE BURNING! OUR KIDS ARE IN THERE!"

Brent: "Yes, yes, ma'am, I know about your child, but hear my out! This
is a beautiful plan..."


No, the situation is more like, there is a grease fire in a kitchen.
Brent is proposing to put it out with a fire extinguisher and then
investigate why it occurred. Your solution is to call the fire
department and break down the door with axes and hose the kitchen down
with high pressure water. Your way *may* put out the fire, but is
infinitely more destructive and doesn't do anything towards preventing
the problem from recurring, either in the same place or elsewhere, in
the future.

nate


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

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:
Brent P wrote:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:

So don't ask others to put up with the effects of your failed mission.


My failed mission? What's failed is the last 60 years of doing things
your way.

My way is installing speed humps in residential neighborhoods. The
concept is relatively new, certainly not 60 years old. And it's
apparently quite successful.

The overall theme of treating symptoms and using patches which has
resulted in this latest patching concept.

And digging a big trench in the road would also be successful. No one
claimed they aren't successful in lowering traffic speeds, it's the
downsides of that success that people object to.

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

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.


??? What can I say? You watch the contours of the road ahead.

the ones you can't see. Right.

You
don't drive on the _assumption_ that the road will curve the way you
like. You pay attention!


You're just being deliberately obtuse. It's standard design practice
for any curve on an Interstate to only *increase* in radius, not
decrease. You can see about 70-80 degrees into the curve as you
approach. The radius decreases *sharply* after that point - but it's
hidden by the supports for the I-70 overpass. There is no logical
reason for it to be that way, but it is.

The whole point is not what *I* did in that situation, the point is that
it's hazardous because the danger of driving too fast IS NOT EVIDENT
until it's too late. Therefore, advisory signs are posted; but they are
ineffective (as evidenced by the marks on the barriers.) They are
ineffective because the motoring public, as a whole, has been
conditioned to completely ignore any advisory signs as 98% of the time
they are completely meaningless in terms of selecting a safe speed for
travel. And, of course, that brings us back to the point that I made so
long ago - people don't respect the speed limit in your neighborhood
because they've been conditioned to not respect the speed limit, period.


Why is this so hard for you, when so many people don't have your
problems? Aren't you ashamed of your relative incompetence??

Only thing I'm ashamed of is being baited into this long, stupid
exchange. However, it beats laundry. I think.


And what _do_ you do when you're driving on two-lane mountain roads??


Ummm... drive?

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

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
Do you really think that we (as a society) should spend money misleading
people as to what speed is appropriate for access ramps?

How do you propose that they set a speed that will work for everyone?

Should they set it real low to make sure the guy in the 4x4 with the
6 inch lift kit won't have a problem? What exactly should they use
as proper criteria for setting the recommended speed?

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
...
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.

I have never once seen a speed that was set at less than half the
speed that a reasonable vehicle could handle.

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
I'm not interested in excuses about how difficult decreasing radii can be

This is bad design. For a PE to say what you just said is ridiculous.
To resort to a decreasing radius means that the overall design is flawed.

You should be able to go through a curve without needing to slow
down the whole time. This is how you end up with trucks on their
side with their cargo spilled all over the place.