Cities Turning to Bicycles

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]

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.

"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

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]

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.

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 he
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]

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]

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.

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]

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?