Cities Turning to Bicycles

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

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

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

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]

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.

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.

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"

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]

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]

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]