Cities Turning to Bicycles

In article ,
greg byshenk wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently that
one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in such
situations.

This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that
advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
possible.

I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do
with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on
urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting
that they do; I am justing noting the fact.

Actually, they have a lot to do with it.

In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people
to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore
them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
neighbourhoods.

--
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."

Alan Baker wrote in message ...
In article ,
greg byshenk wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently that
one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in such
situations.

This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that
advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
possible.

I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do
with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on
urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting
that they do; I am justing noting the fact.

Actually, they have a lot to do with it.

In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people
to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore
them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
neighbourhoods.

Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate.

nate

Alan Baker wrote in message ...
In article ,
Nate Nagel wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

In article ,
(Nate Nagel) wrote:


Arif Khokar wrote in message
...

Alan Baker wrote:


I've driven my brother's Nissan Pathfinder (even before it had its
shocks replaced) and it can easily -- easily -- more than double the
advisory speeds on most ramps.

Advisory speeds are based on the comfort level of a driver driving a
1939 Ford Vehicle. The lateral force would be enough to have a "ball on
a string" deviate 10 degrees from the vertical position. Most drivers
take curves such that the deviation would be between 12 and 14 degrees,
IIRC.

found this site:

http://manuals.dot.state.tx.us/dynaw...BookTextView/4
00
9;cs=default;ts=default

I don't see any mention of a 1939 Ford, but essentially that appears
to be correct. They do apparently allow higher G-forces for very slow
speed turns, but 10 degrees is the recommended value for 35 MPH or
higher. In any case the maximum value allowed is 14 degrees, still
far less than people seem to find acceptable in day to day driving. I
wouldn't be surprised if a 10 degree ball bank indicator reading *was*
perfectly safe and comfortable in a bone stock '39 Ford, honestly.
Perhaps it's time to revisit these standards; how often is a vehicle
in regular use anywhere in the US older than the mid-late 1960's?

Key quote: "The speed to be posted on the curve should not be reduced
arbitrarily below that determined by the procedures provided in this
section." Hmm, looks like *that* recommendation isn't followed across
the board...

Note that there really isn't *any* hard standard for advisory speeds
for exit ramps, although obviously I have no way of knowing if that
section of this document is derived from the Green Book or is unique
to the state of TX.

nate


It also shows how stupid the system is.

A ball bank indicator? One big problem with it: in addition to the
movement of the ball due to lateral g forces, you also get movement due
to the roll of the vehicle. And since different vehicles roll different
amounts, you automatically get inconsistent results.


Maybe *YOUR* car has perceptible roll at under 0.5G G

nate

*Every* car does.


You missed the "perceptible" and the G - some of us like stiff
suspensions, such as:

http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel/daytona6.html

nate

Nate Nagel wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
greg byshenk wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently that
one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in such
situations.

This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that
advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
possible.

I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do
with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on
urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually suggesting
that they do; I am justing noting the fact.

Actually, they have a lot to do with it.

In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people
to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore
them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
neighbourhoods.

Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate.

IOW if I'm reading correctly, you are saying that there is some sort of
analogy that one can draw between the two. Which means that the two
don't actually have anything to do with each other.

Poorly maintainance can cause one's programs to crash, and poor
maintainance can cause one's car to crash. The cases are analogous in
a certain way, but actually have nothing to do with each other.


--
greg byshenk - - Leiden, NL

In article ,
greg byshenk wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
greg byshenk wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently
that
one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in such
situations.

This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that
advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
possible.

I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do
with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on
urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually
suggesting
that they do; I am justing noting the fact.

Actually, they have a lot to do with it.

In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people
to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore
them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
neighbourhoods.

Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate.

IOW if I'm reading correctly, you are saying that there is some sort of
analogy that one can draw between the two. Which means that the two
don't actually have anything to do with each other.

Poorly maintainance can cause one's programs to crash, and poor
maintainance can cause one's car to crash. The cases are analogous in
a certain way, but actually have nothing to do with each other.

Actually, the problems we were discussing are very similar. Nothing like
you're describing at all.

--
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."

Alan Baker wrote:
greg byshenk wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
greg byshenk wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so inconsistently
that one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used in
such situations.

This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true that
advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
possible.

I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to do
with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits on
urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually
suggesting that they do; I am justing noting the fact.

Actually, they have a lot to do with it.

In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead people
to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to ignore
them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
neighbourhoods.

Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate.

IOW if I'm reading correctly, you are saying that there is some sort of
analogy that one can draw between the two. Which means that the two
don't actually have anything to do with each other.

Poorly maintainance can cause one's programs to crash, and poor
maintainance can cause one's car to crash. The cases are analogous in
a certain way, but actually have nothing to do with each other.

Actually, the problems we were discussing are very similar. Nothing like
you're describing at all.

Then perhaps you can explain _how_. The explanation above seems to be
precisely a statement of analogy: "A is to B as C is to D". Or, more
directly: "underposted advisory limits are related to people ignoring
advisory limits in the same way as underposted legal limits are to
people ignoring legal limits".

This may be true, but even if so, does nothing to connect _advisory_
limits to violation of legal limits.


--
greg byshenk - - Leiden, NL

In article ,
greg byshenk wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:
greg byshenk wrote:
Nate Nagel wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:
greg byshenk wrote:
Alan Baker wrote:

The huge mistake is for advisory limits to be set so
inconsistently
that one doesn't have an honest idea for what speeds can be used
in
such situations.

This is almost certainly true (and it is at least arguably true
that
advisory speed limits are indeed seriously inconsistent), as is the
earlier comment that decreasing radius turns are to be avoided if
possible.

I would note, though, that such things have absolutely nothing to
do
with speed humps or residential speed limits (or even speed limits
on
urban surface arterials). I don't know if anyone is actually
suggesting that they do; I am justing noting the fact.

Actually, they have a lot to do with it.

In the same way that seriously underposted advisory limits lead
people
to ignore them, seriously underposted legal limits lead people to
ignore
them; even where they're appropriate, such as in residential
neighbourhoods.

Yes, that was exactly the point I was trying to illustrate.

IOW if I'm reading correctly, you are saying that there is some sort of
analogy that one can draw between the two. Which means that the two
don't actually have anything to do with each other.

Poorly maintainance can cause one's programs to crash, and poor
maintainance can cause one's car to crash. The cases are analogous in
a certain way, but actually have nothing to do with each other.

Actually, the problems we were discussing are very similar. Nothing like
you're describing at all.

Then perhaps you can explain _how_. The explanation above seems to be
precisely a statement of analogy: "A is to B as C is to D". Or, more
directly: "underposted advisory limits are related to people ignoring
advisory limits in the same way as underposted legal limits are to
people ignoring legal limits".

This may be true, but even if so, does nothing to connect _advisory_
limits to violation of legal limits.

The connection is that there are legal limits that *are* set correctly
where it is not obvious *why* the limit should be lowered. Not all road
hazards are observable from the driver's seat. But in those cases people
are pre-disposed not to trust the limit, because all of their driving
experience has shown them that legal limits tend to be set wrong.
Unaware of the hazards that they cannot see, they drive without regard
to the limit.

This is precisely what happens in with advisory limits. It's not
analogous, it's the same. It's just that everyone has experienced the
situation with advisory limits, where they may not realize that it
happens with legal limits.

Set limits appropriately *all the time*, and driver's will trust them.
Give drivers wrong information, and they'll tune it out *all the time*.

--
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."

Actually, the problems we were discussing are very similar. Nothing like
you're describing at all.

Then perhaps you can explain _how_. The explanation above seems to be
precisely a statement of analogy: "A is to B as C is to D". Or, more
directly: "underposted advisory limits are related to people ignoring
advisory limits in the same way as underposted legal limits are to
people ignoring legal limits".

This may be true, but even if so, does nothing to connect _advisory_
limits to violation of legal limits.

The connection is this: both the advisory speeds and the legal limits are
posted by the same highway department, and now that that department has
thoroughly earned a reputation for "crying wolf" on most of its signs,
all of its signs tend to be disregarded -- including the small percentage
that drivers really need to heed.

In article ,
John David Galt wrote:

Actually, the problems we were discussing are very similar. Nothing like
you're describing at all.

Then perhaps you can explain _how_. The explanation above seems to be
precisely a statement of analogy: "A is to B as C is to D". Or, more
directly: "underposted advisory limits are related to people ignoring
advisory limits in the same way as underposted legal limits are to
people ignoring legal limits".

This may be true, but even if so, does nothing to connect _advisory_
limits to violation of legal limits.

The connection is this: both the advisory speeds and the legal limits are
posted by the same highway department, and now that that department has
thoroughly earned a reputation for "crying wolf" on most of its signs,
all of its signs tend to be disregarded -- including the small percentage
that drivers really need to heed.

I knew it wasn't that hard to get! g

--
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."

Nate Nagel wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:



If a vehicle is not undergoing extreme lateral acceleration, there is
plenty of friction available for braking as well as turning. And, as
on freeway exit ramps, I have sense to stay away from ten-tenths
cornering moves.


But that's exactly what you were busting me on earlier - entering a
corner at, say, 6/10 and suddenly discovering that I needed 10/10 or
more - which can happen.

Overestimating a safe cornering speed by 40%? That can happen, I
suppose, but not to anyone who's even marginally competent.

I'm continually astounded that you aren't embarrassed by your own posts.
You routinely make yourself sound like you can barely find the pavement!

You also suggested that I slow down in that
situation, implying braking...

It was meant to imply driving at a slower speed.

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