A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Social Issues
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Cities Turning to Bicycles



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 22nd 04, 03:12 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
about. You're talking about something else.

The vocabulary is well accepted by people who know this subject. Speed
BUMPS are short in the direction of travel (8" to perhaps 30"), feature
steep slopes (as much as 45 degrees) and can't be driven over at much
above a walking speed.


You can take them at any speed you want if you don't care about damage
to your car.

Speed HUMPS are as long as 14 feet in the direction of travel, feature
smooth slopes, and can be driven comfortably at speeds like 25 mph,
depending on their design. They cause discomfort at higher speeds.


Incorrect. They cause discomfort at any speed. In a stiffly-sprung
light car like the Miata, it's like hitting four mild bumps in a row
(once at each slope change). In a more softly sprung car, as well as
getting the bumps, the slope changes can cause the suspension to
oscillate in an uncomfortable manner -- the speeds at which this
effect is worst depends entirely on a car.

And the name "humps" is used because people know they hate "bumps".
It's just propaganda.
Ads
  #22  
Old September 22nd 04, 04:21 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
about. You're talking about something else.


I just did the search in google images....

http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/trafeng/NTMP/humpa.jpg
http://www.transalt.org/press/magazi...dhumpbronx.jpg
http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbo...peedhumps1.jpg
http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbo...peedhumps3.jpg
http://www.mesalek.com/colo/picts/fc_stuartspdhmp.jpg
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/images/hump.jpg

As you can see the design varies quite a bit. All can put all four tires
of many vehicles below the peak of the hump with the peak under the car.

The vocabulary is well accepted by people who know this subject. Speed
BUMPS are short in the direction of travel (8" to perhaps 30"), feature
steep slopes (as much as 45 degrees) and can't be driven over at much
above a walking speed.


Obviously not, as speed hump is used by offical government agenices have
pictures of what you call 'bumps' but are calling them humps.
A couple from the selection above:

http://www.transalt.org/press/magazi...dhumpbronx.jpg
http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/trafeng/NTMP/humpa.jpg

Speed HUMPS are as long as 14 feet in the direction of travel, feature
smooth slopes, and can be driven comfortably at speeds like 25 mph,
depending on their design.


In chicago, Speed humps are about 4-5 in the direction of travel, have
steep slopes of only a 6 inches or less and are as high as the curb, 4-6
inches.

The definitions are not defined as you would like them to be.



  #23  
Old September 22nd 04, 04:35 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Matthew Russotto wrote:

Wouldn't matter. Even if everyone driving through Frank's
neighborhood was doing the speed limit or below, he'd still complain
they were going "too fast" and want some sort of "traffic calming"
installed. He probably sits out on his front lawn yelling at everyone
who drives by that he doesn't know to "slow down". I've had such
people yell at me while I'm driving in my Miata -- only to look down
and see I'm already doing less than the limit.


The whole speed hump/bump thing IMO is more of a keep the outsiders out
type of thing. In chicago there is permit parking to keep outsiders out
of the neighborhood. A few have speed humps/bumps. It's a territorial
thing IMO. How dare some 'outsider' use 'our' street. I get dirty looks
when I ride through residential areas I haven't ridden through before or
ride through infrequently. Speed is secondary at best. My guess is that
eventually there will be key-card gates.

I've seen countless subdivisions that are next to each other and the
streets are purposely not connected. A large curb or patch of grass or
jersey barrier just to keep people from driving from subdivision A to
subdivision B. This occurs when that would be the only thing the road
would be good for, not as a short cut or diversionary path from the
arterials. Can't have 'those people' driving over here.... With the
bicycle these things are just an annoyance however.




  #24  
Old September 22nd 04, 04:57 PM
Muttley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:38:56 GMT, "Mark Jones" wrote:

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:33:50 GMT,
. net,
"Mark Jones" wrote:


I don't need to slow down because I do not speed in
residential areas.


No, you need to slow down so you don't damage your car

Then you won't _need_ to whine.


  #25  
Old September 22nd 04, 05:41 PM
Mark Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Muttley" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:38:56 GMT, "Mark Jones"
wrote:

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:33:50 GMT,
. net,
"Mark Jones" wrote:


I don't need to slow down because I do not speed in
residential areas.


No, you need to slow down so you don't damage your car

Then you won't _need_ to whine.

I am not whining and I do not need to slow down when I am not
speeding in the first place. Speed bumps that are excessively
high are not a good thing, no matter how you try to spin it.

Poorly designed speed bumps in shopping center parking lots
are my main complaint, not the ones that you find on residential
streets. I avoid these shopping centers even when I am in my
truck as I do not like the rough ride over these things.


  #26  
Old September 22nd 04, 07:27 PM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brent P wrote:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:

First, adjust the orbit of the earth around the sun. Get it properly
circular, for gosh sake!



Frank has no rebuttle.


Heck, I don't even have a buttle, whatever that is! ;-)


Terse replies work much better with correct spelling. ;-)

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

  #27  
Old September 22nd 04, 07:45 PM
Frank Krygowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brent P wrote:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:


Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
about. You're talking about something else.



I just did the search in google images....


Do it in Google.


http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/trafeng/NTMP/humpa.jpg
http://www.transalt.org/press/magazi...dhumpbronx.jpg
http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbo...peedhumps1.jpg
http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbo...peedhumps3.jpg
http://www.mesalek.com/colo/picts/fc_stuartspdhmp.jpg
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/images/hump.jpg

As you can see the design varies quite a bit. All can put all four tires
of many vehicles below the peak of the hump with the peak under the car.


And the ones designed according to the current standards will clear any
reasonable undercarriage just fine. Only the first seems to be a
mistaken design. It should be fixed.


The vocabulary is well accepted by people who know this subject. Speed
BUMPS are short in the direction of travel (8" to perhaps 30"), feature
steep slopes (as much as 45 degrees) and can't be driven over at much
above a walking speed.



Obviously not, as speed hump is used by offical government agenices have
pictures of what you call 'bumps' but are calling them humps.


"... people who know this subject." I'm sorry that not everyone does -
but I submit that educating the world's traffic engineers on this design
is far easier than your proposed alternative of fixing local speeding by
starting with the interstate system regulations!

Visit http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm for some detail on doing them
right. It also lists advantages and _realistically_ states
disadvantages, so communities and engineers can make informed decisions.



Speed HUMPS are as long as 14 feet in the direction of travel, feature
smooth slopes, and can be driven comfortably at speeds like 25 mph,
depending on their design.



In chicago, Speed humps are about 4-5 in the direction of travel, have
steep slopes of only a 6 inches or less and are as high as the curb, 4-6
inches.

The definitions are not defined as you would like them to be.


There are badly designed freeway ramps in this world. There are badly
designed intersections. There are badly designed sidewalks. And there
are badly designed speed humps.

That does NOT mean we should have no freeways, no bridges, no sidewalks.
And it does NOT mean we should have no speed humps.

It means the designs should be done correctly.



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

  #28  
Old September 22nd 04, 08:08 PM
Muttley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 16:41:47 GMT, "Mark Jones" wrote:

"Muttley" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:38:56 GMT, "Mark Jones"
wrote:

"Zoot Katz" wrote in message
...
Tue, 21 Sep 2004 10:33:50 GMT,
. net,
"Mark Jones" wrote:


I don't need to slow down because I do not speed in
residential areas.


No, you need to slow down so you don't damage your car

Then you won't _need_ to whine.

I am not whining and I do not need to slow down when I am not
speeding in the first place.


OK, fine - if you want to damage your car, you go right ahead.

That's the advantage of a free country

Speed bumps that are excessively
high are not a good thing, no matter how you try to spin it.


"Too high" is a bit of a moveable feast, though, isn't it.

A mother whose child has been killed by a motorist who was quite confident that
he wasn't speeding when he killed her child, might have one idea, and the
motorist who considers that he never speeds, might well have another.


Poorly designed speed bumps in shopping center parking lots
are my main complaint.


I sympathize with you there.

I once used to stay at a hotel that had a very low speed hump, that no matter
how slowly you went over it caused the car to lurch violently (and I mean even
at 1-2mph). I turned up very late one night when the environs were deserted, and
decided to try it at 40. No problem at all.



  #29  
Old September 22nd 04, 08:45 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:
Brent P wrote:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:

First, adjust the orbit of the earth around the sun. Get it properly
circular, for gosh sake!



Frank has no rebuttle.


Heck, I don't even have a buttle, whatever that is! ;-)


Terse replies work much better with correct spelling. ;-)


Worked perfectly in this case as I wanted to see if I could reduce you to
complaining about spelling.


  #30  
Old September 22nd 04, 09:05 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:
Brent P wrote:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:


Nate, please google "speed hump" to see what we're actually talking
about. You're talking about something else.



I just did the search in google images....


Do it in Google.


I did, their picture utility. Faster than sifting through websites
finding ones with pictures.

http://www.dot.co.pima.az.us/trafeng/NTMP/humpa.jpg
http://www.transalt.org/press/magazi...dhumpbronx.jpg
http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbo...peedhumps1.jpg
http://www.trafficcalming.org/toolbo...peedhumps3.jpg
http://www.mesalek.com/colo/picts/fc_stuartspdhmp.jpg
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/roadworks/images/hump.jpg

As you can see the design varies quite a bit. All can put all four tires
of many vehicles below the peak of the hump with the peak under the car.


And the ones designed according to the current standards will clear any
reasonable undercarriage just fine. Only the first seems to be a
mistaken design. It should be fixed.


Speed humps are like bike lanes. Put in as half-assed retrofits most of
the time. There is no set definition that is in anything close to
universal usage.

Obviously not, as speed hump is used by offical government agenices have
pictures of what you call 'bumps' but are calling them humps.


"... people who know this subject." I'm sorry that not everyone does -


Not even the DOTs. Just you I suppose.

but I submit that educating the world's traffic engineers on this design
is far easier than your proposed alternative of fixing local speeding by
starting with the interstate system regulations!


Educating traffic engineers won't achieve your goal. THe 85th percentile
method of setting speed limits comes from traffic engineers and yet
that's not happening despite all the decades of evidence behind it. The
very same politics you call "community scale" will stifle what you call
proper speed hump design. Because somewhere, somebody will think one
three feet in the traffic direction looks better than one 14 feet... or
the 14 foot one will ruin the space where he parks his car, or something
like that. Standardizing speed humps is about as politically viable as
setting speed limits correctly.

Visit http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm for some detail on doing them
right. It also lists advantages and _realistically_ states
disadvantages, so communities and engineers can make informed decisions.


I should dismiss it out of hand as you do with V85 evidence.
Anyway, 12-14 feet in the travel direction, 300-600 feet apart... Like
the ideal bicycle lane configuration, I've never seen this animal in the
wild. The one pictured looks good for sliding a car into that big tree
after an ice storm though.

You are insisting that speed humps are needed because road design is done
incorrectly and it cannot be fixed. Yet, you'd have me not believe my
own eyes, but rather your claim that the speed humps are / will be designed
correctly. It's inconsistant to say the least.

There are badly designed freeway ramps in this world. There are badly
designed intersections. There are badly designed sidewalks. And there
are badly designed speed humps.

That does NOT mean we should have no freeways, no bridges, no sidewalks.
And it does NOT mean we should have no speed humps.

It means the designs should be done correctly.


And if we are going to do things correctly, we can eliminate speed humps
entirely.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rec.Bicycles Frequently Asked Questions Posting Part 1/5 Mike Iglesias General 4 October 29th 04 07:11 AM
Cities Turning to Bicycles Roger Zoul General 468 October 20th 04 02:53 AM
Cities Turning to Bicycles TBGibb Rides 11 October 4th 04 12:43 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2022 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.