Cities Turning to Bicycles

Arif Khokar wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

Arif Khokar wrote:

And other limited access road networks in Europe have higher fatality
rates than the Autobahnen despite the fact that they have speed
limits. There is no correlation or causality between low speed
limits and fatality rates when speed limits are widely ignored.


I was under the impression that speed limits in GB were somewhat
leniently enforced, other than the photo radars, is that not the case
anymore?


I can't really say since I've never driven in the UK

I have, and I don't recall any significant difference on the motorways.
Traffic on country roads tends to be faster than here, from what I
recall. And apparently, this is what contributes to worse safety for
pedestrians and cyclists.

Of course, driving fans tend to treat those fatalities as negligible.


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

Arif Khokar wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

In all the citations that were given to justify setting the speed
limit at the 85th percentile, there was no mention of road safety of
pedestrians or cyclists.


Which would be irrelevant on controlled or limited access highways.

And as I've said before, I'm not particularly concerned about moderate
speeding on those highways.

However, we're hearing from some 85th percentile fans who think it
should apply everywhere.

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

Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:


I get some satisfaction out of the fact that those brats almost
invariably pass one "slower" driver (i.e. "at the speed limit" slow),
then run up behind the next "slow" driver, where they once again wait
and whine and gnash their teeth.

It's an interesting form of self-punishment, and one they're not smart
enough to understand!


I realize you're beling deliberately obtuse, but that wouldn't happen if
you obeyed some of the other traffic laws besides the speed limit, and
actually kept right except to pass. It's actually possible for people
to drive at different speeds and still play nice with each other - so
long as all involved act like responsible adults.

I realize you're being accidentally and naturally obtuse, but it's
actually possible for someone to be going, oh, 38 in the left lane,
passing someone doing 33 in the right lane, and yet frustrate the hell
out of a yahoo who feels he's clever and important enough to do 50 mph
in a 35 zone.

It's also possible to drive 35 in a 35 zone, and frustrate that same
jerk because there are only two lanes - and dammit, the person in front
just doesn't realize he should pull off the road to let the important
young man get by!!

Finally, it's possible for someone to make snide comments, while
blatantly demonstrating that they haven't given a moment's thought to
real-life situations on real roads. Like those above. Talk about obtuse!


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

Alan Baker wrote:

In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:


This has been discussed before on some of these groups, of course. And
what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.


Cyclists are a bit of a problem, but *pedestrians*???? You think that
drivers at the 85th percentile are jumping the curb?

Yes, pedestians. The vast majority of pedestrian fatalities happen in
crosswalks. One very common type is the left turning driver rushing to
beat on coming traffic. "Oops, I didn't see him, officer." Higher
traffic speeds make these turns more difficult, and contribute. And
higher traffic speeds _strongly_ affect the injury and death rates of
pedestrian and cylist victims of these idiots.

But many Car & Driver subscribers don't have this on their radar. If
you're not in a car, you don't count.




It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
extensive bridge work.


Badly set limits send the message that *all* speed limits aren't worth
respecting. If all roads were posted at an appropriate speed for and
then you encountered a sign for a lower speed, wouldn't you expect it to
indicate a special circumstance that you might not be able to see?



As you might expect, the drivers delayed by the congestion were _very_
comfortable making up a few lost seconds in that school zone. The fact
that there were pre-schoolers there for day care, kindergarten kids, and
kids in grades 1-5 didn't matter much to them.


Because they've been taught not to respect the limits by all the ones
that are set so badly; the vast majority.


Heavy enforcement brought that problem under reasonable control. But
the "85th Percentile" crowd probably doesn't even acknowledge it _was_ a
problem, since, after all, there were no motorists placed at risk.

Kindergarteners don't drive, so they don't count, it seems.


That is a ridiculous statement.

Of course it's ridiculous. But watch a 19-year-old with a loud exhaust
drive through a school zone sometime. He'll be more interested in
showing how macho he is than in keeping someone's kid sister alive. To
him, the kids don't count.

And honestly, it doesn't matter _why_ he thinks that particular speed
limit is unrealistic. We don't need to be endangering little kids to
work toward distant, hypothetical cures of your little irritations.

Slow down. The world really does not revolve around you, your precious
car, and your travel time.


A few months ago, we had one teenaged driver kill some buddies. He was
doing over 80 in a 25 zone, according to one who barely survived. I'm
_certain_ he thought that road was "underposted."

They say that when the cops arrived on the scene and started prying the
bodies out of the wreckage, he was saying "This wasn't supposed to
happen. This wasn't supposed to happen."

Of course it wasn't. He was, no doubt, confident of his skill and his
superior judgement. Much like those posting here.

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

In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:

Alan Baker wrote:

In article ,
Frank Krygowski wrote:


This has been discussed before on some of these groups, of course. And
what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.


Cyclists are a bit of a problem, but *pedestrians*???? You think that
drivers at the 85th percentile are jumping the curb?

Yes, pedestians. The vast majority of pedestrian fatalities happen in
crosswalks. One very common type is the left turning driver rushing to
beat on coming traffic. "Oops, I didn't see him, officer." Higher
traffic speeds make these turns more difficult, and contribute. And
higher traffic speeds _strongly_ affect the injury and death rates of
pedestrian and cylist victims of these idiots.

No. Those accidents are a result of people rushing for a light, which
they can do at any speed.


But many Car & Driver subscribers don't have this on their radar. If
you're not in a car, you don't count.

Oh, do shut up.





It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
extensive bridge work.


Badly set limits send the message that *all* speed limits aren't worth
respecting. If all roads were posted at an appropriate speed for and
then you encountered a sign for a lower speed, wouldn't you expect it to
indicate a special circumstance that you might not be able to see?



As you might expect, the drivers delayed by the congestion were _very_
comfortable making up a few lost seconds in that school zone. The fact
that there were pre-schoolers there for day care, kindergarten kids, and
kids in grades 1-5 didn't matter much to them.


Because they've been taught not to respect the limits by all the ones
that are set so badly; the vast majority.


Heavy enforcement brought that problem under reasonable control. But
the "85th Percentile" crowd probably doesn't even acknowledge it _was_ a
problem, since, after all, there were no motorists placed at risk.

Kindergarteners don't drive, so they don't count, it seems.


That is a ridiculous statement.

Of course it's ridiculous. But watch a 19-year-old with a loud exhaust
drive through a school zone sometime. He'll be more interested in
showing how macho he is than in keeping someone's kid sister alive. To
him, the kids don't count.

The school zone isn't made safer by under posting the rest of the roads.


And honestly, it doesn't matter _why_ he thinks that particular speed
limit is unrealistic. We don't need to be endangering little kids to
work toward distant, hypothetical cures of your little irritations.

But it doesn't endanger kids. It helps them. It gives drivers with more
common sense (the vast majority) more reason to respect the limit, and
it frees up police manpower to do things such as monitor speed in school
zones.

Slow down. The world really does not revolve around you, your precious
car, and your travel time.

Oh, do shut up. It's about the fact that the vast majority of people are
making completely reasonable choices and our governments would rather
tax them than do things that might actually improve safety such as
tightening licensing standards.



A few months ago, we had one teenaged driver kill some buddies. He was
doing over 80 in a 25 zone, according to one who barely survived. I'm
_certain_ he thought that road was "underposted."

No. He was being an asshole.


They say that when the cops arrived on the scene and started prying the
bodies out of the wreckage, he was saying "This wasn't supposed to
happen. This wasn't supposed to happen."

Of course it wasn't. He was, no doubt, confident of his skill and his
superior judgement. Much like those posting here.

Was he even close to the 85th percentile speed for that road? How much
would you like to be he wasn't?

--
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."

Brent P wrote:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:


what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.


I ride arterials alot. The worst ones to ride are the severely
underposted ones. Passing traffic tries to use the right lane because
people feel justified blocking the passing lane. These conflicts for
space are what I don't like when bicycling. The closer the speed limit is
to the 85th percentile the less frequent these conflicts in my
experience. I don't care if the guy is doing 2mph or 200mph, I don't
want him trying to occupy the space I'm in. By making for better flow
the problem is lessened.


It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
extensive bridge work.


_METHOD_ _METHOD_ You people keep bringing up this as if it invalidates
things. A key concept of the 85th percentile speed limit is to make speed
limits mean something so that when there is a school or some other
feature that requires people to slow down despite no obvious change, the
sign actually alerts them to it and they slow down.

Instead, speed limits cry wolf all the time, and then the complaints that
people aren't following the speed limit where they really need to. Maybe
that's because the posted speed limit is meaningless the majority of the
time.

So how many kids should we sacrifice while we work toward your "final
solution"?


--
--------------------+
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:


what I said then was this: All the evidence was directed toward road
safety of the _motorists_. In all the citations that were given to
justify setting the speed limit at the 85th percentile, there was no
mention of road safety of pedestrians or cyclists.


I ride arterials alot. The worst ones to ride are the severely
underposted ones. Passing traffic tries to use the right lane because
people feel justified blocking the passing lane. These conflicts for
space are what I don't like when bicycling. The closer the speed limit is
to the 85th percentile the less frequent these conflicts in my
experience. I don't care if the guy is doing 2mph or 200mph, I don't
want him trying to occupy the space I'm in. By making for better flow
the problem is lessened.


It's easy to show that oversimple application of that rule of thumb can
cause problems. Think, for example, of an elementary school on an
arterial road - or (as we had a few years ago) an elementary school on a
side road that suddenly became a detour for an arterial, due to
extensive bridge work.


_METHOD_ _METHOD_ You people keep bringing up this as if it invalidates
things. A key concept of the 85th percentile speed limit is to make speed
limits mean something so that when there is a school or some other
feature that requires people to slow down despite no obvious change, the
sign actually alerts them to it and they slow down.

Instead, speed limits cry wolf all the time, and then the complaints that
people aren't following the speed limit where they really need to. Maybe
that's because the posted speed limit is meaningless the majority of the
time.

So how many kids should we sacrifice while we work toward your "final
solution"?

What do you think you're talking about? Wouldn't raising limits to where
they should be on ordinary roads leave the police with more time to
monitor speeds in school zones?

--
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."

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:
Brent P wrote:

As it sounds by what little information you provide, a first step might
be really cheap. A couple of 'no right on red' signs. If that's why it's
a short cut, because of right on red, then that may put an end to it.
Because only one person need obey it to stop a string a of right on red
turners it will cease to be a short cut. It may take the same time or
longer than the unknown alternatives. It's not perfect, it punishes the
good drivers with the bad, but it's less annoying than the speed humps.

I realize that you're trying to address Tim's situation, not mine, but
I'll just point out that your solution would be useless in this case.
Here, they turn into this neighborhood to avoid a light one block
further on. And AFAIK, there's no legal way to prohibit cut-through
speeders from turning right, yet give residents permission to do so.
Except by gating the community, of course - which is yet another
impractical solution.

Another device that is used to improve traffic flow and to prevent cut
throughs (two applications for the same theory) is totally prohibiting
certain turns durring commute times. But you'll blather on about how this
can never work for you blah blah blah. how it can never work anywhere
blah blah blah. how it's just speeders wanting to go as fast as they want
blah blah blah. However it's in practice in a number of areas I both ride
and drive through.

I even have problems with drivers when I make one particular left hand
turn on the bicycle (I've never done it in a car) because it's no left
turn except 7-9am on weekdays. I'd usually be making the turn about
5-6pm on a weekday or any time on the weekend. The drivers I suppose
don't read the sign, just see the left turn arrow with the line through
it. It's there to keep people from backing up the arterial _and_ from
using the residential area as a short cut.

But I know, you'll just insult me and dismiss this out of hand. You don't
want to hear about what's working elsewhere unless it's a speed hump.

Sometimes you really do have to be in the place in question, on the
ground, to have a hope of understanding. This is why your theories fail.

Frank, the problem is you are totally unwilling to examine anything other
than speed humps. Totally unwilling to admit that other measures work in
other places, to you only speed humps work in other places. Other places
are evidence speed humps will work for you yet at the same other places
means it can never work in your special little corner of the universe.
It's a cute double standard, but hey whatever floats your boat, because
it's clear you don't even want to consider other solutions, even if they
are cheaper and easier and have fewer drawbacks.

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:
Brent P wrote:

In article , Nate Nagel wrote:


You are correct in your assessment, though, these are about the height
of an unusually high curb.


After I parked I did examine the stealth hump. It was about 3/4" shy of
the top of the big square curb.

Is there a reason you're not giving us the height in inches?

Because I would have to measure my car and my car wasn't with me when
I wrote that post. Now it's raining and you're not worth getting wet for.

If you're so damn interested, find a '97 mustang, measure from the ground
to the bottom of the door skin.

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:


A few months ago, we had one teenaged driver kill some buddies. He was
doing over 80 in a 25 zone, according to one who barely survived. I'm
_certain_ he thought that road was "underposted."

Frank, how would you like it if someone started making parallels between
you and people who molest children? That would be on par with what you
are doing above. This behavior of yours is uncalled for.

You could post the speed limit at 5mph and put in a bunch of speed bumps.
The idiot kid would use the thing as a jumping ramp. You aren't going to
stop this crap, you're just going to make things more difficult for the
law abiding citizens you don't cause problems. Who don't run down little
kids. People like you love to point at the crazy teenager who offed
himself or killed somebody else doing some stupid crap and say that
anyone who doesn't agree with the speed kills mantra is for that. It's
like democrats who go around saying that bush wants dirty air and
republicans who say terrorists will attack if kerry is elected. You're in
the same league as them. What is your malfunction? Nobody wants
terrorists to attack, nobody wants dirty air, and nobody wants teenagers
doing 80 on a residential street.