Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

There are *tons* of speed bumps that I could scrape my old car on at
0.00001 MPH simply because the exhaust hung lower than the top of the
speed bump. (VW Scirocco - lowered maybe 1". NOT "slammed.") Let's
not mention how it feels to go over a speed bump on a bicycle!

People who install speed bumps, and/or lobby for the installation of
speed bumps, are quite simply rude and inconsiderate, despite their
protests of inconsiderate behavior on the part of others. Not
everyone drives a land barge SUV.

nate


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

I've seen what may be considered "humps" but none of the ones I've seen
in the flesh are long enough to not scrape. Funny thing is, unlike
speed bumps, they're actually easier to take at a higher speed as the
suspension unloads a little when the front starts on the downslope so
driving faster actually reduces your chance of scraping.


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.

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. The
idea is to keep speeds down to the speed limit in residential areas or
pedestrian areas - not to keep speeds down to 0.00001 mph.


Again, I don't think those kinds of devices work at all - at least in
the cars I drive they actually encourage driving faster.

Anyway, the most common type that I see are the "lump of asphalt" speed
bumps, closely followed by the truly evil things that look like short
parking curbs and really wreck your equipment. I don't think I'd ride a
road bike over one of those at *any* speed if I can avoid it, trueing
rims is not my idea of a good way to spend an afternoon.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
There are badly designed freeway ramps in this world.
The worst ones are decreasing radius exit ramps. Very dangerous.

In article , Nate Nagel wrote:

Anyway, the most common type that I see are the "lump of asphalt" speed
bumps, closely followed by the truly evil things that look like short
parking curbs and really wreck your equipment. I don't think I'd ride a
road bike over one of those at *any* speed if I can avoid it, trueing
rims is not my idea of a good way to spend an afternoon.

I see the small plastic parking block things bolted to the pavement most
often now. They are generally removed in the winter for plowing and
replaced in the spring. There is no choice but to go around those on a
bicycle and generally I can in the car as well. The small asphalt bumps
usually have road bike tire thin gaps in the worst places, such as the
centerline of the road or in the gutter. Generally the best gap is the
one in the center, so I have to take the entire road and then slow to
walking pace to 'thread-the-needle'. What is considered a hump in
chicago (much shorter than frank's 'proper hump') is also something I have
slowed down for on bicycle. But I haven't encountered them much more on
the bike than I have behind the wheel.

Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:



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


I've seen what may be considered "humps" but none of the ones I've seen
in the flesh are long enough to not scrape.

Then you haven't seen the ones I'm talking about. Again, visit
http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm

With a, say, 14 foot hump that's 3.5 inches at its tallest, there is no
way any reasonable vehicle can scrape at a reasonable speed.

If you want to complain about bolt-down logs in parking lots, or short
lumps of asphalt in roadways, you really should start a separate thread
on _that_ topic.

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

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:



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



I've seen what may be considered "humps" but none of the ones I've
seen in the flesh are long enough to not scrape.


Then you haven't seen the ones I'm talking about. Again, visit
http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm

With a, say, 14 foot hump that's 3.5 inches at its tallest, there is no
way any reasonable vehicle can scrape at a reasonable speed.

What's the point? Something like that doesn't affect a vehicle's speed
at all, you could cruise over that at 50 MPH and it wouldn't be any
worse than an average Pittsburgh pothole. Heck, I've deliberately sped
up before hitting shorter but similar devices to pop the front of my car
up (then braked once the front wheels are over the crest to pop the back
up. By doing so, you can actually get over without scraping something
that would normally scrape even at a crawling speed.) I'm not saying
that I drive that fast through a residential neighborhood, simply that
if I somehow got it in my mind to do so such a device wouldn't be an
impediment at all. Really, I don't think any sort of road surface
manipulation can slow down traffic at all without causing damage to some
vehicles, and all such devices are a) bad ideas and b) band-aid fixes to
a completely different problem (people using residential streets as
through streets and/or simply driving like idiots.)


If you want to complain about bolt-down logs in parking lots, or short
lumps of asphalt in roadways, you really should start a separate thread
on _that_ topic.


I don't really see the point; I don't think that anyone smart enough to
find the "on" button on a computer would be in favor of those things.
Sadly, there's plenty of people dumber than that, as evidenced by their
widespread use.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

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

I've seen what may be considered "humps" but none of the ones I've
seen in the flesh are long enough to not scrape.

Then you haven't seen the ones I'm talking about. Again, visit
http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm

With a, say, 14 foot hump that's 3.5 inches at its tallest, there is
no way any reasonable vehicle can scrape at a reasonable speed.


What's the point? Something like that doesn't affect a vehicle's speed
at all, you could cruise over that at 50 MPH and it wouldn't be any
worse than an average Pittsburgh pothole. Heck, I've deliberately sped
up before hitting shorter but similar devices to pop the front of my car
up (then braked once the front wheels are over the crest to pop the back
up. By doing so, you can actually get over without scraping something
that would normally scrape even at a crawling speed.) I'm not saying
that I drive that fast through a residential neighborhood, simply that
if I somehow got it in my mind to do so such a device wouldn't be an
impediment at all.


sigh Did you actually read that page? Here's a quote:

"....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..."

If you google "speed humps" and spend five minutes reading, you'll find
other data - for example, average reduction in speeds of 20% and more.

It's always wise to do this before making claims like your "50 mph" one
above. It's less embarrassing.


Really, I don't think any sort of road surface
manipulation can slow down traffic at all without causing damage to some
vehicles,

One of the points I've been making is, if damage occurs to a vehicle
that's speeding, that's the driver's fault - he shouldn't speed. If
damage occurs to a vehicle that's been modified (say, radically lowered)
that's the owner's fault - he should have planned on the world not being
perfectly flat. The same goes for people who purchase similar vehicles.



and all such devices are a) bad ideas and b) band-aid fixes to
a completely different problem (people using residential streets as
through streets and/or simply driving like idiots.)

Well, it seems many neighborhoods have decided they're a good idea,
partly because they reduce the problem of people driving like idiots.


If you want to complain about bolt-down logs in parking lots, or short
lumps of asphalt in roadways, you really should start a separate
thread on _that_ topic.


I don't really see the point; I don't think that anyone smart enough to
find the "on" button on a computer would be in favor of those things.

Well hopefully, a speed BUMP thread would get those people to state
their complaints in that thread. Then we could stay on speed HUMPS in
this thread.

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

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:

sigh Did you actually read that page? Here's a quote:

"....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..."


Frank quoting 85th percentile..... Amazing. As I recall before I
stopped following r.b.s you believed that the 85th percentile method
had no value. And here you are, quoting its use, where it is used just as I
said it should be used, to determine the actual safe upper bound speed of
the road.

Brent P wrote:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:


sigh Did you actually read that page? Here's a quote:

"....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..."



Frank quoting 85th percentile..... Amazing. As I recall before I
stopped following r.b.s you believed that the 85th percentile method
had no value.

Once again, you're confused.


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

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:
Brent P wrote:

In article , Frank Krygowski wrote:


sigh Did you actually read that page? Here's a quote:

"....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..."



Frank quoting 85th percentile..... Amazing. As I recall before I
stopped following r.b.s you believed that the 85th percentile method
had no value.

Once again, you're confused.

Google is loaded with posts where you state you don't believe in the 85th
percentile method. Where you feel that signage and enforcement is the way
to get the lower speeds.

I'll quote a couple instances where you claimed it had no value in these
situations:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3A...utput= gplain

- Again, this is obvious to everyone but one or two. This is the reason
- that places with high pedestrian traffic have lower speed limits, as
- standard practice. This is the reason that there are such things as
- school zones, where speed limits are _much_ lower than the 85th
- percentile driver would normally choose.

Later in the thread:

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=3A...utput= gplain

- If you understand and accept that, then you shouldn't be arguing against
- enforcement of the speed limit in small towns, as you have been. You
- shouldn't be telling me that my small town should re-design the state
- highway instead of ticketing speeders. After all, they don't re-design
- the road at every school zone. They put up a sign, and they ticket
- offenders. It's much more economical, and it works.


So, now you pull out quotes showing that changing the road design by
adding some half-assed retrofits to lower the 85th percentile speed as
supporting evidence. I told you years ago the way to get the lower
speeds you wanted was to lower the 85th percentile speed and you went on
and on and on about how the sign and a cop writing tickets was good
enough. You didn't want to redesign the road for lower speeds, you
wanted signs and enforcement. Now you want half-ass retrofits
to change the design of the road to lower the 85th percentile speed.
It's simply amazing. You could just admit that I'm correct (that the way
to actually acheive lower traffic speeds is make a slower road to lower
the 85th percentile minus any signs/enforcement), and you (signs and
enforcement is the way) were wrong.

Frank Krygowski wrote in message ...
Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank Krygowski wrote:

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

I've seen what may be considered "humps" but none of the ones I've
seen in the flesh are long enough to not scrape.

Then you haven't seen the ones I'm talking about. Again, visit
http://www.ite.org/traffic/hump.htm

With a, say, 14 foot hump that's 3.5 inches at its tallest, there is
no way any reasonable vehicle can scrape at a reasonable speed.


What's the point? Something like that doesn't affect a vehicle's speed
at all, you could cruise over that at 50 MPH and it wouldn't be any
worse than an average Pittsburgh pothole. Heck, I've deliberately sped
up before hitting shorter but similar devices to pop the front of my car
up (then braked once the front wheels are over the crest to pop the back
up. By doing so, you can actually get over without scraping something
that would normally scrape even at a crawling speed.) I'm not saying
that I drive that fast through a residential neighborhood, simply that
if I somehow got it in my mind to do so such a device wouldn't be an
impediment at all.


sigh Did you actually read that page? Here's a quote:

"....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..."

If you google "speed humps" and spend five minutes reading, you'll find
other data - for example, average reduction in speeds of 20% and more.

It's always wise to do this before making claims like your "50 mph" one
above. It's less embarrassing.


I'm not the one that ought to be embarassed. Wanna go for a ride?
Real world experience trumps theory every time, buddy.


Really, I don't think any sort of road surface
manipulation can slow down traffic at all without causing damage to some
vehicles,

One of the points I've been making is, if damage occurs to a vehicle
that's speeding, that's the driver's fault - he shouldn't speed. If
damage occurs to a vehicle that's been modified (say, radically lowered)
that's the owner's fault - he should have planned on the world not being
perfectly flat. The same goes for people who purchase similar vehicles.



and all such devices are a) bad ideas and b) band-aid fixes to
a completely different problem (people using residential streets as
through streets and/or simply driving like idiots.)

Well, it seems many neighborhoods have decided they're a good idea,
partly because they reduce the problem of people driving like idiots.

No, it really doesn't, it just ****es them off and IME makes them
drive *more* idiotically - *between* the "traffic calming" devices.
"Neighborhoods" have decided they're a good idea primarily because the
neighborhoods in question must be populated by morons.



If you want to complain about bolt-down logs in parking lots, or short
lumps of asphalt in roadways, you really should start a separate
thread on _that_ topic.


I don't really see the point; I don't think that anyone smart enough to
find the "on" button on a computer would be in favor of those things.

Well hopefully, a speed BUMP thread would get those people to state
their complaints in that thread. Then we could stay on speed HUMPS in
this thread.

They're *all* bad. "Traffic calming" is bad. Any "traffic calming"
device is an admission that someone f'ed up in planning.

I'm guessing you're posting from the bicycling group - I would have
thought that people there would be even more anti-"traffic calming"
than here (RAD) as the consequences to a bike are much more severe
than those to a car.

nate