|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |