Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Peter Cole

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:

> Driving commercial size trucks can be fun, because there is a lot more
> involvement necessary. People also tend to NOT do MFFY maneuvers to you,
> since you will easily crush even the largest SUV in a collision.

I guess we have different ideas of fun.

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Peter Cole wrote:
> Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
>> The CM type stunts of deliberately blocking motor vehicle traffic, or
>> riding on the freeway [1] to "prove a point" are an entirely different
>> matter. While they make raise the self-esteem of the participants, the
>> overall effect is counterproductive to cyclists’ rights and treatment.
>>
>> [1] Like the Chicago CM ride a few years back that went on the Ike.
>>
>
> I guess this thread is over, the logical end is either CM or Hitler.

KDF-Wagen!!!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman

Peter Cole wrote:
> ...
> If it seems weird that people who live around there care more about
> their kids than your muffler, I suggest you spend some time in quiet
> reflection, you may have an epiphany....

How can one spend time in quiet reflection when there is too much noise
from children and muffler-less motor vehicles?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

frkrygow@gmail.com

On Jul 19, 11:20 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com aka Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> > On Jul 19, 10:23 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
> > <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >> Thank you for fixing your user name. Now the other two primary offenders
> >> need to follow suit.
>
> > Sorry, but I'm using two different accounts here. One is not "fixed"
> > as you like it. But my real name is always at the bottom of my posts.
>
> I suggest you go down to the county courthouse and ask the judge to
> change your legal name to "frkry...@gmail.com" then.
>

I'll think about that, "Johnny." ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

frkrygow@gmail.com

On Jul 19, 11:23 pm, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> The motor vehicle operators are much ruder to other motor vehicle
> operators now than a couple of decades ago. The degree of rudeness can
> also be correlated to the amount of traffic.

.... or the number of television sets, or the Dow Jones average, or...

- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 20, 2:14 am, r15...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 9:10 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Multi-user paths for transportation purposes are similar, except the few
>>> that serve as useful short cuts. (MUPs make fine linear parks for those
>>> who like them, but those should be paid for by park funds, not
>>> transportation funds.)

>> Nonsense. Where fully separated MUPS have been installed through
>> densely populated areas they have uniformly become highly useful and
>> important corridors for transportational cycling. I suggest you go
>> somewhere and experience what you apparently cannot even imagine.
>
> Coincidentally, last night I happened across an archived post on this
> subject, from a different discussion group. Here it is:

When I returned to cycling, 12 years ago, I was a unalloyed fan of
MUP's. One day, after a ride, I struck up a conversation with a young
woman in a coffee shop. She admitted that she had done no riding since
her boyfriend was killed on a MUP. It was similar to the wake up I got
when I met a young Palestinian who's dad died in an Israeli prison camp.
Simple views die hard. Issues are complex.

Arif Khokar

r15757@aol.com wrote:

> Nonsense. Where fully separated MUPS have been installed through
> densely populated areas they have uniformly become highly useful and
> important corridors for transportational cycling. I suggest you go
> somewhere and experience what you apparently cannot even imagine.

They would be if it weren't for clueless pedestrians and dog walkers.

Peter Cole

Arif Khokar wrote:
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Nonsense. Where fully separated MUPS have been installed through
>> densely populated areas they have uniformly become highly useful and
>> important corridors for transportational cycling. I suggest you go
>> somewhere and experience what you apparently cannot even imagine.
>
> They would be if it weren't for clueless pedestrians and dog walkers.

Bad enough, but the real killers are the road crossings.

As for bike lanes (to swipe from Sheldon Brown), they seem like peeing
sections in a swimming pool.

frkrygow@gmail.com

On Jul 20, 10:01 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <8oGdnT6hoO_6ID3bnZ2dnUVZ_qOkn...@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> > Brent P wrote:
> >> In article <tpadnei4LsraPz3bnZ2dnUVZ_o6kn...@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>
> >>> Humps don't cause any serious damage, if any damage at all. They cause
> >>> no damage to those who obey the posted speed.
>
> >> BULLSHIT. On a 30mph street I was looking for parking one dark rainy
> >> night, driving 10-15mph. One hump was not painted, I hit it and my
> >> car's exhaust banged into it and scraped along it. The car is at the
> >> factory height btw. If I had been going the speed limit, there would have
> >> been significant damage.

Poor, poor Brent! ;-)

ISTR discussing this incident before. It's possible the hump was
badly designed, of course. If that's the case, you could register a
complaint, perhaps with others whose cars were also damaged. It's
also possible your road toy is designed with extremely low clearance,
for sportiness. If that's the case, you could drive slower, take a
different route, or get a more practical car.

I know I've driven over many speed humps, and never had problems.

> > It's well known that speed humps restrict speeds to the 10-20mph range.
> > If there was inadequate signage in a 30mph zone then you have a case
> > with the DPW.
>
> And now your tune changes... they would cause damage when obeying the
> posted limit. I've never seen a residential speed limit below 20mph. So
> now you agree, they are damaging well below the speed limit.

The speed humps I've experienced are fine at 25 mph. The design speed
can differ, of course.

> > Humps have proved to slow traffic, reducing pedestrian fatalities among
> > other benefits.
>
> They have a huge number of serious drawbacks. Speed humps have killed
> people when the jolt to the ambulence was enough to turn a serious injury
> into a fatal one.

Oh? Does that happen as often as jolts to ambulances caused by
motorists' misbehavior? Somehow I doubt it. This is just another
case of trotting out a rare (if ever) detriment and using it to
justify much greater detriments.

> > If it seems weird that people who live around there care more about
> > their kids than your muffler, I suggest you spend some time in quiet
> > reflection, you may have an epiphany.
>
> Damaging at 10mph? Now I stop at all bumps and sound the horn. Their lazy
> parenting is no excuse to screw up the road surface. And slower doesn't
> save junior, it just means junior has to run out closer to the car to be
> killed.

First, if you really do stop at all bumps and sound the horn, you
deserve to be cited for obstruction of traffic and disturbing the
peace (as well as general obnoxiousness).

But your thinking on speed vs. fatalities is simply wrong. Likelihood
of pedestrian fatality is highly dependent on vehicle speed. Traffic
engineers know this, even if you don't - and that's probably
responsible for their implementing traffic controls that cause you to
petulantly complain.

Slow down. It's only a few seconds, it won't cause you to miss _that_
much TV.

And it's only a car. Nobody cares if your muffler isn't pristine.

- Frank Krygowski

Brent P

In article <nZ4oi.12444$ya1.3774@news02.roc.ny>, Arif Khokar wrote:
> r15757@aol.com wrote:
>
>> Nonsense. Where fully separated MUPS have been installed through
>> densely populated areas they have uniformly become highly useful and
>> important corridors for transportational cycling. I suggest you go
>> somewhere and experience what you apparently cannot even imagine.
>
> They would be if it weren't for clueless pedestrians and dog walkers.

When away from any road and having no at grade crossings of roads, or at
least signaled intersections. Otherwise it ends up with lots of 'ride
outs' which are the most common way bicycle riders get hit by motor vehicles.

N8N

On Jul 20, 12:38 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:01 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <8oGdnT6hoO_6ID3bnZ2dnUVZ_qOkn...@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> > > Brent P wrote:
> > >> In article <tpadnei4LsraPz3bnZ2dnUVZ_o6kn...@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>
> > >>> Humps don't cause any serious damage, if any damage at all. They cause
> > >>> no damage to those who obey the posted speed.
>
> > >> BULLSHIT. On a 30mph street I was looking for parking one dark rainy
> > >> night, driving 10-15mph. One hump was not painted, I hit it and my
> > >> car's exhaust banged into it and scraped along it. The car is at the
> > >> factory height btw. If I had been going the speed limit, there would have
> > >> been significant damage.
>
> Poor, poor Brent! ;-)
>
> ISTR discussing this incident before. It's possible the hump was
> badly designed, of course. If that's the case, you could register a
> complaint, perhaps with others whose cars were also damaged. It's
> also possible your road toy is designed with extremely low clearance,
> for sportiness. If that's the case, you could drive slower, take a
> different route, or get a more practical car.
>
> I know I've driven over many speed humps, and never had problems.
>
> > > It's well known that speed humps restrict speeds to the 10-20mph range.
> > > If there was inadequate signage in a 30mph zone then you have a case
> > > with the DPW.
>
> > And now your tune changes... they would cause damage when obeying the
> > posted limit. I've never seen a residential speed limit below 20mph. So
> > now you agree, they are damaging well below the speed limit.
>
> The speed humps I've experienced are fine at 25 mph. The design speed
> can differ, of course.
>
> > > Humps have proved to slow traffic, reducing pedestrian fatalities among
> > > other benefits.
>
> > They have a huge number of serious drawbacks. Speed humps have killed
> > people when the jolt to the ambulence was enough to turn a serious injury
> > into a fatal one.
>
> Oh? Does that happen as often as jolts to ambulances caused by
> motorists' misbehavior? Somehow I doubt it. This is just another
> case of trotting out a rare (if ever) detriment and using it to
> justify much greater detriments.
>
> > > If it seems weird that people who live around there care more about
> > > their kids than your muffler, I suggest you spend some time in quiet
> > > reflection, you may have an epiphany.
>
> > Damaging at 10mph? Now I stop at all bumps and sound the horn. Their lazy
> > parenting is no excuse to screw up the road surface. And slower doesn't
> > save junior, it just means junior has to run out closer to the car to be
> > killed.
>
> First, if you really do stop at all bumps and sound the horn, you
> deserve to be cited for obstruction of traffic and disturbing the
> peace (as well as general obnoxiousness).
>
> But your thinking on speed vs. fatalities is simply wrong. Likelihood
> of pedestrian fatality is highly dependent on vehicle speed. Traffic
> engineers know this, even if you don't - and that's probably
> responsible for their implementing traffic controls that cause you to
> petulantly complain.
>
> Slow down. It's only a few seconds, it won't cause you to miss _that_
> much TV.
>
> And it's only a car. Nobody cares if your muffler isn't pristine.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

Now I remember why I think you're an asshole.

nate

Brent P

In article <1184949518.556496.129430@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 20, 10:01 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <8oGdnT6hoO_6ID3bnZ2dnUVZ_qOkn...@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>> > Brent P wrote:
>> >> In article <tpadnei4LsraPz3bnZ2dnUVZ_o6kn...@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>> >>> Humps don't cause any serious damage, if any damage at all. They cause
>> >>> no damage to those who obey the posted speed.
>>
>> >> BULLSHIT. On a 30mph street I was looking for parking one dark rainy
>> >> night, driving 10-15mph. One hump was not painted, I hit it and my
>> >> car's exhaust banged into it and scraped along it. The car is at the
>> >> factory height btw. If I had been going the speed limit, there would have
>> >> been significant damage.
>
> Poor, poor Brent! ;-)

From the arse who lives in speed hump village.

> ISTR discussing this incident before. It's possible the hump was
> badly designed, of course.

Of course it was badly designed, almost all are and even the good
designed ones suck.

> If that's the case, you could register a
> complaint, perhaps with others whose cars were also damaged.

You're not familiar with chicago I see.

> It's
> also possible your road toy is designed with extremely low clearance,
> for sportiness.

*LAUGH* I can get under it without a jack. Yeah it's tight and to
actually work on something any significant distance from the edges a jack is
needed, but I fit under there. The SN95 mustang is known for being TOO
high off the ground for "sportiness".

> If that's the case, you could drive slower,

That would be stalling out.

> take a
> different route, or get a more practical car.

Unfamiliar neighborhood jackass.

> I know I've driven over many speed humps, and never had problems.

Sure frank... all speed hump supporters never have problems... yeah
right. You just accept them.

>> > It's well known that speed humps restrict speeds to the 10-20mph range.
>> > If there was inadequate signage in a 30mph zone then you have a case
>> > with the DPW.

>> And now your tune changes... they would cause damage when obeying the
>> posted limit. I've never seen a residential speed limit below 20mph. So
>> now you agree, they are damaging well below the speed limit.

> The speed humps I've experienced are fine at 25 mph. The design speed
> can differ, of course.

I've never saw one that was safe at 25mph for a bicycle, let alone a car.

>> > Humps have proved to slow traffic, reducing pedestrian fatalities among
>> > other benefits.

>> They have a huge number of serious drawbacks. Speed humps have killed
>> people when the jolt to the ambulence was enough to turn a serious injury
>> into a fatal one.

> Oh? Does that happen as often as jolts to ambulances caused by
> motorists' misbehavior? Somehow I doubt it. This is just another
> case of trotting out a rare (if ever) detriment and using it to
> justify much greater detriments.

We've been over all of this before. Speed humps are just a negative. They
even increase speeds except right at the hump. There are far better forms
of traffic calming, but you won't even consider them.

>> > If it seems weird that people who live around there care more about
>> > their kids than your muffler, I suggest you spend some time in quiet
>> > reflection, you may have an epiphany.

>> Damaging at 10mph? Now I stop at all bumps and sound the horn. Their lazy
>> parenting is no excuse to screw up the road surface. And slower doesn't
>> save junior, it just means junior has to run out closer to the car to be
>> killed.

> First, if you really do stop at all bumps and sound the horn, you
> deserve to be cited for obstruction of traffic and disturbing the
> peace (as well as general obnoxiousness).

No, only when there is a deliberate hazard placed in the road. Obviously,
there must be some unseen person in the area that I should alert my
presence to so he doesn't dart out into the road. Better safe than sorry.

> But your thinking on speed vs. fatalities is simply wrong. Likelihood
> of pedestrian fatality is highly dependent on vehicle speed. Traffic
> engineers know this, even if you don't - and that's probably
> responsible for their implementing traffic controls that cause you to
> petulantly complain.

Oh you're talking about the universal 5mph speed limit so that peds can
be hit cars and not be seriously injured. If you actually READ those
studies you'd note that you're down in the single digit mph speeds for that
goal. Of course a ped can be seriously injured when hit by a bicycle at
25mph, are you going to ride 5mph too Frank?

> Slow down. It's only a few seconds, it won't cause you to miss _that_
> much TV.

I'm already going 10mph! Slow cruise when biking is 17mph! Plus the
hazards you and your ilk intentionally place in the roadway are even more
risky for biking.

> And it's only a car. Nobody cares if your muffler isn't pristine.

Can I dent the bottom tube of your bicycle, Frank? I'll just smash it
into a concrete curb. Nobody will see or care about the dent on the bottom
and it's only a bicycle.

frkrygow@gmail.com

On Jul 20, 1:30 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <1184949518.556496.129...@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > ISTR discussing this incident before. It's possible the hump was
> > badly designed, of course.
>
> Of course it was badly designed, almost all are and even the good
> designed ones suck.

Hmm. There are a great many people who disagree.

> > It's
> > also possible your road toy is designed with extremely low clearance,
> > for sportiness.
>
> *LAUGH* I can get under it without a jack. Yeah it's tight and to
> actually work on something any significant distance from the edges a jack is
> needed, but I fit under there. The SN95 mustang is known for being TOO
> high off the ground for "sportiness".

Well, this is interesting! I cannot work under my car without raising
it (I use ramps, not jacks), yet I have managed many passages over
speed humps with no problems. Sounds like there's _something_ you're
doing wrong! Maybe you'd improve with more practice?

>
> > If that's the case, you could drive slower,
>
> That would be stalling out.

:-) Maybe, specifically, more practice using the clutch?

> > I know I've driven over many speed humps, and never had problems.
>
> Sure frank... all speed hump supporters never have problems... yeah
> right. You just accept them.

Oh, better than that. I advocate them. Or other measures to reduce
speeds in residential areas.

> I've never saw one that was safe at 25mph for a bicycle, let alone a car.

Once again, I'm amazed at the tremendous differences in our
experiences.

My most recent speed hump (and speed table) experiences were in
Zurich, Switzerland. We were on Bike Fridays, so they had the smaller
wheels which should be more sensitive to the disturbance of humps.
And we were towing trailers. Yet we, and the friends we were riding
with, had absolutely no problems bicycling over dozens of them. And
oddly, none of the motorists had problems, either!

It sounds like you're missing some skills!

> We've been over all of this before. Speed humps are just a negative. They
> even increase speeds except right at the hump.

Sorry, I've never seen data indicating they increase speeds.

> There are far better forms
> of traffic calming, but you won't even consider them.

They are not the only possibility, I agree. They're one tool among
many.

> > First, if you really do stop at all bumps and sound the horn, you
> > deserve to be cited for obstruction of traffic and disturbing the
> > peace (as well as general obnoxiousness).
>
> No, only when there is a deliberate hazard placed in the road. Obviously,
> there must be some unseen person in the area that I should alert my
> presence to so he doesn't dart out into the road. Better safe than sorry.

A well-designed speed hump is a hazard only to people who can't take
it at proper speed - whether due to juvenile infatuation with
speeding, lack of driving skill, or general obnoxiousness.

>
> > But your thinking on speed vs. fatalities is simply wrong. Likelihood
> > of pedestrian fatality is highly dependent on vehicle speed. Traffic
> > engineers know this, even if you don't - and that's probably
> > responsible for their implementing traffic controls that cause you to
> > petulantly complain.
>
> Oh you're talking about the universal 5mph speed limit so that peds can
> be hit cars and not be seriously injured.

Hmm. That doesn't seem to be what I wrote there!

> If you actually READ those
> studies you'd note that you're down in the single digit mph speeds for that
> goal.

Give us a citation, Brent. Or more to the point, give us a citation
that shows that the percent fatality doesn't vary between cars hitting
peds at 20 mph versus 40 mph. I don't think you'll be able to find
that.

> > Slow down. It's only a few seconds, it won't cause you to miss _that_
> > much TV.
>
> I'm already going 10mph!

Sorry, but I think even _you_ can negotiate a 20 mph design-speed hump
at 10 mph without damage! I have that much faith in your driving
skill.

It may take practice with that clutch, though. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

Zoot Katz

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:24:11 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net>
wrote:

>Zoot Katz wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:54:26 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The road rage phenomenon is disturbing, and as Zoot so elegantly points
>>>>out, it's something that's generated inside a car.
>>>
>>>Zoot rather points out the opposite; he's a cyclist, and even on
>>>Usenet he's quite vitriolic.
>>
>>
>> Can you honestly say you've not experienced extreme or unnatural
>> anger inside your car? Perhaps even a level of anger you don't
>> normally reach when outside your car? Can you honestly say you've
>> never considered using your car or other ready implement as a weapon
>> while you were having your widdle traffic tantrums?
>
>Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
>
>Seriously, listen to yourself. then get help. You accuse others of
>rage when you're the one foaming at the mouth.
>
That's weak, weasel boy.

Just answer the questions.

It's okay to be honest. You've already pegged yourself as a
fume-addled flipper. What little trivialities send you around the
bend? Let's hear just how angry you do get while in your car.
--
zk