Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Brent P

In article <1184954460.401397.220940@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>> 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.

There's a term for that, the ignorant masses.

>> > 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?

Maybe you're too fat. Also re-read what I wrote... I can work on stuff on
the edges because I only need get my head and shoulders under the car.

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

>> That would be stalling out.

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

No. Because slower is stop.

>> > 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.

So much for your neightbors the next street over and all the people who
don't want the stupid things you force to deal with them so they can get
to and from their homes. I advocate better solutions like properly
designed arterial road layouts so people won't divert, and things that
make roads narrower or appear to be narrower to reduce speed. All proven
techniques that don't involve screwing up the road system. Your solution
is akin to just allowing the road to decay into a potholed mess.

>> 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!

If there was no problem, then they weren't slowing people down to 5mph now
were they?

Then again, as you rode slowly yaking with your friends, towing a trailers
with bicycles you were doing what, 8mph?

> It sounds like you're missing some skills!

Sounds like you don't ride or drive faster than ten mph. Why don't you
take a few at 25-35mph on your bicycle and get back to me.

>> 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.

Then you're willfully ignorant.

>> 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.

Well at least you've progressed a little.

>> > 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.

Proper speed = 5mph. Because I've not seen one that could be taken faster
without some degree of damage or risk with a car or a bicycle. The
'properly designed' speed hump to be taken at 20-30mph speed limits as far
as I am concerned, does not exist.

>> > 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!

Well you're talking about making it safe for peds to be hit.

>> 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.

I did some time ago Frank. It was something one of the speed kills folks
pointed to. Unlike them however, I read it.

> 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.

The big jump in fatalities as I recall was somewhere near 20mph. To make
it 'safe' required dropping speed much lower. I posted it before. You dig
it up from before, I'm not providing it again because your memory sucks
and you wanted to rehash this again.

>> > 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.

There is no such animal as a speed hump that can be taken safely at 20mph
anywhere I've ever driven or biked.

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

Obviously you have no idea what the purpose of a clutch is. hint: it has
nothing to do with negotiating a speed hump that doesn't do damage at the
speed limit when one is traveling the speed limit. Or maybe this is your
way of admiting that the speed humps demand one slow significantly from
the speed limit.

Brent P

In article <wcmdnag5e8dvnzzbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <lOOdnToBL_FvTz3bnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@comcast.com>, Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>> It might be interesting anyway to compare the "killed" ambulance
>>> patients to the not-killed kids, particularly when most communities
>>> didn't install humps where that issue would be a problem. Got numbers?
>>
>> You want to make that justification, YOU FIND SUPPORT for it. I'm not
>> doing your work for you.
>
> You couldn't, because there aren't any studies, apparently. There are
> studies on the number of lives saved -- and they're significant. I
> haven't found a single source that feels that the ambulance/fire victims
> approach those numbers. You?

I didn't look, because I'm not the one making the claim. You are. It
appears that you're as dishonest as you are stupid.

>> What speed bumps and speed control stop signs do is increase speeds on
>> neighboring streets and between the stop signs and the bumps.

> Not according to the studies I've read -- you?

According to ones I've read they do.

>>>> 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.

>>> Nice. You equate serious bodily injury/death to paint scrapes, now to
>>> muffler scrapes. But that's not "MFFY"? It's the biggest "MFFY" I've
>>> ever heard.

>> I see you have no response, and instead have created complete fabrication
>> to spew.

> No response to what? Your attitude that you should be able to run over
> kids because they have "lazy parents"? Just because you want to drive
> faster? That's "MFFY" to the nth degree.

I see you're just going to be entirely dishonest. When you were just an
asshole it was one thing, but now you're just going to be dishonest after
being corrected. Buh-BYe.

<snip, unread>

Zoot Katz

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:30:54 -0500,
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:

>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

I'll agree that speed humps piss off drivers but they're already
borderline pissed-off any time they're driving.

We have considered and tried other methods of speed reduction but you
guys won't get it. The concept behind speed humps you should be able
to digest easily enough though it seems to evade many of you idiots.
--
zk

Dane Buson

Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>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
>
> I'll agree that speed humps piss off drivers but they're already
> borderline pissed-off any time they're driving.

> We have considered and tried other methods of speed reduction but you
> guys won't get it. The concept behind speed humps you should be able
> to digest easily enough though it seems to evade many of you idiots.

I rather like traffic circles. One actually was installed in front of
my house last year. It's definitely slowed down traffic, and the people
who formerly roared through tend to go slower or use a different street.

Now if I could just get one put at the bottom of the hill one
intersection down. That's where I routinely have people blowing their
yield sign. If I wasn't expecting it, I would have been pancaked a time
or two.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
Nietzsche says that we will live the same life, over and over again.
God -- I'll have to sit through the Ice Capades again.
-- Woody Allen, "Hannah and Her Sisters"

Nate Nagel

Zoot Katz wrote:
> 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.

Assholes that can't obey laws. Like a lot of the asshole bikers in the
thread.

Assholes who advocate needlessly damaging other people's property,
and/or shrug it off as "no big deal" like you and Mr. Cole.

Assholes in general, like you.

For the most part, I'm pretty calm. But I have a feeling if I met you
in person I wouldn't be, because you're virulently assaholic and just an
all-around unpleasant human being.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <tpadnei4LsraPz3bnZ2dnUVZ_o6knZ2d@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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> Humps have proved to slow traffic, reducing pedestrian fatalities among
> other benefits.
>
> 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.
>
> "MFFY", indeed.

Yes, children playing in the middle of a 30 MPH street on a dark, rainy
night are a commonplace occurrance and not a sign of bad parenting.

Idiot.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

frkrygow@gmail.com

On Jul 20, 3:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <1184954460.401397.220...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> There's a term for that, the ignorant masses.

:-) We'll need more than your word to accept that they're ignorant.
Let's start with Dan Burden. He's been involved in this issue for,
oh, maybe 30 years. He's a nationally recognized authority. He's
published works evaluating the pros and cons of many different traffic
calming measures. He seems to disagree with you. Which of you is
ignorant?

>
> >> > 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?
>
> Maybe you're too fat. Also re-read what I wrote... I can work on stuff on
> the edges because I only need get my head and shoulders under the car.

:-) This is like arguing with an 8th grader!

Sorry, Brent, most people don't consider me fat at all. In fact, the
remarks I get on my weight are usually opposite.

But I notice you've changed from having a car that's too high for
"sportiness," which you can work under without a jack, to a car you
can just get partly under. Just like mine. So why is it that my cars
clear speed humps fine, and yours don't? What _are_ you doing wrong?


>
> >> > If that's the case, you could drive slower,
> >> That would be stalling out.
> >:-) Maybe, specifically, more practice using the clutch?
>
> No. Because slower is stop.

Ah. You're crossing speed humps at the least, infinitesmal speed that
can be defined as "moving." :-) Well, keep up the good work, then.

> >> > 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.
>
> So much for your neightbors the next street over and all the people who
> don't want the stupid things you force to deal with them so they can get
> to and from their homes. I advocate better solutions like properly
> designed arterial road layouts so people won't divert, and things that
> make roads narrower or appear to be narrower to reduce speed. All proven
> techniques that don't involve screwing up the road system. Your solution
> is akin to just allowing the road to decay into a potholed mess.

Wow. Such a whiner!

> > 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!
>
> If there was no problem, then they weren't slowing people down to 5mph now
> were they?

Of course not. That was your straw man, remember? There is seldom a
need to slow drivers to 5 mph, the humps in Zurich don't do that, yet
they are successful in protecting neighborhoods. It's not the hell
you make it out to be - unless, of course, a Zurich driver is a
juvenile speed freak in a low-slung sporty car who isn't so good with
his clutch! ;-)

(The driving standards are reputed to be higher over there, so I think
there's less of those little boys in cars.)

> Then again, as you rode slowly yaking with your friends, towing a trailers
> with bicycles you were doing what, 8mph?

:-) Such an imagination! No, Brent, more like double that. We
weren't in a hurry, but we moved along well. (I see you can't
conceive of someone having fewer problems than you do!)


> > Sorry, I've never seen data indicating [speed humps] increase speeds.
>
> Then you're willfully ignorant.

If I'm ignorant of the data, it's certainly not willful. You could,
of course, post citations. If you have any, that is.

> > 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.
>
> Proper speed = 5mph.

That's your straw man. It doesn't match my real-life experience with
either a car or a bike. It doesn't match the design criteria nor the
reports I've read elsewhere. In fact, you're the _only_ person I
recall making that claim for speed humps (not speed bumps). What is
it that you're doing uniquely wrong?

- Frank Krygowski

Peter Cole

Brent P wrote:

> I see you're just going to be entirely dishonest. When you were just an
> asshole it was one thing, but now you're just going to be dishonest after
> being corrected. Buh-BYe.
>
> <snip, unread>
>
>

Oooh, don't go away mad!

Peter Cole

Nate Nagel wrote:
> 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.
>>
>> "MFFY", indeed.
>
> Yes, children playing in the middle of a 30 MPH street on a dark, rainy
> night are a commonplace occurrance and not a sign of bad parenting.
>
> Idiot.
>
> nate
>

Oh wow! I must have missed that. They put the speed humps in for dark
rainy nights. How subtle. You're a genius. Thanks for catching that.

Nate Nagel

Peter Cole wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> "MFFY", indeed.
>>
>>
>> Yes, children playing in the middle of a 30 MPH street on a dark,
>> rainy night are a commonplace occurrance and not a sign of bad parenting.
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>> nate
>>
>
> Oh wow! I must have missed that. They put the speed humps in for dark
> rainy nights. How subtle. You're a genius. Thanks for catching that.

It was the dark, rainy night that prevented Brent from identifying it in
time to slow to a crawl (more so than he already had.)

Now, are you going to argue that not being able to see an unpainted
speed bump on a dark, rainy night is equivalent to not being able to see
a child during the daytime? Generally, at night, children are inside
their houses.

Under what circumstances would you consider children playing in the
middle of a 30 MPH street *not* to be a sign of bad parenting?

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Dane Buson

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 20, 3:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>> No. Because slower is stop.
>
> Ah. You're crossing speed humps at the least, infinitesmal speed that
> can be defined as "moving." :-) Well, keep up the good work, then.

Perhaps Brent's middle name is Zeno?

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
A statistician, who refused to fly after reading of the alarmingly high
probability that there will be a bomb on any given plane, realized that
the probability of there being two bombs on any given flight is very low.
Now, whenever he flies, he carries a bomb with him.

Zoot Katz

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:55:12 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu>
wrote:

>Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>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
>>
>> I'll agree that speed humps piss off drivers but they're already
>> borderline pissed-off any time they're driving.
>
>> We have considered and tried other methods of speed reduction but you
>> guys won't get it. The concept behind speed humps you should be able
>> to digest easily enough though it seems to evade many of you idiots.
>
>I rather like traffic circles. One actually was installed in front of
>my house last year. It's definitely slowed down traffic, and the people
>who formerly roared through tend to go slower or use a different street.
>
>Now if I could just get one put at the bottom of the hill one
>intersection down. That's where I routinely have people blowing their
>yield sign. If I wasn't expecting it, I would have been pancaked a time
>or two.

Yep, we've got traffic circles and curb-bulbs too. Speed humps are
usually used in the school zones. Not enough cross-walks are built as
speed tables, IMO.

Traffic circles are becoming pervasive in Vancouver where they're
replacing the stop signs that were installed when large parts of the
population couldn't follow procedure at a "courtesy corner".

Traffic circles confuse the same drivers as didn't understand the old
unregulated "courtesy corners". They like taking the racer's line
instead of following traffic flow. They can surprise you if the sight
lines suck.

I sometimes get the impression that drivers think traffic calming
devices are slalom gates for their private fantasy races.
--
zk

Brent P

In article <1184964556.307471.125970@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 20, 3:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
> wrote:
>> In article <1184954460.401397.220...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> 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.
>>
>> There's a term for that, the ignorant masses.
>
>:-) We'll need more than your word to accept that they're ignorant.
> Let's start with Dan Burden. He's been involved in this issue for,
> oh, maybe 30 years. He's a nationally recognized authority. He's
> published works evaluating the pros and cons of many different traffic
> calming measures. He seems to disagree with you. Which of you is
> ignorant?

An activist doesn't make one an authority. Just someone with a opinion.

As far as getting many people to go along, that's just doing what Cole
here does, make a distorted, dishonest, and one sided presentation.

>> > 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?

>> Maybe you're too fat. Also re-read what I wrote... I can work on stuff on
>> the edges because I only need get my head and shoulders under the car.

>:-) This is like arguing with an 8th grader!

Just meeting you at your level.

> Sorry, Brent, most people don't consider me fat at all. In fact, the
> remarks I get on my weight are usually opposite.

> But I notice you've changed from having a car that's too high for
> "sportiness," which you can work under without a jack, to a car you
> can just get partly under. Just like mine. So why is it that my cars
> clear speed humps fine, and yours don't? What _are_ you doing wrong?

I didn't change at all. Why don't you actually *READ* what I wrote. I
stated from the get go it was tight squeeze. My guess is since you don't
care about the condition of the underside of your car, you just don't care
and don't notice what happens to it. I've heard the nasty scrapes of
people going over speed humps and bumps and they just keep going never
having noticed. It wasn't a speed hump, actually a dip in the pavement.
Woman scraped her car, new one at that, I waited for her to park and
handed her the part that came off. She looked at me like I was crazy. I
figured it was hers....

>> >> > If that's the case, you could drive slower,
>> >> That would be stalling out.
>> >:-) Maybe, specifically, more practice using the clutch?

>> No. Because slower is stop.

> Ah. You're crossing speed humps at the least, infinitesmal speed that
> can be defined as "moving." :-) Well, keep up the good work, then.

And it still scrapes. Scraped the car on one in the walmart parking lot.
No throttle, 1st gear.

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

>> So much for your neightbors the next street over and all the people who
>> don't want the stupid things you force to deal with them so they can get
>> to and from their homes. I advocate better solutions like properly
>> designed arterial road layouts so people won't divert, and things that
>> make roads narrower or appear to be narrower to reduce speed. All proven
>> techniques that don't involve screwing up the road system. Your solution
>> is akin to just allowing the road to decay into a potholed mess.

> Wow. Such a whiner!

Frank thinks everyone who disagrees with him is just whiner I see.

>> > 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!

>> If there was no problem, then they weren't slowing people down to 5mph now
>> were they?

> Of course not. That was your straw man, remember?

You're the one who changed from hit or not hit to the degree of injury after
being hit.

> There is seldom a
> need to slow drivers to 5 mph, the humps in Zurich don't do that, yet
> they are successful in protecting neighborhoods. It's not the hell
> you make it out to be - unless, of course, a Zurich driver is a
> juvenile speed freak in a low-slung sporty car who isn't so good with
> his clutch! ;-)

Your dishonesty is showing. I often bike residental roads faster than I drive
them. You've been told this on multiple occasions. I don't think you're
that stupid, so you must just be dishonest.

> (The driving standards are reputed to be higher over there, so I think
> there's less of those little boys in cars.)

Yah know what frank, I don't think you'd get more than few a feet in a car
like my 1973 model, despite you probably being old enough that you should.

>> Then again, as you rode slowly yaking with your friends, towing a trailers
>> with bicycles you were doing what, 8mph?

>:-) Such an imagination! No, Brent, more like double that. We
> weren't in a hurry, but we moved along well. (I see you can't
> conceive of someone having fewer problems than you do!)

A woping 16mph.... Silly thing to bring up when I talking about going
25mph.

>> > Sorry, I've never seen data indicating [speed humps] increase speeds.

>> Then you're willfully ignorant.

> If I'm ignorant of the data, it's certainly not willful. You could,
> of course, post citations. If you have any, that is.

It's been presented in the past. It's also accepted knowledge, since it's
part ITE's document on speed humps. Not that you actually are really
informed about anything.

Here, I went digging for live web links to the same old-hat info.

http://www.ite.org/pdf/speed-humps.PDF

At the same time, however, speed humps
may also have the following detrimental
effects:
1. Divert traffic to other neighborhood
streets thereby moving the problem
rather than solving it,
2. Increase noise level due to vehicle
brakes, tires and engine,
3. Increase vehicle emissions due to
deceleration and acceleration,
4. Increase response time of emergency
vehicles,
5. Conflict with school and transit bus
operation,
6. Present a potential hazard to
bicyclists and motorcyclists.

And it's the speed BETWEEN bumps or between speed control stop signs that
increases. Also sometimes speed on diversion routes. Not the average speed
for the whole length of the speed bumped road. Of course that depends on
how far apart they are. As other ITE documents show.

This can be found online at the UK department for transport website as
well.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm...ions1996?page=4

Except in the case of speed cushions, it is recommended that road humps
should not be closer than 20m apart. But where, for instance, speed
cushions are used to protect a pedestrian crossing, the spacing between
them may be as little as 5m. With such an arrangement care should be taken
to ensure that drivers can manoeuvre adequately through the feature. The
maximum spacing between road humps will influence the mean "between hump"
speeds (see TA Leaflet 2/96) and spacing in excess of 100m may increase
the "between hump" speeds significantly. Spacing in excess of 150m, for
any type of hump, is not recommended. For speed cushions and "thumps"
spacing in excess of 100m is not recommended, and a maximum spacing of 70m
would be appropriate.

>> > 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.

>> Proper speed = 5mph.

> That's your straw man.

No, that's about what I have found to be the max speed to go over these
things, actually that's a little too fast.

> It doesn't match my real-life experience with
> either a car or a bike. It doesn't match the design criteria nor the
> reports I've read elsewhere. In fact, you're the _only_ person I
> recall making that claim for speed humps (not speed bumps). What is
> it that you're doing uniquely wrong?

Other people have told you the same thing in these threads Frank. You're
just willfully ignorant. And you don't care about the bottom side of your
car apparently, so why would you even notice?

Plus, I haven't gone over one at more than 5mph since that dark rainy night
years ago, and don't intend to.

Of course you don't bother with the other side of an issue, you have your
side and that's the only side as far as you are concerned, which is why
you've 'never' heard these things before. If you were intellectually
honest you would have examined both sides of the issue as I have.

There are even bicycling groups opposed to traffic calming of all sorts,
especially humps.

Zoot Katz

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:10:43 -0400, Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net>
wrote:

>> A bill from the body shop IS trivial compared life in a wheel chair.
>> Ask people what they'd pay to be able to walk again and the prices
>> they name are certainly more than any old cheby is worth.
>
>The point is YOU don't get to choose what it's worth or trivilaize
>someone else's loss. I am not trying in any way to minimize the tragic
>impact of bodily injury, simply pointing out that the callous disregard
>of private property displayed by you, Mr. Cole, and others is appalling,
>although not expected in today's rude, MFFY society.

Car culture and its adherents are the have created this MFFY society.

They've chosen to isolate themselves from the rest of society by
sequestering themselves in plushy rolling shrines to their egos.

This virtual anonymity, super-human power, and impervious isolation
of the car allows them to be rude without social consequence.
They behave like they're driving tanks into battle when they get on
the roads.

They've taken over forty percent of our built environment with the
infrastructure requirements for their habitual voluntary befoulment
of that same environment.
Then they ask for more roads and more parking.

They speed everywhere they can and don't tolerate slower moving
traffic. They selfishly disregard other traffic control instruments
for restricting turns and parking.

They cut each other off or refuse to yield. They consciously and
maliciously impede each other with their cars.

Shit, they'll have shoot-outs, fisticuffs and shouting matches over a
parking spot.

"So what if MY car alarm wakes up the neighbours every time a truck
drives by. It's important that I protect MY precious car."

"So what if MY car is making obnoxious noises when I drive it. I like
those noises so suck it up buttercup."

and on and on it goes.

It's a sickness
--
zk