Re: OT: joining the ranks of two wheelers again

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

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.

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

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/tal/trafficmanagement/highwaysroadhumpsregulations1996?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.

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

On Jul 20, 9:10 am, frkry...@gmail.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.
>
> Coincidentally, last night I happened across an archived post on this
> subject, from a different discussion group. Here it is:
>
> ===========================================================
>
> Them Bikepaths Are Dangerous!

....

That's classic stuff. It's always the same guys who are so quick to
chastise anyone who suggests there is any danger involved in riding
bicycles who are the ones that are right there on the spot to claim
that, yes, 'Them Bikepaths Are Dangerous!''

Personally I can agree that MUP riding may be more likely to result in
minor injury, but I find it in many cases to be worth the extra
(shudder) risk to use an MUP that is completely void of intersections.
I am lucky enough to live and ride in a city with an MUP or two
cutting right through it. If my destination is served by one of these
paths it can take a great deal of travel time and hassle out of my
trip. There is no better use of transportation dollars possible right
now, imo and speaking generally.

R.

Zoot Katz wrote:
> 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.

No, no they haven't. I don't remember it being like this as a kid, and
yet cars were a firmly entrenched part of our society by then. When I
was a kid, I remember being expected to be polite, take my turn, follow
the rules, and take responsbility for my actions if I messed up. I
don't see that now, and I see you attempting to help that change along.

>
> 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.

Just like cyclists do on their bikes.

>
> 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.
>

Which you seem to find very convenient. Were it not for cars, do you
think you'd have the same infrastructure to ride on that you use every day?


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

Just like cyclists.

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

Just like cyclists.

>
> 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

yes, and you have it too. Time to look in the mirror and realize that
your irrational hatred of the automobile is warping your judgement.

nate

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

Nate Nagel wrote:
> ...
> No, no they haven't. I don't remember it being like this as a kid, and
> yet cars were a firmly entrenched part of our society by then. When I
> was a kid, I remember being expected to be polite, take my turn, follow
> the rules, and take responsbility for my actions if I messed up. I
> don't see that now, and I see you attempting to help that change along....

The trend over the last three decades to MFFY behavior goes well beyond
motor vehicle operation. Selfishness and rudeness now permeate most
areas of social interaction (voluntary and involuntary).

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

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

In article <46a14e70$0$11419$88260bb3@free.teranews.com>, Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> ...
>> No, no they haven't. I don't remember it being like this as a kid, and
>> yet cars were a firmly entrenched part of our society by then. When I
>> was a kid, I remember being expected to be polite, take my turn, follow
>> the rules, and take responsbility for my actions if I messed up. I
>> don't see that now, and I see you attempting to help that change along....
>
> The trend over the last three decades to MFFY behavior goes well beyond
> motor vehicle operation. Selfishness and rudeness now permeate most
> areas of social interaction (voluntary and involuntary).

The problem started with 'just let them do it'. Where we were all told not
to confront the rude and selfish, but to just let them do it. It became a
bigger 'crime' to stand up to the assholish behavior than the assholish
behavior itself. The idea behind it was conflict avoidance. What it does
do is build a sense of entitlement in the MFFY type person. From there
it's monkey-see-monkey-do and the behavior spreads.

Ever notice how if the first shoulder passer in backup is allowed to gain,
he is followed by another, then even less time later another, until there
are hordes doing it?

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> ...
>> No, no they haven't. I don't remember it being like this as a kid,
>> and yet cars were a firmly entrenched part of our society by then.
>> When I was a kid, I remember being expected to be polite, take my
>> turn, follow the rules, and take responsbility for my actions if I
>> messed up. I don't see that now, and I see you attempting to help
>> that change along....
>
>
> The trend over the last three decades to MFFY behavior goes well beyond
> motor vehicle operation. Selfishness and rudeness now permeate most
> areas of social interaction (voluntary and involuntary).
>

Odd that you should say "three decades." I'll be 34 in March.

And I sound like a grouchy old man already. Son of a bitch.

Tomorrow I promise to work on either a car or a bike depending on my
mood, and to not engage in any pointless rants about politeness.

nate

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

In article <kag0a3t2jcho26cm1olfbbaf2sbrpi1620@4ax.com>,
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:36:51 -0500, russotto@grace.speakeasy.net
>(Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>>And it's pretty obnoxious to advocate for a device which damages cars,
>>then call drivers "filth bags" because of the results of that damage.
>
>Hey, you're the one who hit it too fast.

Doesn't matter how fast you hit them in most cases. I've gone over
speed bumps which not only scraped my air dam, but hit the bottom of
the car once my front wheels were over (and this was at a crawl).

>for the laughs. How much are those air dams?

I don't know, I haven't bothered to replace mine. It'd only get
busted again by you vandals who keep wrecking the roads.

>The other thing that you filth bags regularly do is leave the busted
>plastic, glass and metal crap from your collisions laying around in
>the road for me to ride through or around.

Not exactly. We collect the stuff and figure out where you're riding,
then redistribute it in your path. Loads of laughs.

>Survivors should be made
>to clean up their mess after any collision.

We've got people for that.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <nkg0a35j2aji1g4m7t4s2719h5u6ghp7iu@4ax.com>,
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> 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?

The subject isn't me, it's you. You demonstrate extreme levels of
anger on Usenet, and unless you're driving and posting, it's not
caused by you being in a 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?

I've been tempted to run over joggers while bicycling and
inline skating. Never have, but they've gotten pissed off when I
passed them close in the dirt.

>When some caged nincompoop threatens my well being with their
>inattentive or aggressive vehicular stupidity my adrenalin races.

Again, it appears the rage problem is yours.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> 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.)

Yeah, I got that (the first time).

>
> 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.

I have no idea what you're talking about.


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

Who says children were "playing" in the street? How about crossing the
street? Like going to school? Going to the park? Going to a store? A
friend's house? How about riding a bike? Why does this have to be
limited to children? Who would connect speed humps to delinquent parenting?

And finally, what does "Brent P"'s claim of not being able to see the
hump on a dark rainy night have to do with children being out on a dark
rainy night?

Who *are* you people? What planet do you live on?

Brent P wrote:

> 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.

You are a coward and a bully. "MFFY", my ass.

In article <tpadnei4LsraPz3bnZ2dnUVZ_o6knZ2d@comcast.com>,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> In article <g6mq931cfhgpab7f9a38mls1uh2nj453vk@4ax.com>,
>> Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
>>> Oh, I do love a good series of speed bumps.
>>>
>>> It's so much fun to hear you chuckle heads scrape bottom in your
>>> desperate attempts to get ahead of the bicycle. I get to laugh at
>>> your stupidity every time I have to steer around the busted plastic
>>> car crap you filth-bags leave laying in the road..
>>
>> Here's one in the large "not pro-bike but anti-car" category. Speed bumps
>> suck to go over on a (road) bike. Going around isn't much better, it
>> results in going through the mushy gravel and dirt which accumulates
>> there.
>
>Speed "humps" don't present problems for bikes. Bumps are usually used
>in parking lots, humps on streets.

I've run across plenty of bumps in streets. Humps are less
problematic to bikes, but they're still irritating.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Peter Cole wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> 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.)
>
>
> Yeah, I got that (the first time).
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm really not sure how to break it down into words of fewer syllables
for you.

>
>> Under what circumstances would you consider children playing in the
>> middle of a 30 MPH street *not* to be a sign of bad parenting?
>
>
> Who says children were "playing" in the street? How about crossing the
> street? Like going to school? Going to the park? Going to a store? A
> friend's house? How about riding a bike? Why does this have to be
> limited to children? Who would connect speed humps to delinquent parenting?

I connect children in the street to bad parenting. A parent should be
able to identify whether or not a child has enough sense to be anywhere
near a street and successfully be able to identify a large, well-lit
object traveling at presumably 30 MPH or less, give or take, and set
guidelines accordingly, and enforce them.

>
> And finally, what does "Brent P"'s claim of not being able to see the
> hump on a dark rainy night have to do with children being out on a dark
> rainy night?

Nothing. Never said it did. I was merely pointing out that a) children
shouldn't be out then and b) even if they were, they'd be easier to spot
than an unpainted speed bump.

> Who *are* you people? What planet do you live on?

Earth. But I doubt you'd pass the citizenship tests, your posts are
full of all kinds of fail.

nate

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

On Jul 20, 7:43 pm, r15...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jul 20, 9:10 am, frkry...@gmail.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.
>
> > Coincidentally, last night I happened across an archived post on this
> > subject, from a different discussion group. Here it is:
>
> > ===========================================================
>
> > Them Bikepaths Are Dangerous!
>
> ...
>
> That's classic stuff.

It's classic because it's a good, scientific examination of the
facts. See http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/2decades.html

> It's always the same guys who are so quick to
> chastise anyone who suggests there is any danger involved in riding
> bicycles who are the ones that are right there on the spot to claim
> that, yes, 'Them Bikepaths Are Dangerous!''

:-) "Always"?

FWIW, I don't recall anyone ever claiming there's _no_ danger in
riding a bicycle. To do so would be as specious as claiming it's
_always_ one group making a certain claim. Those absolutes get people
in trouble. ;-)

> Personally I can agree that MUP riding may be more likely to result in
> minor injury, but I find it in many cases to be worth the extra
> (shudder) risk to use an MUP that is completely void of intersections.

Hmm. "Completely"? Sounds like another absolute. I suppose, to
access an MUP that's completely devoid of intersections, one carries
their bike down some stairs, or perhaps takes an elevator?

But to get serious: The worst accidents at MUPs tend to occur at
intersections. Motorists are often unaware that the path crosses the
road; many path-road intersections are horribly designed; many MUP
users are not sufficiently alert when entering intersections.

But contrary to public perception, there are plenty of non-
intersection serious crashes on MUPs. I've personally known several
people who broke bones, etc. on MUPs (more than from road riding,
despite the vastly smaller number of miles my friends do on MUPs).
And I can easily recall a couple fatalities I read about.

> I am lucky enough to live and ride in a city with an MUP or two
> cutting right through it. If my destination is served by one of these
> paths it can take a great deal of travel time and hassle out of my
> trip.

I don't doubt that's possible. However, as we've mentioned before,
only a tiny portion of any city can be accessed by MUPs.

> There is no better use of transportation dollars possible right
> now, imo and speaking generally.

To repeat: Only a tiny portion of any city can be accessed by MUPs.
I can't agree with making that a high priority. I'll agree that some
MUPs can be useful, but I'd concentrate on those short ones that give
"short cut" access where roads don't; and instead of long MUPs that
duplicate road access, I'd improve the roads as necessary. I think
that's usually much less expensive, and much more useful.

The "short cut" MUPs I like are short connectors between residential
neighborhoods and traffic generators like schools, libraries, shopping
plazas, parks, etc. Around here, at least, there are many of those
things that are accessible only by very busy roads, even though there
are adjacent residential neighborhoods. I can quickly think of at
least six places where a short-cut MUP would be used by hundreds of
people, replacing as many car trips.

As one example, I think it's foolish to have a park next to a
neighborhood, but no way to get into the park except to drive a car on
a 40,000 vehicle-per-day road. But we have that a couple miles away,
in the next township. That same township's library has a similar
problem.

- Frank Krygowski

In article <lkf2a3lcrobtsrt70bqv49ggos669ilv9i@4ax.com>,
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>Car culture and its adherents are the have created this MFFY society.

Then why is it you who typifies it?

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Jul 20, 10:22 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T.
Russotto) wrote:
> In article <tpadnei4LsraPz3bnZ2dnUVZ_o6kn...@comcast.com>,
> Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Speed "humps" don't present problems for bikes. Bumps are usually used
> >in parking lots, humps on streets.
>
> I've run across plenty of bumps in streets.

_Speed_ bumps? In streets? I've _never_ seen one. Can you provide a
photo?

> Humps are less
> problematic to bikes, but they're still irritating.

Oh, some people are just irritable. On a bike, I find a speed hump to
be kind of fun. In a car, I find it to be no problem at all.

- Frank Krygowski

In article <7_idnf9mA8UFwDzbnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Ever notice how if the first shoulder passer in backup is allowed to gain,
>he is followed by another, then even less time later another, until there
>are hordes doing it?

Of course. The first guy is an asshole, maybe the first few. But
those who follow have probably observed the behavior and its results
and decided that despite their pre-conceived notions, shoulder-passing
is actually acceptable behavior.

As you point out, in an "just let them do it" environment, obnoxious
behavior gives one an advantage over non-obnoxious behavior. Those
who insist on behaving "properly" are consequently put at a
disadvantage. If the first shoulder-passer was met by a closing of
the ranks and perhaps a few horns and gestures, most of the rest
wouldn't follow, even if he managed to succeed.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <1184986886.562554.224330@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 20, 10:22 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T.
>Russotto) wrote:
>> In article <tpadnei4LsraPz3bnZ2dnUVZ_o6kn...@comcast.com>,
>> Peter Cole <peter_c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Speed "humps" don't present problems for bikes. Bumps are usually used
>> >in parking lots, humps on streets.
>>
>> I've run across plenty of bumps in streets.
>
>_Speed_ bumps? In streets? I've _never_ seen one. Can you provide a
>photo?

I could, but I'd be wasting my time. You'd come up with some excuse,
then you'd continue to repeat your assertion.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.