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, 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?

We've had this discussion before. If you really want to see some, I
remember there being quite a few in Silver Spring, MD at least toward
Wheaton. I can give you exact directions to the neighborhood I used to
live in, if you want to see them.

>
>
>>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.

Sure, if you don't care about your car.

nate


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

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> 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.

But everyone's too timid to honk or yell, because god forbid you exhibit
any signs of the tewwible Woad Wage, no matter how warranted.

nate

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

On Jul 20, 6:39 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <1184964556.307471.125...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > 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.

That can be true. So we should look at the quality of a person's
work, their use of data, their technical knowledge, their respect
among others with technical knowledge, etc. From what I can see, Dan
Burden's got you beat hands down on all counts.

I'd say that makes you just someone with an opinion!

>
> > 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.

Hmm. Talk about technical knowledge! You've apparently confused
parking lot speed BUMPs with roadway speed HUMPs. No wonder you're so
fussy!

The two devices are very, very different. (And it's always a good
idea to learn the basic vocabulary before entering a debate.)

> >> > 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?
> >
> > 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.)
>
> 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.

:-) Whoa, you must be very manly to drive a car that I couldn't!
Sure is impressive! (And there's that feeling again, that I'm arguing
with an 8th grader...)


> >> > 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

Hmm. So where's the part that says speed humps _increase_ speed? Did
you lose track of the conversation?

> And it's the speed BETWEEN bumps or between speed control stop signs that
> increases.

So far, all we have on that is your assertion. And we've seen your
ass-ertions tend to come out of your...

No, that's too easy. ;-)

> 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/highwaysroa...

Brent, you're making claims that are not justified by the links you
provide. Get serious, please.

> >> 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.

Speed HUMPS, boy, not speed BUMPS. Study the vocabulary.

>... you don't care about the bottom side of your
> car apparently, so why would you even notice?

By golly, you're right. Despite my long experience with mechanical
engineering, and with car repair and maintenance, and my youthful time
wasted doing performance modifications to cars, etc., I find that
there are _many_ things that are far more interesting than the bottom
of my car. I just don't care about the bottom side of my car!

I suppose if I were still a car-addled 16-year-old, it might be
different. But I seem to have matured!

Give it a try, Brent.

- Frank Krygowski

In article <1184988135.122946.64560@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>By golly, you're right. Despite my long experience with mechanical
>engineering, and with car repair and maintenance, and my youthful time
>wasted doing performance modifications to cars, etc., I find that
>there are _many_ things that are far more interesting than the bottom
>of my car. I just don't care about the bottom side of my car!

While the bottom of the car is not all that interesting, I've found
that many of the things you see there are important to the operation
of the car, and may malfunction if slammed against asphalt.

Structural members, driveshaft, exhaust, drains, suspension parts,
differential, etc.

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

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> 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?

Perhaps it's 'roid rage.

In article <1184986886.562554.224330@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

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

I'll have one for you next week frank. There's one a block away from my
parent's house. Those nasty temporary ones that they put out in the summer
and remove in the winter to save the plows.

In article <aqGdnbr4hLC75TzbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> 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.

That's not an 'if'. I've successfully blocked or at least impeded (and seen
others do the same) the first couple of shoulder passers and the hordes
didn't come. When nobody stopped the first couple of em, good night nurse.

In article <3s92a3pdk8lpsbrh74k2r29hngkqhe1s2q@4ax.com>,
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> writes:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:55:12 -0700, Dane Buson <dane@unseen.edu>
> wrote:

.....

>>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.

One thing to watch out for with traffic circles is
cross-traffic drivers ahead of you doing U-turns
around them as you approach, instead of a simple
left turn as one might expect.

Then there are the corner-cutters who won't drive
around them properly to turn. Basically that's
wrong-way driving.

While riding straight through traffic circle intersections
I've had drivers roar past me on the other side -- with the
traffic circle between the car and me. Basically that's
wrong-way driving.

I'm getting kind of fed up with all these wrong-way drivers.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

Tom Keats wrote:

> One thing to watch out for with traffic circles is
> cross-traffic drivers ahead of you doing U-turns
> around them as you approach, instead of a simple
> left turn as one might expect.
>
> Then there are the corner-cutters who won't drive
> around them properly to turn. Basically that's
> wrong-way driving.
>
> While riding straight through traffic circle intersections
> I've had drivers roar past me on the other side -- with the
> traffic circle between the car and me. Basically that's
> wrong-way driving.
>
> I'm getting kind of fed up with all these wrong-way drivers.

You should also be fed up with traffic circles. Roundabouts, OTOH, are
much better (since they have deflected entry points which make it
virtually impossible to enter going the wrong way).

In article <f7r7qb01a85@news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> writes:

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

If they live in Vancouver BC.

All residential streets here have 30 MPH (or the metric equivalent)
speed limits, except for park/playground/school zones, which
have the metric equivalent of a 20 MPH speed limit. Incidentally,
those park/playground/school zones are pretty much the only places
where the City installs speed humps, to enforce the 20 MPH limit,
'cuz so many drivers would otherwise ignore it. And the lower
speed limit is really needed in those places, largely because
there's so much activity of people getting in & out of parked
cars along the street, by dint of the very nature of those
social-activity places. Our speed humps have reflective arrows
painted on them on each end, indicating the respective direction
of travel. To miss them, a driver would have to be too blind to
drive at all (or should get their lo-beams properly adjusted.)

Street hockey is quite popular here. In the depths of winter,
the sun sets around 4:00 PM here.

It rains a lot here, too. In fact, it's raining right now.

Fortunately, the kids are pretty street-savvy, and many of the
drivers are street-hockey-savvy, and warning cries of "Car!"
followed by players stepping off the street to let the approaching
car past, while the driver gingerly ekes through without hitting
the nets during a street hockey game are all part of the de facto
system. It's really quite a beautiful display of co-operation and
mutual consideration.

Bear in mind I'm talking about residential side streets in
family neighbourhoods where everybody knows everybody else
on the block, and the street hockey kids in the street and
the drivers coming home from work know each other on a
first name basis.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article <R8hoi.12495$ya1.2358@news02.roc.ny>,
Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>
>> One thing to watch out for with traffic circles is
>> cross-traffic drivers ahead of you doing U-turns
>> around them as you approach, instead of a simple
>> left turn as one might expect.
>>
>> Then there are the corner-cutters who won't drive
>> around them properly to turn. Basically that's
>> wrong-way driving.
>>
>> While riding straight through traffic circle intersections
>> I've had drivers roar past me on the other side -- with the
>> traffic circle between the car and me. Basically that's
>> wrong-way driving.
>>
>> I'm getting kind of fed up with all these wrong-way drivers.
>
> You should also be fed up with traffic circles.

No. Traffic circles are just inanimate objects that
fill a space into which vehicular street users shouldn't
intrude anyways.

Back in the day, in many jurisdictions, there used to be
a brass so-called "button" embedded in the centres of
intersections.

Left-turning drivers were supposed to pass clearly to the
right of that button, and were guilty of a ticketable
infraction if they didn't. Supposedly those buttons
still *virtually* exist, and left-turning vehicles are
still supposed to pass to the right of them.

All you car-driving sticklers for the letter of the law,
I invite you to look it up and take note.

Traffic circles are just big, self-enforcing (more-or-less)
buttons.


cheers,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

In article <f7e25i0l11@news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> writes:
> Tom Keats wrote:
>> In article <Odumi.7354$rR.1066@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeton2001@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I sincerely hope that I don't start doing the things that I see bikers
>>>>doing on the roads all the time that pisses me off while driving (mostly
>>>>blowing stop signs,
>>
>>
>> The so-called "California stop" is not exclusively
>> a cyclists' sin.
>
> No, but blatantly blowing them at full speed is. I regularly drive to
> the Metro station, which happens to be along a marked bike route. I'd
> say 75% of the riders I see don't even bother to slow down for stop
> signs. I'm honestly scared that I will miss one someday... I'm not
> sure how they stay alive, unless they are actually looking both ways and
> I'm just not seeing them do it.
>
> I honestly don't care if they do a "california stop" but seeing a biker
> suddenly shoot across the intersection at 20 MPH as you're preparing to
> step on the gas is a little unnerving.

Oi givalt & tabernac!

You say you're gonna ride your bike, and
y'see what's erupted? :-)

Anyways, I encourage you to ride the bike
however you want to ride it.

Get out there and enjoy life.

Enjoy /your/ life, while you've got it.

That's what I'm doing. Without stepping on
other people's toes, I hope. Actually, that's
what we're all doing anyways. I dunno why all
the argument. One thing I've learned in my
lifetime is that people are generally nice,
despite what gets said/vented/purged on UseNet.

I like people.

Life is a bowl of strawberries and a squirty
can of Dream Whip. And maybe a li'l bottle
of vanilla extract to give the Dream Whip some
proper flavour.


good rides,
Tom

--
Nothing is safe from me.
I'm really at:
tkeats curlicue vcn dot bc dot ca

On Jul 20, 11:10 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T.
Russotto) wrote:
> In article <1184986886.562554.224...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 20, 10:22 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T.
> >Russotto) wrote:
> >
> >> 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.

My assertion is that I've never seen a speed _bump_ in a street - that
is, a purposely-installed, transverse, raised object or section of
pavement that required a speed of less than ten miles per hour with an
ordinary car like, say, a stock Taurus or Civic.

I've seen speed bumps in parking lots. There are two that I regularly
traverse. Those cause me no problems at all, but I still don't
advocate them in streets. At least, not in any situation that comes
quickly to mind.

If you've got a photo of one, I'd like to see it. Again, it's not
that I advocate speed _bumps_. But I'm curious about where one was
installed, and why.

And it would be useful to point out the design differences between a
speed bump and speed hump, using a photo. It really does seem like
some posters are confused on the differences.

- Frank Krygowski

On Jul 20, 11:14 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > _Speed_ bumps? In streets? I've _never_ seen one. Can you provide a
> > photo?
>
> We've had this discussion before. If you really want to see some, I
> remember there being quite a few in Silver Spring, MD at least toward
> Wheaton. I can give you exact directions to the neighborhood I used to
> live in, if you want to see them.

I doubt many people will make a cross-country trip to see what you
claim. That's why I asked for a photo.

> > 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.
>
> Sure, if you don't care about your car.

:-) For some people, their car is their religion. They worship it
with semi-weekly washing and waxing, they spend big money on cute
accessories like fancy wheels or weird lighting schemes, they
"invest" in performance hardware so they can exceed the speed limit by
even more. And, apparently, they mock those who do not worship their
car-god.

I'm not a member of that religion. I care about my car as a
transportation tool. If it runs reliably and lasts long enough, it's
doing its job.

And in all the years I've been driving, I've never ever had any damage
to any of my cars caused by even the most radical speed bump, let
alone a well-designed speed hump.

I maintain that, if you have, you've made some sort of mistake while
driving - most probably, you've gone too fast for conditions.

Slow down. Protect your dear car.

- Frank Krygowski

On Jul 20, 11:40 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T.
Russotto) wrote:
> In article <1184988135.122946.64...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >By golly, you're right. Despite my long experience with mechanical
> >engineering, and with car repair and maintenance, and my youthful time
> >wasted doing performance modifications to cars, etc., I find that
> >there are _many_ things that are far more interesting than the bottom
> >of my car. I just don't care about the bottom side of my car!
>
> While the bottom of the car is not all that interesting, I've found
> that many of the things you see there are important to the operation
> of the car, and may malfunction if slammed against asphalt.
>
> Structural members, driveshaft, exhaust, drains, suspension parts,
> differential, etc.

Sure. And a competent driver will never harm any of those when
passing over a speed bump, let alone a speed hump.

- Frank Krygowski

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> 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.

I haven't. I'd suggest that they were an example of misapplied
technology, from all accounts, not a particularly common misapplication.

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

That would irritate me too, if I were a "MFFY".

Nate Nagel wrote:
> 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.

Hint: It's not your impressive vocabulary (I can use a dictionary), but
your logic I can't follow.

>
>>
>>> 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.

Well, I guess that solves the whole child-pedestrian/cyclist fatality
thing. You should share that with the appropriate government agencies.
Now, you just have to solve the adult fatality thing and we're all set.


>> 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.

Soooo, that means we shouldn't have speed humps (there), why?

>
>> 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.

All your base are belong to us, MFFY.

Tom Keats wrote:
> In article <R8hoi.12495$ya1.2358@news02.roc.ny>,
> Arif Khokar <akhokar1234@wvu.edu> writes:

>> You should also be fed up with traffic circles.

> No. Traffic circles are just inanimate objects that
> fill a space into which vehicular street users shouldn't
> intrude anyways.

And it's an obsolete traffic control device. DAGS for _roundabout_ to
see why they're safer (for drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians) compared
to traffic circles, four-way stops, and even signalized intersections.
I ride through a roundabout on my commute and, unless there's traffic to
yield to, I don't even have to slow down before entering. Traffic will
even yield to me when I'm in the circle.

The problem with traffic circles are inconsistent right-of-way rules
from one implementation to another, and, as you've mentioned, wrong-way
drivers.

I've already posted that a modern roundabout has deflected entry points
which make entering it going the wrong way virtually impossible.

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <7_idnf9mA8UFwDzbnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@comcast.com>,

> 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.

Why stop there? Disable the perp(s), make a citizen's arrest. Stop the
decline of Western civilization!

You guys kill me.

Hey, maybe you would!

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> 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.
>


Yah, yah, blah, blah, blah.