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.

On Jul 21, 5:45 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 21, 2:20 pm, N8N <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 21, 9:41 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Well, I have. so you either have to accept that they exist or call me
> > a liar, it's that simple.
>
> Not quite that simple. Alternately, I could propose that you're
> remembering wrong, or misunderstanding the definitions. People really
> do make mistakes.
>
> But instead, I'll just ask for details. Tell us the approximate
> dimensions, describe the street where it was installed, and perhaps
> most important, tell us why it was there - because such a thing is at
> best, extremely unusual. A photo would be great, if you can manage
> it.

About 5-6" high, maybe more, and maybe a foot or a little more in
length. across the whole street. I am certain that they were on the
side street that I had to take to get to my cul-de-sac, and I think
there may have been some on the main road (Arcola) although it's been
about 10 years and I'm not entirely certain.

I do remember that the resonator on my old Scirocco would scrape
across it no matter what I did, and that's not the easiest car to
scrape that I've owned (although I really have an issue with my
company Impala - why such a large, apparently family-oriented car has
such pathetic ground clearance is inexcusable IMHO. I regularly
scrape the airdam pulling into parking lots, even crossing streets
with a pronounced crown, and of course on both speed bumps and humps.
My 944 is far, far harder to scrape than Vlad the Impala, and that's a
legitimate Real Sports Car.) I'd gladly take a photo, if it weren't
about 40 miles away from anywhere that I normally go.

>
> And keep in mind, I'm not advocating speed bumps in streets. I don't
> think I know anyone who is.
>
> Still, give us details.
>

Apparently, someone in Maryland thinks they're a good idea.

nate

"Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:13s4a35n0sjosapgurgn5vu8to1fne0bdb@4ax.com...

> But, I also remember my grandfather taking the "streetcar" to work.
> Actually it was a bus but he still called it a streetcar. I also
> remember riding in back of his pre-war coupe and sometimes feeling
> the stress and general mood being less than pleasant. My grandfather
> would use words like, jerk and yahoo inside the car. Words he never
> used at home. Riding with my father was worse so that my sister and I
> could end up crying which never helped matters.
>

So, you have a family history of not being able to control your
anger. This explains alot of what you post, however, not everyone
suffers from your family's poor emotional control. So you are projecting
your own issues onto people in cars that don't suffer from them.


> I think the MFFY attitude toward other road users is learned at an
> early age in car centric societies.

It apparently was in your family, now we know.


>
> Sure there are other factors like media and language contributing to
> the general decline of politeness in our society but our obsession
> with driving everywhere is the largest contributor.
> \

Projection.





>
> The scale of our modern built environment is wrong. The physical
> proportions of the sprawl is based on the needs of cars. Most of what
> we see is telling us we don't belong there. I'm afraid it's always
> going to be an unwelcoming place for human habitation.
>>

So everything about he modern world is wrong, and you are
the only one who can see the correct course that
humanity should take?

You may benefit from some serious time spent with a counsellor,
you may even find that you would be able to relate to other
people in a more enjoyable fashion if you were able to work
through these issues

> My disdain for cars and our car centric society stems from my
> observations, experience and reflections. My condemnation of the
> entire phenomenon will be borne out by history. War is the only
> greater folly of our species.

Everyone else is wrong, the whole world is wrong, you are
the only one who can see clearly?

Wow,

get help now.

Bernard

bernard farquart wrote:
> "Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message
> news:13s4a35n0sjosapgurgn5vu8to1fne0bdb@4ax.com...

>> My grandfather
>> would use words like, jerk and yahoo inside the car. Words he never
>> used at home.

> So, you have a family history of not being able to control your
> anger.
Driving made his grandfather uncharacteristically angry.

>> Sure there are other factors like media and language contributing to
>> the general decline of politeness in our society but our obsession
>> with driving everywhere is the largest contributor.

> Projection.

"b : the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other
people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt,
or responsibility as a defense against anxiety"

So Zoot is obsessed with driving? Veeery interesting, Dr. Freud.


>> The scale of our modern built environment is wrong.

> So everything about he modern world is wrong,
He didn't say that.


> and you are
> the only one who can see the correct course that
> humanity should take?
He didn't say that.


>> My disdain for cars and our car centric society stems from my
>> observations, experience and reflections.

> Everyone else is wrong,
He didn't say that.

> the whole world is wrong,
He didn't say that.

> you are the only one who can see clearly?
He didn't say that

> get help now.

Turn off the TV, read a book. You could use both the practice and the
information.

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:12:25 -0700, "bernard farquart"
<bernardfarquart@DELETEhotmail.com> wrote:

>So, you have a family history of not being able to control your
>anger. This explains alot of what you post, however, not everyone
>suffers from your family's poor emotional control. So you are projecting
>your own issues onto people in cars that don't suffer from them.

The anger was controlled and mostly confined to muttering. It was
obviously brought on by traffic situations of which I was unaware at
the time. I guess I learned that other drivers are jerks and yahoos.
Reading the trash posted in r.a.d. proves my grandfather knew what he
was talking about.

I say plenty of kids raised since the fifties, and the explosion of
car dominated families, were exposed to rudeness on the road before
they could drive.

Most of them, including you, probably witnessed their parents worst
behaviour taking place in cars.
--
zk

Zoot Katz wrote:
> ...
> Most of them, including you, probably witnessed their parents worst
> behaviour taking place in cars.

I thought the children were the result of the (future) parents’ behavior
in cars!

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


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

"Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:lf25a3ls2ihq7fg5qb4r7kaf7gavjt7gsv@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:12:25 -0700, "bernard farquart"
> <bernardfarquart@DELETEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>So, you have a family history of not being able to control your
>>anger. This explains alot of what you post, however, not everyone
>>suffers from your family's poor emotional control. So you are projecting
>>your own issues onto people in cars that don't suffer from them.
>
> The anger was controlled and mostly confined to muttering. It was
> obviously brought on by traffic situations of which I was unaware at
> the time. I guess I learned that other drivers are jerks and yahoos.
> Reading the trash posted in r.a.d. proves my grandfather knew what he
> was talking about.

Well, you and I disagree, I say that the vast majority of drivers
are reasonable, but a tiny minority of them cause huge problems
for the rest. It only takes one idiot out of thousands to cause a huge
backup.

I bet if you are passed with lots of clearance by fifty
cars, then every fifty first one comes too close, or honks for no
reason, or yells "get off the road" or some stupid shit, you are
going to view the other fifty drivers through the same lens.


>
> I say plenty of kids raised since the fifties, and the explosion of
> car dominated families, were exposed to rudeness on the road before
> they could drive.

Yes, people are rude, it is true.On the roads, and I can tell you, as a
person who has worked in retail for the last twenty years, people can
be complete jackasses without being anywhere near their cars.

>
> Most of them, including you, probably witnessed their parents worst
> behaviour taking place in cars.

Not so, I think the worst behavior my parents displayed was
in court. But I don't think doing away with the legal system
is a reasonable answer.

Bernard

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:15:00 -0700, "bernard farquart"
<bernardfarquart@DELETEhotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Zoot Katz" <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote in message
>news:lf25a3ls2ihq7fg5qb4r7kaf7gavjt7gsv@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:12:25 -0700, "bernard farquart"
>> <bernardfarquart@DELETEhotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>So, you have a family history of not being able to control your
>>>anger. This explains alot of what you post, however, not everyone
>>>suffers from your family's poor emotional control. So you are projecting
>>>your own issues onto people in cars that don't suffer from them.
>>
>> The anger was controlled and mostly confined to muttering. It was
>> obviously brought on by traffic situations of which I was unaware at
>> the time. I guess I learned that other drivers are jerks and yahoos.
>> Reading the trash posted in r.a.d. proves my grandfather knew what he
>> was talking about.
>
>Well, you and I disagree, I say that the vast majority of drivers
>are reasonable, but a tiny minority of them cause huge problems
>for the rest. It only takes one idiot out of thousands to cause a huge
>backup.
>
uhhh, you're missing the point. Sure maybe there's one "idiot" who
screwed things up but it usually takes two. The point is this idiot
has angered, agitated or at least annoyed that vast majority. Some of
whom no doubt expressed their displeasure with name calling, horn
honking and vivid gesticulations.
\
>>
>> I say plenty of kids raised since the fifties, and the explosion of
>> car dominated families, were exposed to rudeness on the road before
>> they could drive.
>
>Yes, people are rude, it is true.On the roads, and I can tell you, as a
>person who has worked in retail for the last twenty years, people can
>be complete jackasses without being anywhere near their cars.

They're probably still bitching because they had to park so far away.

Again, the point is: because we've become accustomed to isolating
ourselves in cars that we've forgotten how to act it public.
>
>>
>> Most of them, including you, probably witnessed their parents worst
>> behaviour taking place in cars.
>
>Not so, I think the worst behavior my parents displayed was
>in court.

They're lawyers?

I'm sure they were always mild mannered, level headed, totally
composed paragons of politeness when driving. . . uh huh.

>But I don't think doing away with the legal system
>is a reasonable answer.

Neither do I. That would put too many useless assholes out of jobs.
--
zk

In article <1185025801.586076.95190@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>:-) 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.

Sort of the way some people need to have the latest gram shaved components
and spend hours preping and painting the frame of their bicycles....

> 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.

Then you wouldn't mind someone taking a sledgehammer to the floor panels.

> 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.

A) your experience is limited.
B) you don't notice it.

> 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.

Slowing down further would be stopped. I take the same care with my cars
that I do with my bicycles.

In article <1185028250.596394.287600@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>> No, this is a HUMP. It's about 4 feet wide. You want a picture of that
>> too, mr. willfully ignorant?

> Sure, with measurements - although you're still showing signs of
> confusion. Width isn't the determining characteristic. Height and
> slope are more important, followed by length (not width).

Lame Frank. Just lame. You're losing so now you have to get into semantics
where only what you say qualifies as a speed hump is one. A speed hump in
common usage is anything bigger than about 1 foot in the travel direction.

> According to a site whose URL you posted yesterday, a speed hump has a
> typical height of 3 to 4 inches. Other specs at other sites and in
> design manuals give details of profile, for example slopes. I'm
> waiting for your explanation of how a 4" high speed hump with a
> gradual slope - that is, one meeting the standard design specs -
> damages the pretty bottom of your car!

Your mythical no damaging speed humps.... Ever hear of something called a
suspension Frank? It allows the car to move up and down. There are many
variables to car design, apparently you're ignorant of most of them. The
stock exhaust, at the last pair of cats isn't very high on my car. It
wouldn't take much to scrape it on a 4-5" hump.

>> I know the vocabularly, Frank. You don't know what's at my local walmart.
>> You need to know what you are talking about before you start flapping.

> You're losing track of the differences between streets and parking
> lots! Wal-mart can put anything it likes in its lot. It's up to you
> to negotiate it, if you insist on shopping there. But the speed humps
> I've encountered on public streets have all been very different, and
> those are what I favor.

How you decide to forget about the city of chicago hump. The walmart ones
are half-assed, the chicago ones about 3/4's assed. Both suck. The chicago
ones are on city streets.

> Brent, you claimed speed humps increased speed between them. I asked
> for a citation. You gave the above.

I gave more than the above. You spewed before you read the whole thing and
didn't have the honesty to scroll back and edit your comments. You're an
asshole frank. The second link showed what happens on some hump designs,
increased speed between humps.

>> The cite directly says that humps 150m apart result in an increase in
>> speed.

> Ah! It's a reading comprehension problem, then! It should be obvious
> to you that the comparison is the speed between close-spaced humps and
> far-spaced humps.

That's what I stated Frank. It's not my fault you can't read.

> IOW, if you take a street where juvenile car-boys are driving 40 mph
> and put in speed humps at 100 m spacing, you may slow the boys down to
> 25 mph. If you put them in at 150 m spacing, the idiots may get back
> up to 40 before they begin braking again. Nowhere does it claim that
> they will go faster than before the humps...

> ... which is beside the point, anyway. I advocate (as one possible
> traffic-calming measure) speed humps which are installed according to
> best design principles. Obviously, proper spacing is one of those
> principles.

So you have speed humps into infinity every 70m.... yeah great way to ruin
a street there frank.


>> And as far as caring about our machines, you never answered my question.
>> How about you let me smash the bottom bracket or one of the lower tubes of
>> your bicycle into a concrete curb? I am sure it will still ride 'ok'
>> afterwards, and nobody really cares what the bottom of your bicycle looks
>> like. And while I am at it, let me drive your car over some nice high
>> square curbs or give it a few wacks under there with a sledge hammer. I am
>> sure it will still be 'drivable'.

> When I whack your car with a sledge hammer, I'll let you whack my
> bicycle with a sledge hammer. But yet again, you're losing track of
> the discussion.

So you do care about your bicycle. It's just a bicycle frank. Why are you
so concerned? Could it be because it is YOUR PROPERTY? Could it be because
you paid for it with YOUR MONEY? Are you understanding now why people
don't want their personal property damaged?

> If you whack your car on a speed hump, or even a speed bump, the fault
> is yours. A competent driver or cyclist adjusts his speed for
> conditions. Vast numbers of drivers manage to negotiate these things
> every day with no damage whatsoever.

The only way not to damage the vehicle is to go around the obstruction.
Which is what I do unless I did not know the obstruction was there or have
no other choice. In which case I am going MUCH SLOWER than the posted
limit. In fact, any slower is STOPPED. I walk faster than I go over speed
humps and bumps.

> The fact is, I can ride, and have ridden, even a road bike over a log
> in the woods with no damage. I can and do negotiate speed bumps and
> speed humps with no damage to my car or bike.

A log on a road bike... let me guess it was pushed down into the mud, or
your definition of a log is what I call a branch.

> You are apparently incapable of doing the same. It must be a gross
> lack of skill - or a pathological inability to control your race-car
> fantasies.

Nice projection there frank.

On Jul 21, 10:01 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> In article <1185028250.596394.287...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> No, this is a HUMP. It's about 4 feet wide. You want a picture of that
> >> too, mr. willfully ignorant?
> > Sure, with measurements - although you're still showing signs of
> > confusion. Width isn't the determining characteristic. Height and
> > slope are more important, followed by length (not width).
>
> Lame Frank. Just lame. You're losing so now you have to get into semantics
> where only what you say qualifies as a speed hump is one. A speed hump in
> common usage is anything bigger than about 1 foot in the travel direction.

Really? Here's what I find: "Generally, speed humps are 12 to 14
feet in length and span the width of the road. The height of humps
ranges from 3 to 4 inches.[1] " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_hump
Where do you get the idea that "anything [longer] than 1 foot" is a
speed hump? The fact is, you're describing something that is not in
the design manuals. You're complaining about something I'm not
advocating.

Which confirms what I said earlier. You seem to be completely
confused about the fundamental definitions of terms. You literally
don't know what you're talking about.


> > When I whack your car with a sledge hammer, I'll let you whack my
> > bicycle with a sledge hammer. But yet again, you're losing track of
> > the discussion.
>
> So you do care about your bicycle. It's just a bicycle frank. Why are you
> so concerned? Could it be because it is YOUR PROPERTY? Could it be because
> you paid for it with YOUR MONEY? Are you understanding now why people
> don't want their personal property damaged?

Brent, I'll try to explain this one more time, then leave you alone.
Maybe someone else can have more patience with you.

If you actually DO damage your car by driving over a properly designed
speed hump, it's not because someone else damaged your property. It's
not because somebody used a sledge hammer. It's not because it's
impossible to negotiate it without damage. It's because you screwed
up.

Given your juvenile whining and your history of posting contempt for
speed limits, I'd say the most likely cause is you didn't slow down.
Yes, I understand you claim that you can slow to a stop and still
scrape on a gradual speed hump - in defiance of the laws of physics.
Sorry, if that were really true, there would be enough complaints from
other people to cause a removal of that offending hump.

Since you're still whining about it, my bet is it's a problem only to
you. Maybe it's because you still haven't mastered a clutch, I don't
know. We do know you claim to nearly lose control of your bike riding
gradual humps, whereas I can still jump completely over speed bumps on
my road bike, and I'm old enough to be retired.

That's OK. It's no great shame to be somewhat uncoordinated. Just
remember to drive and ride within your limits and you'll be OK.

For you, "within your limits" apparently means very slowly. Otherwise
you wouldn't have so many more problems than other people.

That's it. I'm done with you. You're a whiny waste of time.

- Frank Krygowski

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> That's it. I'm done with you. You're a whiny waste of time.


Irony, thy name is Frank.

nate


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

On Jul 21, 8:11 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:15:00 -0700, "bernard farquart"
>
>
>
> <bernardfarqu...@DELETEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >"Zoot Katz" <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote in message
> >news:lf25a3ls2ihq7fg5qb4r7kaf7gavjt7gsv@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:12:25 -0700, "bernard farquart"
> >> <bernardfarqu...@DELETEhotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>So, you have a family history of not being able to control your
> >>>anger. This explains alot of what you post, however, not everyone
> >>>suffers from your family's poor emotional control. So you are projecting
> >>>your own issues onto people in cars that don't suffer from them.
>
> >> The anger was controlled and mostly confined to muttering. It was
> >> obviously brought on by traffic situations of which I was unaware at
> >> the time. I guess I learned that other drivers are jerks and yahoos.
> >> Reading the trash posted in r.a.d. proves my grandfather knew what he
> >> was talking about.
>
> >Well, you and I disagree, I say that the vast majority of drivers
> >are reasonable, but a tiny minority of them cause huge problems
> >for the rest. It only takes one idiot out of thousands to cause a huge
> >backup.
>
> uhhh, you're missing the point. Sure maybe there's one "idiot" who
> screwed things up but it usually takes two. The point is this idiot
> has angered, agitated or at least annoyed that vast majority. Some of
> whom no doubt expressed their displeasure with name calling, horn
> honking and vivid gesticulations.

As well they should. How are people supposed to receive negative
reinforcement when they act in a socially unacceptable manner if
nobody expresses displeasure or disapproval?

When someone does something squidly to you on a bike, do you call it
to their attention, or simply let them go on their way?

>
> >> I say plenty of kids raised since the fifties, and the explosion of
> >> car dominated families, were exposed to rudeness on the road before
> >> they could drive.
>
> >Yes, people are rude, it is true.On the roads, and I can tell you, as a
> >person who has worked in retail for the last twenty years, people can
> >be complete jackasses without being anywhere near their cars.
>
> They're probably still bitching because they had to park so far away.
>
> Again, the point is: because we've become accustomed to isolating
> ourselves in cars that we've forgotten how to act it public.
>

Bullshit. It's got nothing to do with isolation and everything to do
with the disappearance of people who are willing to step in when
someone acts in a socially unacceptable manner and politely (or
impolitely) ask them to stop. Anymore, people do things like cut in
line at the supermarket, curse loudly on the subway, shoplift with
impunity etc. simply because the average citizen doesn't want to be
involved, because of indoctrination from an early age to not confront
a criminal/social offender, let the police take care of it. And of
course, the police are spread so thin that minor infractions are never
punished, assuming that the police even care.

>
> >> Most of them, including you, probably witnessed their parents worst
> >> behaviour taking place in cars.
>
> >Not so, I think the worst behavior my parents displayed was
> >in court.
>
> They're lawyers?
>
> I'm sure they were always mild mannered, level headed, totally
> composed paragons of politeness when driving. . . uh huh.
>

Mine were, they taught me how to drive correctly. While yours
apparently taught you resentment and hatred.

nate

In article <1185130914.171281.110080@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, N8N wrote:
> On Jul 21, 8:11 pm, Zoot Katz <zootk...@operamail.com> wrote:

>> Again, the point is: because we've become accustomed to isolating
>> ourselves in cars that we've forgotten how to act it public.

> Bullshit. It's got nothing to do with isolation and everything to do
> with the disappearance of people who are willing to step in when
> someone acts in a socially unacceptable manner and politely (or
> impolitely) ask them to stop. Anymore, people do things like cut in
> line at the supermarket, curse loudly on the subway, shoplift with
> impunity etc. simply because the average citizen doesn't want to be
> involved, because of indoctrination from an early age to not confront
> a criminal/social offender, let the police take care of it. And of
> course, the police are spread so thin that minor infractions are never
> punished, assuming that the police even care.

Exactly. 'just let them do it' is the root cause here. It's that there can
be no social reinforcement, that somehow letting someone know they are
behaving like a rude,selfish,arsehole has become wrong. Instead we are all
supposed to silently just take it.

The problem with this sort of conflict avoidance is that 1) it just makes
the selfish person push further until someone stands up to them.
2) it builds a sense of entitlement in the selfish person such that when
someone stands up to them there is a much more serious conflict than there
would have been had others stood up to him years before 3) no human being
has infinite tolerance, so at some point, good people who have been just
been taking it for years simply snap.

I have a more cynical view of having 'the police take care of it'.
Especially after considering a recent interaction from cops on my own
property when I was returning (on foot) with my dinner. The decay that
'just let them do it' brings results in giving even more power to the
police and thusly the government. Where in order to stop minor things,
surveilance, control, and force are used by the government. Basically it
goes along with how the government needs criminals to clamp down on.

Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Wikipedia isn't common usage. I take you don't go out talking to people
> much.
>
> Someone took a picture in chicago of a typical speed hump...
> http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1111958730053299910MJXodM
>
> Notice how the parked SUV has it's front wheels on one side of it, and
> it's rear wheels on the other.

I don't see any SUV, but Andy evidently is getting into the spirit of
speed humping.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of
altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their
views ... which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the
facts that needs altering.
-- Doctor Who, "Face of Evil"

Brent P wrote:

> I have a more cynical view of having 'the police take care of it'.
> Especially after considering a recent interaction from cops on my own
> property when I was returning (on foot) with my dinner.

I must have missed the post where you described what happened
originally. What happened?

Tom Keats <tkeats2005@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <3s92a3pdk8lpsbrh74k2r29hngkqhe1s2q@4ax.com>,
> Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> writes:
>>
>> 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.

I halfway expect people to do that one. Though admittedly a left turn
through them is permitted in WA state law for large trucks and similar
classes of vehicles. But not for just any wanker.

> 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.

I'm taking more of a holistic view of it lately. There are lots of
people on the road who shouldn't be driving. It should be addressed
with better testing and/or education. In addition to better
enforcement. Better enforcement alone is almost useless.

--
Dane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org
"Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom
meaningless by not committing them?" -Jules Feiffer

In article <UImdnfAL0LOQDDzbnZ2dnUVZ_qHinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>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.

I suspect they remove them to save the bumps, not the plows.

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

In article <dPadnXX1tprtrT_bnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>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?

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

In article <dPadnXH1tpqNrz_bnZ2dnUVZ_vvinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Peter Cole <peter_cole@comcast.net> wrote:
>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
>Yessir, there's some delicate shit down there, wish I knew the technical
>names for all those whatchamacallits.
>
>You guys are a riot.

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

In article <1185042090.864506.318290@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
N8N <njnagel@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Wrong. The mistake made, if you can call it that, is driving down the
>street with speed bumps on it. There are some that will cause some
>scraping at any non-zero speed.

There are some that will make contact at zero speed, though I admit
those particular ones I've only come across in parking lots.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.