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.

In article <0r0an4-gfs.ln1@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
Dane Buson <zuvembi@unixbigots.org> wrote:
>N8N <njnagel@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. (I actually drive an Impala now, but I
>> assume that you're not going to argue that that's significantly
>> different from a Taurus for purposes of this discussion.)
>
>Or, alternately, you could take a photo and post it. That would
>constitute to most reasonable people proof *and* then you could have the
>warm glow of saying "Ha ha, I told you so!"

Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
seen one.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <13s4a35n0sjosapgurgn5vu8to1fne0bdb@4ax.com>,
Zoot Katz <zootkatz@operamail.com> wrote:
>>
>Yeah, as a kid I learned what was expected of me in polite society.
>Those lessons stuck.

Certainly couldn't tell from your posts here.

>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.

Yeah, because no one curses on public transportation. In fact, on the
island of Manhattan, where most people use public transit and walk,
only the cabbies curse.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Jul 23, 3:30 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <0r0an4-gfs....@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
> Dane Buson <zuve...@unixbigots.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> >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. (I actually drive an Impala now, but I
> >> assume that you're not going to argue that that's significantly
> >> different from a Taurus for purposes of this discussion.)
>
> >Or, alternately, you could take a photo and post it. That would
> >constitute to most reasonable people proof *and* then you could have the
> >warm glow of saying "Ha ha, I told you so!"
>
> Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
> seen one.

.... which would be because I haven't seen one! An accurate picture
would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
I've seen a picture of one. No more.

But if anyone does post one, please do the whole job. That is,
explain why it was installed. Installing such a thing is certainly an
unusual move! Tell why it was done - who asked for it, for what
reason, etc.

- Frank Krygowski

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 23, 3:30 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> wrote:
>
>>In article <0r0an4-gfs....@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
>>Dane Buson <zuve...@unixbigots.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>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. (I actually drive an Impala now, but I
>>>>assume that you're not going to argue that that's significantly
>>>>different from a Taurus for purposes of this discussion.)
>>
>>>Or, alternately, you could take a photo and post it. That would
>>>constitute to most reasonable people proof *and* then you could have the
>>>warm glow of saying "Ha ha, I told you so!"
>>
>>Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
>>seen one.
>
>
> ... which would be because I haven't seen one! An accurate picture
> would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
> I've seen a picture of one. No more.
>
> But if anyone does post one, please do the whole job. That is,
> explain why it was installed. Installing such a thing is certainly an
> unusual move! Tell why it was done - who asked for it, for what
> reason, etc.
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

How the hell should I know why they were installed? Certainly no *good*
reason, because there isn't one for their existence.

nate

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

On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> > An accurate picture
> > would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
> > I've seen a picture of one. No more.
>
> > But if anyone does post one, please do the whole job. That is,
> > explain why it was installed. Installing such a thing is certainly an
> > unusual move! Tell why it was done - who asked for it, for what
> > reason, etc.
>


>
> How the hell should I know why they were installed?

Um... ask someone? Try starting with the homes or businesses nearby.
Or the street department. (Whoa! That was like Rocket Science!)

> Certainly no *good* reason, because there isn't one for their existence.

Well, at least you're not biased, eh? ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 23, 4:08 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>> An accurate picture
>>>would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
>>>I've seen a picture of one. No more.
>>
>>>But if anyone does post one, please do the whole job. That is,
>>>explain why it was installed. Installing such a thing is certainly an
>>>unusual move! Tell why it was done - who asked for it, for what
>>>reason, etc.
>>
>
>
>>How the hell should I know why they were installed?
>
>
> Um... ask someone? Try starting with the homes or businesses nearby.
> Or the street department. (Whoa! That was like Rocket Science!)

The closest place I know of that has them, as I've repeatedly posted, is
in Maryland, appx. 40 miles away from my current residence. I no longer
live there, and haven't lived there for close to ten years, in part
because of a lot of BS anti-motorist policies. Ever tried to drive in
Bethesda? It's a living hell for a car driver; pedestrians will
literally walk out in front of your car in the middle of the block
without looking, and you damn well better stop for them, because no
matter how idiotic the ped is you WILL be found liable for any damages.
If you care so much, let me know and I will look up the exact location
of the ones that I remember, and you can find out who to ask to discover
their history.


>
>>Certainly no *good* reason, because there isn't one for their existence.
>
>
> Well, at least you're not biased, eh? ;-)

Biased towards rationality and common sense, yes, guilty as charged.
You'd hate them too, if you HAD to drive over them every day (and I did;
there were at least two speed bumps on a road that was the only way in
or out of the cul-de-sac where I was living at the time) and listen to
your car's underbits being dragged over them. Eventually had to replace
the center resonator on my Scirocco with a straight pipe for clearance
reasons after it finally got sick of being bumped every day and the
pipes fatigue-cracked, which probably wasn't the intended effect of the
speed bumps. Didn't scrape after that, but if I had to leave early for
work, I probably annoyed a few people.

nate

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

In article <1185231742.953645.264640@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>> Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
>> seen one.
>
> ... which would be because I haven't seen one! An accurate picture
> would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
> I've seen a picture of one. No more.

Here ya go:
http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyllead/bump.jpg

There's another one past the next corner up ahead.

> But if anyone does post one, please do the whole job. That is,
> explain why it was installed. Installing such a thing is certainly an
> unusual move! Tell why it was done - who asked for it, for what
> reason, etc.

Half-assed attempt to get people to slow down. The city government there
does a lot of half-assed things that are not MUTCD compliant. Like most
places they pull something out their ass, slap it up and since the courts
are of the kangaroo variety they aren't forced to comply with IL law that
mandates compliance with the MUTCD.

Of course if people's ideas of speed limits weren't warped by underposted
speed limits practically everywhere but residental streets this wouldn't
be an issue. 20+ years ago, before the arterial speed limits were dropped,
there was not a problem with people driving too fast on the residential
streets. As the speed limits were dropped on the arterials the
problem started. (the main one dropped from 45mph to 30mph in the last
step when vastly improved in sight lines and surface while expanded to
four lanes).

Brent P wrote:
> In article <1185231742.953645.264640@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
>>>seen one.
>>
>>... which would be because I haven't seen one! An accurate picture
>>would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
>>I've seen a picture of one. No more.
>
>
> Here ya go:
> http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyllead/bump.jpg
>
> There's another one past the next corner up ahead.

damn, the ones I was thinking of were at least twice as tall.

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

In article <f83n6h02cnn@news2.newsguy.com>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <1185231742.953645.264640@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
>>>>seen one.
>>>
>>>... which would be because I haven't seen one! An accurate picture
>>>would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
>>>I've seen a picture of one. No more.
>>
>>
>> Here ya go:
>> http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyllead/bump.jpg
>>
>> There's another one past the next corner up ahead.
>
> damn, the ones I was thinking of were at least twice as tall.

Yeah, the perm ones are about twice as tall when I've seen them. These
temporary ones have a particularly nasty shape though. I doubt they scrape
much of anything but they can't be good for suspensions or tire sidewalls.

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article <1185231742.953645.264640@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
>>>> seen one.
>>>
>>> ... which would be because I haven't seen one! An accurate picture
>>> would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
>>> I've seen a picture of one. No more.
>>
>>
>> Here ya go:
>> http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyllead/bump.jpg
>>
>> There's another one past the next corner up ahead.

The ones I see in San Diego are wider and rounder, but same idea. They're
commonplace in many residential areas. (They work, too. Really slow down
speeders.)

> damn, the ones I was thinking of were at least twice as tall.

Hard to imagine, since that would almost certainly damage most cars. Even
the one pictured would wreck a suspension if hit at speed; it's on the
"abrupt" side.

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1185231742.953645.264640@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>>frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
>>>>>seen one.
>>>>
>>>>... which would be because I haven't seen one! An accurate picture
>>>>would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
>>>>I've seen a picture of one. No more.
>>>
>>>
>>>Here ya go:
>>>http://www.geocities.com/tetraethyllead/bump.jpg
>>>
>>>There's another one past the next corner up ahead.
>
>
> The ones I see in San Diego are wider and rounder, but same idea. They're
> commonplace in many residential areas. (They work, too. Really slow down
> speeders.)
>
>
>>damn, the ones I was thinking of were at least twice as tall.
>
>
> Hard to imagine, since that would almost certainly damage most cars. Even
> the one pictured would wreck a suspension if hit at speed; it's on the
> "abrupt" side.
>
>

yeah, that's kind of the point we've been making.

nate

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

In article <1185231742.953645.264640@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 23, 3:30 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>wrote:

>> Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
>> seen one.
>
>... which would be because I haven't seen one! An accurate picture
>would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
>I've seen a picture of one. No more.

But I already know they exist. You, OTOH, wouldn't know they exist
even if I personally drove you over one. Posting the picture would
change nothing.

>But if anyone does post one, please do the whole job. That is,
>explain why it was installed. Installing such a thing is certainly an
>unusual move! Tell why it was done - who asked for it, for what
>reason, etc.

And how am I to know that? They were installed years if not decades
ago, before I moved to the area.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Jul 23, 7:02 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 23, 3:30 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <0r0an4-gfs....@curare.zuvembi.homelinux.org>,
> > Dane Buson <zuve...@unixbigots.org> wrote:
>
> > >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. (I actually drive an Impala now, but I
> > >> assume that you're not going to argue that that's significantly
> > >> different from a Taurus for purposes of this discussion.)
>
> > >Or, alternately, you could take a photo and post it. That would
> > >constitute to most reasonable people proof *and* then you could have the
> > >warm glow of saying "Ha ha, I told you so!"
>
> > Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
> > seen one.
>
> ... which would be because I haven't seen one! An accurate picture
> would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
> I've seen a picture of one. No more.
>
> But if anyone does post one, please do the whole job. That is,
> explain why it was installed. Installing such a thing is certainly an
> unusual move! Tell why it was done - who asked for it, for what
> reason, etc.
>
> - Frank Krygowski- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Frank, check this out. An entire page dedicated to the subject, from
the "bike expert" web site. I've personally seen worse than any of
these examples, but don't care enough to go take pictures much less
research their implementation.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ygux9
Full Link:
www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/nonstandard/hump.htm

On Jul 24, 6:06 am, "DanK...@gmail.com" <DanK...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:02 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Frank could (and would, based on his past behavior) claim he hadn't
> > > seen one.
>
> > ... which would be because I haven't seen one! An accurate picture
> > would prove they exist, and at that point, you could correctly say
> > I've seen a picture of one. No more.
>
> > But if anyone does post one, please do the whole job. That is,
> > explain why it was installed. Installing such a thing is certainly an
> > unusual move! Tell why it was done - who asked for it, for what
> > reason, etc.
>
> Frank, check this out. An entire page dedicated to the subject, from
> the "bike expert" web site. I've personally seen worse than any of
> these examples, but don't care enough to go take pictures much less
> research their implementation.
>
> http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ygux9
> Full Link:www.bikexprt.com/massfacil/nonstandard/hump.htm

I see. That site is mostly complaining about the speed humps lacking
standard markings, which makes sense. But he does show the one before
the bridge, which is clearly not up to modern design standards. (It's
not clear if the one on campus is on a public road.) And yes, Brent
posted a photo of another one that appears to be on a public street,
again not up to modern design standards.

Note that John Allen's site (the "bikexprt" site) says: "The newer
designs of speed humps and speed tables are relatively benign for
bicyclists..." which is what I was saying and Brent was denying.

Note also that I have NOT advocated speed _bumps_ in roads. Again,
they must be very rare, or I'd see them from time to time, and I most
assuredly do not. I'm saying that speed _humps_ can be effective, and
I advocate them, as well as other traffic calming methods, in
residential neighborhoods.

Which, again, brings us to the question: Why install such a extreme
measure as a harsh speed bump in a place like Brent's photo, a
residential neighborhood? Nate and Matthew said, basically, "How
should I know???"

ISTM that they are trying to avoid the question. Those things, bad as
they are, were not thrown down at random. They cost money to install,
so no street department is going to install them without reason. What
could possibly have been the jurisdiction's motivation?

As you boy drivers are zooming about, playing Speed Racer, cutting
through neighborhoods, ask yourself: Could it possibly have anything
to do with boy drivers who are zooming about, playing Speed Racer,
cutting through neighborhoods?

- Frank Krygowski

In article <1185296294.370824.7020@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

> not clear if the one on campus is on a public road.) And yes, Brent
> posted a photo of another one that appears to be on a public street,
> again not up to modern design standards.

Yet it is new as of 2007.

> Note that John Allen's site (the "bikexprt" site) says: "The newer
> designs of speed humps and speed tables are relatively benign for
> bicyclists..." which is what I was saying and Brent was denying.

Another one of Frank's lies. I never denied them being "relatively
benign". In fact, I stated the same thing! Saying that some were nastier
than others but all were hazards. A speed table is relatively benign
combined to say, the speed bump with the sewer grate on the than page.
However a speed table is still a hazard placed in the road and would not
be wise to ride at 25mph.

> Note also that I have NOT advocated speed _bumps_ in roads.

You advocate the same principle of placing hazards in the roadway, just
"relatively" less hazardous.

> Again,
> they must be very rare, or I'd see them from time to time, and I most
> assuredly do not. I'm saying that speed _humps_ can be effective, and
> I advocate them, as well as other traffic calming methods, in
> residential neighborhoods.

You've posted against other methods that have been presented.

> Which, again, brings us to the question: Why install such a extreme
> measure as a harsh speed bump in a place like Brent's photo, a
> residential neighborhood? Nate and Matthew said, basically, "How
> should I know???"

More of Frank's dishonesty. Unlike Nate and Matthew who didn't live in
the places with the bumps for 20 years before the bump was there, I grew up
where that speed bump is. I know the history and I told you why it's
there. I started biking that street in 1982.

> ISTM that they are trying to avoid the question. Those things, bad as
> they are, were not thrown down at random. They cost money to install,
> so no street department is going to install them without reason. What
> could possibly have been the jurisdiction's motivation?

I told you why the one I photographed is there. There was never any issue
with vehicle speeds on that road until recent years. The changes to the
arterials seem to be the turning point. If the major e-w arterial was
still posted at 45mph instead of 30mph, this street and the ones parallel
to it wouldn't be attractive to anyone to use. Now the arterial is a big
speed trap.

> As you boy drivers are zooming about, playing Speed Racer, cutting
> through neighborhoods, ask yourself: Could it possibly have anything
> to do with boy drivers who are zooming about, playing Speed Racer,
> cutting through neighborhoods?

Now why are they doing that Frank? Because some speed kills moron had the
arterial road and the residential road posted with practically the same
speed limit. So when junior learns to drive he see's 30mph on a road that
can safely handle 50mph traffic and then 20-25 on other roads so he
wrongly thinks those 20-25 roads are good for 40-45mph. This is but one
consquence of underposted speed limits.

On Jul 24, 12:58 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> I see. That site is mostly complaining about the speed humps lacking
> standard markings, which makes sense. But he does show the one before
> the bridge, which is clearly not up to modern design standards. (It's
> not clear if the one on campus is on a public road.) And yes, Brent
> posted a photo of another one that appears to be on a public street,
> again not up to modern design standards.

My intention was simply to show an example of speed bumps on public
roads, as you asked for such a display since you'd never seen one.
They're not uncommon in MA where I grew up, so I knew I could find one
in short order. All I did was google image search "speed bump" and
presto, that page was on the first page of results. More digging
would surely produce better examples.


> Note that John Allen's site (the "bikexprt" site) says: "The newer
> designs of speed humps and speed tables are relatively benign for
> bicyclists..." which is what I was saying and Brent was denying.

I thought you were denying that such bumps exist. I like that site
because it gave the location of each one, which allows one to check
and verify when it is on a public road.


> Note also that I have NOT advocated speed _bumps_ in roads. Again,
> they must be very rare, or I'd see them from time to time, and I most
> assuredly do not. I'm saying that speed _humps_ can be effective, and
> I advocate them, as well as other traffic calming methods, in
> residential neighborhoods.

It must differ from place to place. I see them somewhat often,
usually in nice suburban areas in MA. I don't think I've ever seen
one in NH.


> Which, again, brings us to the question: Why install such a extreme
> measure as a harsh speed bump in a place like Brent's photo, a
> residential neighborhood? Nate and Matthew said, basically, "How
> should I know???"

People do stupid shit all the time. IMO this is a knee-jerk reaction
to people having issues with traffic on "their street". IME people
who are yelling at you to slow down on "their street" are often
yelling at the vehicle and not the driver, or are yelling because
they're miffed with their spouse and can't take the anger out on
them. Back when I drove a heavily modified car, I'd get yelled at to
slow down from time to time when I was doing the speed limit or less.
On my old Ninja, it's also fairly common. On the bike I'm riding now,
which is flashy as all get-out, I get yelled at to slow down when
doing under the SL on a regular basis. Most recent instance was the
day before yesterday. Interestingly enough, I can speed down the same
roads in my 'rents caddy and no one ever says a word.


> ISTM that they are trying to avoid the question. Those things, bad as
> they are, were not thrown down at random. They cost money to install,
> so no street department is going to install them without reason. What
> could possibly have been the jurisdiction's motivation?

Complaining residents. The problem is that the complaints are often
unfounded and inaccurate, much like people telling me to slow down my
bike when I'm doing 26 in a 30.


> As you boy drivers are zooming about, playing Speed Racer, cutting
> through neighborhoods, ask yourself: Could it possibly have anything
> to do with boy drivers who are zooming about, playing Speed Racer,
> cutting through neighborhoods?

Since you are replying to my post, are you calling me a "boy driver
zooming about, playing Speed Racer, cutting through neighborhoods"?
That would be quite a jump and assumption, considering you know
nothing about me and my driving habits.

Brent P wrote:


> However a speed table is still a hazard placed in the road and would not
> be wise to ride at 25mph.
>

Chapel Hill NC has recently placed a few speed tables on residential
streets, all streets posted at 25 mph. The speed tables are designed and
signed for 15 mph, and are placed on roads with steep slopes. It is no
problem to do 25 mph on a bike descending these roads, but the speed
tables really do prevent that speed on a road bike.

Given that they are designed for 15 mph and placed on 25 mph roads, the
speed tables punish not only speeders, but also law abiding motorists
and bicyclists.

Wayne

DanKMTB@gmail.com wrote:
>
> My intention was simply to show an example of speed bumps on public
> roads, as you asked for such a display since you'd never seen one.
> They're not uncommon in MA where I grew up, so I knew I could find one
> in short order.

I grew up & still live in MA, and I think speed bumps are extremely rare.


> Complaining residents. The problem is that the complaints are often
> unfounded and inaccurate,

I'm one of those. Speeding in residential areas, like my neighborhood is
very common. I'm a very big fan of traffic calming.

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:33:37 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com>
wrote:

>Brent P wrote:
>
>
>> However a speed table is still a hazard placed in the road and would not
>> be wise to ride at 25mph.
>>
>
>Chapel Hill NC has recently placed a few speed tables on residential
>streets, all streets posted at 25 mph. The speed tables are designed and
>signed for 15 mph, and are placed on roads with steep slopes. It is no
>problem to do 25 mph on a bike descending these roads, but the speed
>tables really do prevent that speed on a road bike.
>
>Given that they are designed for 15 mph and placed on 25 mph roads, the
>speed tables punish not only speeders, but also law abiding motorists
>and bicyclists.
>
As long as the speed limit is posted as 15MPH in the area of the
speed tables, then that is the posted maximum speed permitted there.

Why were they placed there is the question. To slow traffic so they
could stop at the bottom of the hill or blind intersections maybe?
Are there any schools, playgrounds, parks, care facilities, shopping
or other attractions to draw pedestrians? Or is it just a section of
town where taxpayers complaining about speeders on their residential
street get a little extra consideration from city hall?
--
zk

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 16:11:18 -0400, Wayne Pein <wpein@nc.rr.com>
wrote of speed tables in Chapel Hill NC:

>
>>Or is it just a section of
>> town where taxpayers complaining about speeders on their residential
>> street get a little extra consideration from city hall?
>
>Yes.

It's better than having unmarked potholes to slow down traffic. They
can be hell on a bike if you don't see them.
--
zk