Re: Do dead cyclists go to Heaven or Hell?

Ron Wallenfang

On Jan 2, 4:14 am, Jens Müller <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> wrote:
>
> Someone in a German cycling newsgroup recently asked whether cycling is
> allowed on the Overseas Highway. Is it?

Here is the relevant "east coast part of my 2004 report, this one
covering the area from the top of Maine to Philadelphia:

Saturday, May 29, 2004 - Day 8

Following the early stop yesterday, I got an early start this
morning
at 5:00 a.m.

The rain has exited, and been replaced by mostly cloudy skies -
it's
also colder, low 40s maybe and hasn't warmed by noon. I've had my
heavy
shirt on all morning and considered switching to my full-fingered
gloves,
though I never did.

I rode 46 miles to Rivière du Loup to Route 185 only to find it
closed
to bikes. The bike path was near it but didn't look attractive. The
stone
was insufficiently packed. There was a gas station nearby where I had
some
pastry and beverages. Then I started down the path, not liking it at
all.
But about a mile later, I realized 185 was no longer an expressway so
I
moved over to it and have been on it ever since,

I stopped at a Mike's restaurant in Cabano with 81 miles for the
day,
which is where this note is written.

Most of the way from La Pocatière to Rivière du Loup was fairly
flat
farm country. That changed toward the end to hills, which have also
dominated the route east of Rivière du Loup - and trees - with few
farms.

I reached Edmunston about 3:30 EDT - 4:30 locally, since New
Brunswick
is on Atlantic time - and looked into the Mass situation. The two
Churches
I went by had late Saturday Masses - 7:00 and 7:15 -so I crossed to
Madawaska, Maine just in time for a 4:00 Mass, after which I rode 25
miles
to Van Buren, and found no motel. But there is one across the river
in St.
Leonard, New Brunswick, which is where I am tonight. It wouldn't have
been
out of the question to go another 22 miles to Caribou as it wasn't
7:00 yet,
but I hadn't eaten since the earlier note, it had never warmed up
(high
around 47°) and it was threatening rain.

Quebec was as stereotyped as Vermont had been or more so. The
street
and town names were usually after Saints (or Notre Dame), and each
small
town was dominated architecturally by a large Catholic Church. Old
Quebec
was as truly Catholic or more so than Poland or Ireland. But the
faith in
the current generation isn't what it used to be.

The Church in Madawaska still has a French Mass on Sunday.
French
ethnic Catholics apparently dominate in the far north of Maine.

Mileage for day - 148
Quebec - 107 (515), New Brunswick - 14, Maine - 27.
Mileage for trip - 1126

Sunday, May 30, 2004 - Day 9

Left the motel at 4:50 a.m. and biked 76 miles on Route 1 to
Houlton,
which I reached at 10:40. Lots of hills, still cold (40s) but a tail
wind
helps. Lots of hills. Land is mixed farms and woodlands.

At Houlton, I switched to Route 2 - I abandoned Route 1(the
ocean
route) because of the likely holiday traffic. The change also reduces
mileage - good or bad? Route 2 proved 13 miles (not 3 as I thought)
longer
than 2A (an available alternative that I perhaps should have taken),
and is
very hilly, and in poor condition in many places. Around Island Falls
and
for several miles each way, road quality is poor, there are no cuts
and
fills and this U.S. highway is generally like an old town road. At
least
traffic is light. The last 20 miles before Macwahoc the road
improves.
Then from Mattacumkeug on it's an excellent road - wide paved
shoulders and
quite flat, as it's in the Penobscot River Valley. I intended to stop
at
Howland, but there were no motels, so I continued on to Milford, where
I
found a motel at about 9:30 p.m., after riding the last 8 or so miles
after
dark. When local pizza places didn't deliver this late, the
proprietor
personally went and picked it up for me. A gold star for him!

Mileage for day - 191
All Maine, except less than 1 mile in New Brunswick.
Total for trip - 1317.

Monday, May 31, 2004 - Day 10

Left at 6:45 a.m. and rode 54 miles to Albion, which I reached
about
11:45. I got some oranges, grapes and beverages and ate them under
the
trees in a Church yard across the street. I had taken Route 2 to
Bangor,
then picked up 202 outside of town, which I've taken on to Augusta,
where
I've stopped for some ice cream at about 1:45 -Mile 78.

There was a lot of climbing coming out of Bangor to clear a
ridge
line, then more modest but fairly continuous ups and downs until near
Augusta, where there was another series of big climbs to clear another
ridge
line. It's mostly sunny today, starting in the upper 40s - now near
70°.
I'm putting on sun screen.

The countryside is mixed farms and trees with homes along the
route
for a good many miles past the towns.

The hills are mostly rocky. A few have pastures, but it's
mostly
wooded.

The hills continued all day, which did my mileage no good, plus
the
temperatures cooled and a bit of a headwind came up.

Mid-afternoon, I passed 10 right-to-life advocates, who had just
began
a walk to Washington DC; I walked along with them for a while and
joined
them in part of a rosary.

I passed through Lewiston and reached the 202/I-95 Intersection
near
6:00 p.m. I couldn't satisfy myself there were more motels in range
on 202
(in fact, the next day I did not see any), so I decided to stay at a
motel
there, despite giving up a nice sunny day. (It's due to rain
tomorrow.)

The motel is nice, plus it has a laundry room so I got
everything
clean.

Mileage for day - 119, all in Maine.
Mileage for trip - 1436.

Tuesday, June 1, 2004 - Day 11

Left at 4:45 and rode 108 miles before taking a rest stop at
Haverhill, Massachusetts, around 1:45 p.m.. Then I struggled through
Boston
until stopping at 8:00 at the intersection of Route 1 and 95 (128) in
the
Southwest suburbs of Boston.

After starting out dry, I rode through 40 miles of rain in
Maine; then
dry, which except for my feet, allowed me to dry out.

Temperatures started out at 42° and peaked at around 52° - June
anyone? I wore my raincoat all day for the warmth. Because of
threatening
rain, I kept my heavy shirt in a plastic bag, and wore my raincoat
instead.

I stayed on Route 202 in Maine. It was mostly O.K. - fewer
hills than
earlier. There were a few scattered sections with no paved shoulder
area,
but not bad. The only flat riding was the last half dozen miles
before New
Hampshire.

In New Hampshire I rode Route 125, which was a delightful road -
fully
paved wide shoulders except for the final few miles before
Massachusetts.
Quite a few little rises and dips plus some modest hills but nothing
major.

Coming into Boston, Routes 125 and 28 both had some decent
areas, but
for the most part, cities are cities, with lots of traffic, stop and
go
lights, and pock-marked roads. Once in town, I swung past Harvard,
handling
the route clumsily for one who biked thousands of miles around there,
albeit
35 years ago.

After some equally clumsy maneuvering through the Brookline
area, I
picked up VFW Parkway, which later became Route 1.

Mileage for day - 156
Massachusetts 64, New Hampshire 41, Maine 51.
Mileage for trip - 1592.

Wednesday, June 2, 2004 - Day 12

I slept in this morning - indeed last night, I fell asleep
before
updating my logbook or showering, so I was obviously ready for some
extra
sleep.

Departure time was 7:30; I took a rest stop in Providence close
to
noon with 42 miles - the first 25 in Massachusetts.

I had mapped out a Rube Goldberg scheme of a route through
Connecticut
but decided to simplify things and stick to U.S. 1, so I wouldn't get
lost.

Naturally, I promptly got lost trying to use U.S. #1. Near the
MA/RI
border was a sign that said "1A" to Providence and "1" to
Pawtucket. I
stayed on "1" and it ended in Pawtucket, just ended - not even a sign
saying
so. Information was hard to come by, but I drifted east toward the
direction IA had veered from 1 and eventually got directions to 1A.

In East Providence, the signs for 1A just quit, too, but I was
able to
cross the needed bridge on 44. Across the bridge I saw a single sign
for US
1 and immediately lost track of it. So I took 44 west and decided to
resurrect my complex plan for Connecticut. I thought I could save
mileage
by switching from 44 to 6, but used 5 to do so, which veered back
toward
town and added miles and a big hill.

As this is written, it's almost 4:00 and I have only 70 miles.
I'm
sitting out a thunderstorm at a KFC in Danielson/E. Brooklyn,
Connecticut.
The morning began as yesterday ended, misty and cool with temperatures
around 50°. But it warmed up nicely and was mostly sunny reaching the
mid-70s. The current shower looks like it will pass.

The terrain is hilly, like most of the trip. Route 1 in
Massachusetts - after the VFW Parkway ended - was safe, but not scenic
(consistent businesses along the route, few of which were landscaped).
Western Rhode Island and the first few miles of Connecticut have been
mainly
wooded.

After the rain passed, I rode another 25 or so miles to Norwich
(just
missing the brunt of a second storm). In Norwich, a third
thunderstorm
started that lasted well over an hour. After 5 days getting wet
earlier in
the trip, I played wimp today and took shelter at a gas station. It
soon
became apparent there wouldn't be enough daylight after the rain
passed to
do anything much and still find a motel, so I stayed at a Ramada about
1 ½
miles away. With some other local riding I got 101 miles for the day.

In Connecticut: Route 6 to 169 to 2A to 82 - 169 was scenic if
hilly.
A lot of "old new England" looking farms but more trees, which in
places
formed a canopy over the road.

Miles for day - 101; Massachusetts - 25; Rhode Island - 40,
Connecticut - 36.
Miles for trip - 1,693

Thursday, June 3, 2004 - Day 13

Left the motel at 5:30 a.m. Early weather was cool and cloudy -
low
to mid 50s. No rain, though. The skies cleared late morning and
temperatures rose to the upper 70s.

At 18+ miles there was a ferry crossing - over the Connecticut
River -
state operated - $1.00 for bikes.

Early riding was mainly west on 82, 148 and 80, with a few miles
south
on 81 sandwiched in. As elsewhere, the hills are much worse going
east and
west. The New England rivers flow south, which help explain which way
the
hills run.

At mile 44 I hit East Haven and was in urban riding the rest of
the
day.

I picked up US 1 in New Haven, after a little looking - the
route 103
connector on the map wasn't there. I stayed on 1 to the New York
line,
taking a break in Milford (mile 59) (the third "Milford" I've
encountered
after Milford, Pennsylvania and Milford, Maine) for eating some trail
mix
and also taking a short nap.

I reached the New York line about 4:00 at mile 100, and got lost
in
Westchester, logging about 7 extra miles. I left US 1 in New
Rochelle,
moving east to Pelham Road.

The Bronx proved easy to cross - first going south within a long
park,
then west along an e/w parkway with many walkers, joggers and kids
playing
in the greenway. Then past the Zoo and gardens, and then a trip along
Fordham Avenue, which was just teeming with life, rowdy and noisy but
safe
enough. It was fun to "ride" through, though slowly, because traffic
laws
meant little here and nobody could move very rapidly.

Only about 9 miles through the Bronx, including a little extra
time to
find the bridge to Manhattan (I shouldn't have left Fordham Street).
Then
in Manhattan I found the George Washington bridge (which was easier to
find
than the bike route across it) and got across and had barely light
enough to
find a motel in Fort Lee. It's a Best Western.

Mileage for day - 135; Connecticut - 100; New York - 32; New
Jersey -
3.
Mileage for trip - 1828.

Friday, June 4, 2004 - Day 14

Left the motel at 5:40 and with slight difficulty got on route
46,
which I took all the way to Hackettstown, some 55 miles away. New
York
traffic played a role most of that way, including some uncomfortable
merge
and turn situations - one where 2 lanes merge in from the right, and 2
others where I was supposed to be in the left lane of a multi-lane
road with
heavy traffic. I learned the safest course is to get off the bike and
wait
for a break in the traffic.

I stopped for breakfast after 25 miles and then for 3 oranges
and a
chocolate milk in Hackettstown. I also took about a ½ hour break for
a
snack in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, just 25-30 miles from the end.

Temperature today was 60° to 70°, and sunny until late.

The westerly route in new Jersey (46 , then 57) like almost all
the
others in that direction had a lots of big hills. In Pennsylvania I
took
611 again, except stayed on it this time all the way into
Philadelphia.

Coming into Philadelphia was difficult outside the City - too
much of
the road was too narrow for me to fit comfortably in traffic. The
last 8
miles or so were good, though, as City riding goes. No more uphills,
the
street was wide, not too much traffic and the lights were usually
green for
Broad Street traffic. The last few blocks in Center City are slow but
that's because of the pulse of life on narrow streets. Within limits,
it's
fine.

I arrived at Matt's apartment in Philadelphia about 6:45 p.m.

Mileage for day - 136; New Jersey - 80; Pennsylvania - (56).

Mileage for trip - 1964 (140.3 - daily average)

Mileage by State (Province):

Quebec 515
Maine 401
Connecticut 202
Vermont 191
Pennsylvania 191
New York 157
Massachusetts 126
New Hampshire 41
Rhode Island 40
New Brunswick 14


Afterword

1. The only "easy" trip I could recommend in this area
is the
185 mile stretch from Montreal through Quebec to St. Anne to Beaupré.
It's
mostly flat, scenic, with good roads and not much traffic.

2. I intend to ride eventually from the top of Maine to
Key
West, Florida, as I've previously bicycled from the bottom of Texas to
the
top of Minnesota. The area south of Philadelphia remains to be
accomplished. Between the hills and the cities, the north-east is a
slower,
tougher ride than anything on my central US trip.

3. Extensive urban riding, especially in the endless
suburbs,
is not a pleasant experience. The constant need to be alert and to
make
minor decisions, and the endless stop and go lights are difficult both
physically and mentally. A day's worth of it is downright exhausting.
Needless to say, the many traffic stops cut speed, and increased work
relative to mileage covered. It also caused me to ride quite a bit
without
"locking in" my left foot to the pedal, as I am only good for a
limited
number of the "twists" needed to unlock before my foot gets sore. I'm
happy
to be able to say that I biked across the entire NYC metro area, but
in no
hurry to try it again.














--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Sherman

David Kerber wrote:
> In article <5u1upqF1ga4mdU2@mid.individual.net>, usenet-11-2007
> @tessarakt.de says...
>> ...
>> In Bavaria, you get parole and can get Minister of Transportation
>> afterwards ...
>
> In the US, you become a Senator afterwards...
>
The current "First Lady" (of the US) would be the perfect person to head
a traffic safety campaign, especially addressing those who run stop
signs: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dutton_Douglas>.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
POST FREE OR DIE!

Jack May

"Jens Müller" <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> wrote in message
news:5u23soF1f3p0eU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> 55 mph speed limit in urban areas? That's insane!

Yes, the speed limit is usually 65 MPH with people driving typically 70-75
MPH. This is for freeways which are safe at those speeds. Obviously when
people get off of the freeway into the residential areas then the speed
drops down to 45 MPH and below depending on the roads.

The freeways go through towns in the US which is as it should be to produce
a hierarchical structure for roads which is required for efficient
transportation. Nothing unusual about it as shown in the Google map at:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=...7&t=h&z=15&om=1

If you zoom in you will see companies and larger shopping areas just off the
freeways for quick access for people. Residential house are then further
from the freeways where getting to your house is quick but you live away
from the heavy traffic of the business and shopping areas. It is a very
efficient design.

Bill Z.

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes:

> "Jens Müller" <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> wrote in message
> news:5u23soF1f3p0eU1@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > 55 mph speed limit in urban areas? That's insane!
>
> Yes, the speed limit is usually 65 MPH with people driving typically 70-75
> MPH. This is for freeways which are safe at those speeds. Obviously when
> people get off of the freeway into the residential areas then the speed
> drops down to 45 MPH and below depending on the roads.
>
> The freeways go through towns in the US which is as it should be to produce
> a hierarchical structure for roads which is required for efficient
> transportation. Nothing unusual about it as shown in the Google map at:
>
> http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=...7&t=h&z=15&om=1
>
> If you zoom in you will see companies and larger shopping areas just off the
> freeways for quick access for people. Residential house are then further
> from the freeways where getting to your house is quick but you live away
> from the heavy traffic of the business and shopping areas. It is a very
> efficient design.

It's actually a very inefficient design. What they do in the U.S. is
create a series of isolated neighborhoods with twisty streets, all
dumping out onto a single road, which of course gets terribly
congested.

BTW, there is a lot of housing that seems to go in right next to the
freeways - just drive through Tracy for some examples of new housing
placed there. It may not be right next to the exit ramps, but it is
close enough to the freeway itself to get lots of noise.

Also, your link doesn't work for some reason (various error messages).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Jens Müller

donquijote1954 schrieb:
> On Jan 2, 5:59 pm, Jens Müller <usenet-11-2...@tessarakt.de> wrote:
>> donquijote1954 schrieb:
>>
>>>> Btw, the road _does_ look nice!
>>> The road is nice, but geared toward vehicles, and drivers are not
>>> looking for bikes.
>> Bikes _are_ vehicles in most jurisdictions.
>>
>> (I couldn't find the Florida Highway Code or however it is called.)
>
> When the Constitution was signed "all men were created equal."
> However, slavery persisted for nearly 100 years, and discrimination
> for another 100...
>
> But discrimination is still very much alive. Just that the new
> subjects are "the poor who ride a bike as a means of transportation."
> Forget what the vehicle code says. By the way, the law also says
> bicycles have to keep as close to the right as possible, whatever that
> means. A clear contradiction of "bicycles are vehicles too."

All vehicles have to keep to the right.

"as close to the right as possible" means "in the middle of the lane" in
normal lanes.


> "All animals are equal... but some are more equal than others." -
> Animal Farm
>
> "In Florida the bicycle is legally defined as a vehicle."
>
> "A bicyclist who is not traveling at the same speed of other traffic
> [what bicycle can?] must ride as close as practicable to the right-
> hand curb or edge of the roadway."
>
> http://www.floridabicycle.org/rights/laws.html

What's that? A motor club?

"As close as possible" means at least one meter. If that would endanger
the cyclist, it's not possible, so then make it more, i.e. the middle of
the lane.

Tom Keats

In article <5u3mmdF1fqiceU1@mid.individual.net>,
Jens Müller <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes:
> donquijote1954 schrieb:

>> "A bicyclist who is not traveling at the same speed of other traffic
>> [what bicycle can?] must ride as close as practicable to the right-
>> hand curb or edge of the roadway."
>>
>> http://www.floridabicycle.org/rights/laws.html
>
> What's that? A motor club?
>
> "As close as possible" means at least one meter. If that would endanger
> the cyclist, it's not possible, so then make it more, i.e. the middle of
> the lane.

Just for the purposes of discussion, according to the
Effective Cycling approach a rider doesn't set his
position according to the curb or edge of the roadway.
A rider sets his/her position according to the general
line of motorized traffic, particularly the right
(in North America) tire track. Lanes are classified
as wide or narrow. Wide lanes are those which can be
safely shared. Narrow lanes cannot be safely shared.
When a rider in a narrow lane with an adjacent inside
lane rides on or slightly to the left of the right
tire track, overtaking drivers can readily pass the
rider by crossing a little into the inside lane, without
having to entirely cross the line. No fuss, no muss,
no road hoggery. Everybody gets to go, and nobody
is hard done by.

Even on extra wide outside lanes on boulevards, a rider
sets his/her position according to the general traffic
line (while sharing the lane,) not to the curb or roadside.

For most purposes, forget about the (right) edge of the
street or road. Instead, think in terms of where the
rest of the traffic is. While I'm not an ideologically
purist Effective Cyclist, this way of thinking makes a
lot of sense to me.


cheers,
Tom

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

Jens Müller

Tom Keats schrieb:
> In article <5u3mmdF1fqiceU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Jens Müller <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes:
>> donquijote1954 schrieb:
>
>>> "A bicyclist who is not traveling at the same speed of other traffic
>>> [what bicycle can?] must ride as close as practicable to the right-
>>> hand curb or edge of the roadway."
>>>
>>> http://www.floridabicycle.org/rights/laws.html
>> What's that? A motor club?
>>
>> "As close as possible" means at least one meter. If that would endanger
>> the cyclist, it's not possible, so then make it more, i.e. the middle of
>> the lane.
>
> Just for the purposes of discussion, according to the
> Effective Cycling approach a rider doesn't set his
> position according to the curb or edge of the roadway.
[...]
> For most purposes, forget about the (right) edge of the
> street or road. Instead, think in terms of where the
> rest of the traffic is. While I'm not an ideologically
> purist Effective Cyclist, this way of thinking makes a
> lot of sense to me.

Well, I just wanted to justify this approach regarding laws with require
keeping to the right.

Tom Keats

In article <5u3pmtF1g31e4U1@mid.individual.net>,
Jens Müller <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes:

>> For most purposes, forget about the (right) edge of the
>> street or road. Instead, think in terms of where the
>> rest of the traffic is. While I'm not an ideologically
>> purist Effective Cyclist, this way of thinking makes a
>> lot of sense to me.
>
> Well, I just wanted to justify this approach regarding laws with require
> keeping to the right.

Yes, there are obvious potential conflicts between the
principles of the Effective Cycling technique, and
possible, strict interpretations the Letter of The Law
with regard to keeping to the right.

It is not my intent to argue with you. I suppose my
point is just to show what a grey area is the so-called
rights and responsibilities of cyclists in legal terms.

Ultimately we should all have the preceding & superceding
right to self-preservation. Simplistic keep-to-the-right
laws conflict with that. So does simplistic, arrogant
defiance of those laws. Intelligently considered and
sociable application of technique does not conflict with
our superceding right to self-preservation.


cheers,
Tom


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

Jens Müller

Tom Keats schrieb:
> In article <5u3pmtF1g31e4U1@mid.individual.net>,
> Jens Müller <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes:
>
>>> For most purposes, forget about the (right) edge of the
>>> street or road. Instead, think in terms of where the
>>> rest of the traffic is. While I'm not an ideologically
>>> purist Effective Cyclist, this way of thinking makes a
>>> lot of sense to me.
>> Well, I just wanted to justify this approach regarding laws with require
>> keeping to the right.
>
> Yes, there are obvious potential conflicts between the
> principles of the Effective Cycling technique, and
> possible, strict interpretations the Letter of The Law
> with regard to keeping to the right.

And there are possible interpretations that are not in conflict :-)

> It is not my intent to argue with you. I suppose my
> point is just to show what a grey area is the so-called
> rights and responsibilities of cyclists in legal terms.

Grey it is for sure ...

Jack May

"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:87r6gzo109.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes:
>
>> "Jens Müller" <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> wrote in message
>> news:5u23soF1f3p0eU1@mid.individual.net...
>> >
>> > 55 mph speed limit in urban areas? That's insane!
>>
>> Yes, the speed limit is usually 65 MPH with people driving typically
>> 70-75
>> MPH. This is for freeways which are safe at those speeds. Obviously
>> when
>> people get off of the freeway into the residential areas then the speed
>> drops down to 45 MPH and below depending on the roads.
>>
>> The freeways go through towns in the US which is as it should be to
>> produce
>> a hierarchical structure for roads which is required for efficient
>> transportation. Nothing unusual about it as shown in the Google map at:
>>
>> http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=...7&t=h&z=15&om=1
>>
>> If you zoom in you will see companies and larger shopping areas just off
>> the
>> freeways for quick access for people. Residential house are then further
>> from the freeways where getting to your house is quick but you live away
>> from the heavy traffic of the business and shopping areas. It is a very
>> efficient design.
>
> It's actually a very inefficient design. What they do in the U.S. is
> create a series of isolated neighborhoods with twisty streets, all
> dumping out onto a single road, which of course gets terribly
> congested.

Hiearchy means different size roads as the traffic load changes all the way
to your driveway. The same structure used in the Internet and other moderns
networks.

It is not practical to use in old technologies like rail and other transit
which is why transit construction is so expensive and unable to provide an
acceptable level of service for most people.

Hierarchy says absolutely nothing about twisty streets. It is an
architecture that is scalable to large areas or the very large Internet.
Obsolete transit systems are not scalable to efficient large systems because
they require changing vehicles, often several times to get somewhere.

Total capacity is up to the designer of how much or little congestion they
will allow for the amount of money they can spend. All streets dumping
into a single street? That is not a hirearchy for roads or other networks
like the Internet.

As with any network, if you don't build enough capacity for each link in the
network, there will be back ups. The hierarchy inherently increases
capacity as the number of links is increased.
>
> BTW, there is a lot of housing that seems to go in right next to the
> freeways - just drive through Tracy for some examples of new housing
> placed there. It may not be right next to the exit ramps, but it is
> close enough to the freeway itself to get lots of noise.

Depends on the designer. The one on the map is very well done.
>
> Also, your link doesn't work for some reason (various error messages).

It worked on my computer when I tested it.

Bill Z.

"Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes:

> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:87r6gzo109.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes:
> >
> >> "Jens Müller" <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> wrote in message
> >> news:5u23soF1f3p0eU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> >
> >
> > It's actually a very inefficient design. What they do in the U.S. is
> > create a series of isolated neighborhoods with twisty streets, all
> > dumping out onto a single road, which of course gets terribly
> > congested.
>
> Hiearchy means different size roads as the traffic load changes all the way
> to your driveway. The same structure used in the Internet and other moderns
> networks.

The word "hierarchy" does not mean that, and a network of roads does
not have the same structure as that of the Internet. See
<http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~shavitt/pub/PhysRevE06.pdf> and papers
cited by that article. While some researchers disagree, the Internet
has been modeled as a scale-free network whereas road networks tend to
be random graphs.

>
> It is not practical to use in old technologies like rail and other transit
> which is why transit construction is so expensive and unable to provide an
> acceptable level of service for most people.

You've been asserting this garbage for years and continue to spout it no
matter how often it has been shot down.
>
> Hierarchy says absolutely nothing about twisty streets. It is an
> architecture that is scalable to large areas or the very large Internet.

Jack, you are not only clueless, but you can't read! The "twisty streets"
was a description of the typical U.S. suburban structure, in which
developers create "pods" of twisty streets with only a few attachment
points to arterials or expressways, etc. Asthetics (or the lack thereof)
aside, one goal it to make the pod so confusing that hardly anyone tries
to drive through it to get around the gridlock on the arterials.

Also, in any one direction, the widest multilane roads we have contain
around 5 lanes for each direction. As the number of pods that attach
to one of these increases, we end up with a bottleneck, with high
levels of congestion.

> Obsolete transit systems are not scalable to efficient large systems because
> they require changing vehicles, often several times to get somewhere.

Nonsense - changing vehicles is no big deal as long as the frequency of
service along each segment is high, or the schedules are coordinated and
the systems run on time.

> Total capacity is up to the designer of how much or little congestion they
> will allow for the amount of money they can spend. All streets dumping
> into a single street? That is not a hirearchy for roads or other networks
> like the Internet.

Aside from it not being "all" (just the ones connecting to a single
road) it's the structure used in many sprawed communities. They run a
multilane expressway or arterial, and hang "pods" off of it, with a
pod being either residential, commercial, industrial, etc. You can
have a situation where a person lives within a 2 minute walk of where
he works, but has to drive a couple of miles to get there because
there's a wall in the way.

>
> As with any network, if you don't build enough capacity for each link in the
> network, there will be back ups. The hierarchy inherently increases
> capacity as the number of links is increased.

Jack, you don't know what you are talking about. Adding capacity has
nothing to do with hierarchies. The word has a specific menaing and
is not marketing hype. I suggest you refrain from using it until you
learn how to use it appropriately.

> > BTW, there is a lot of housing that seems to go in right next to the
> > freeways - just drive through Tracy for some examples of new housing
> > placed there. It may not be right next to the exit ramps, but it is
> > close enough to the freeway itself to get lots of noise.
>
> Depends on the designer. The one on the map is very well done.

> > Also, your link doesn't work for some reason (various error messages).
>
> It worked on my computer when I tested it.

That's nice, but it doesn't work on mine. The URL had 'ie=...' in it.
If 'ie' means Internet Exploder, it is quite possible that your link
was one where Google expected the user to be running a specific web
browser. Google claims its maps work with my browser, and when I use
it directly, everthing works.

Your comments, though, show how little you really know about the
technology you rant about.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Jens Müller

donquijote1954 schrieb:
> There are no
> restrictions on traveling on the shoulders if you plan on cycling.
> Please be sure to follow standard bicycle safety practices when
> biking.

As I am currently sueing a German city in administrative court regarding
a cycle path usage obligation: I think I know a bit about safe cycling.

Well, I don't think I'll get to Florida in the near future.

Ekul Namsob

Bill Z. <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:

> "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> writes:

> Jack, you are not only clueless, but you can't read! The "twisty streets"
> was a description of the typical U.S. suburban structure, in which
> developers create "pods" of twisty streets with only a few attachment
> points to arterials or expressways, etc. Asthetics (or the lack thereof)
> aside, one goal it to make the pod so confusing that hardly anyone tries
> to drive through it to get around the gridlock on the arterials.

I would imagine that the rise of SatNav may well kill off this sort of
silliness.

> > > Also, your link doesn't work for some reason (various error messages).
> >
> > It worked on my computer when I tested it.
>
> That's nice, but it doesn't work on mine. The URL had 'ie=...' in it.
> If 'ie' means Internet Exploder, it is quite possible that your link
> was one where Google expected the user to be running a specific web
> browser. Google claims its maps work with my browser, and when I use
> it directly, everthing works.

It worked perfectly well here using Camino on Mac OS X. Indeed, it looks
like a standard Google Maps permalink. What do the links look like to
you?

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

David Kerber

In article <87ve6bvgmv.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>,
nobody@nospam.pacbell.net says...
> Jens Müller <usenet-11-2007@tessarakt.de> writes:
>
> > donquijote1954 schrieb:
> >
> > >> Btw, the road _does_ look nice!
> > >
> > > The road is nice, but geared toward vehicles, and drivers are not
> > > looking for bikes.
> >
> > Bikes _are_ vehicles in most jurisdictions.
> >
> > (I couldn't find the Florida Highway Code or however it is called.)
>
> Bikes aren't vehicles in Calfornia and many other states. In
> California, bicyclists have all the rights and responsibilities
> as the operator of a vehicle when a bicycle is operated on a
> roadway.
>
> This sounds like quibbling, but there are rules in the vehicle
> code that apply when a vehicle is not being driven on a highway,
> and some of those may not be appropriate for bicycles. So,
> either you make bicycles vehicles and put in a lot of exceptions
> or you do not make bicycles vehicles but give bicyclists all the
> rights and responsibilities that the driver of a vehicle has.
> Either way, the outcome is more or less the same. It's just a
> question of what approach is easier (given, for example, previously
> laws).

In RI, a bicycle is a vehicle, but not a *motor* vehicle...


--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).