or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › Cities Turning to Bicycles
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cities Turning to Bicycles - Page 69

post #1021 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <4162c396$1@news.ysu.edu>,
> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Alan Baker wrote:
>>
>>
>>>There are wide-open roads in the country where you can see for miles --
>>>even at night.
>>>

>>
>>:-) Sure there are! You simply have to use those headlights whose
>>beams extend for miles! And hope you're on a perfectly straight road!
>>
>>How many miles, exactly, do your headlights reach? Five? Ten? ;-)

>
>
> You're an ass.



Ever notice how some people's language deteriorates when they've made a
fool of themselves in a discussion? ;-)

>
> I don't need to see for miles to travel a 75 mph.
>


I was merely responding to what you wrote. If the "you can see for
miles" statement was false, you shouldn't have posted it.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
post #1022 of 1138
Thread Starter 

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

> > which goes to show how good COMPETITION is. Regrettably, most
> > sharp-looking, fun-driving hatchbacks never see American roads.

>
> I want to see the BMW 1-series in the US, ASAP. It's a small, 4-door
> *RWD* hatchback.
>
> -Andrew


America, you don't know what you are missing!!!

Go to Mexico and along with the beatiful señoritas--and the usual
bribe, aka "mordida"--you'll find this other way to recreate
yourself...

Renault Clio Sport: 0 to 100kph (55mph or so) in 7 seconds, for the
price of a depressing automatic Toyota...

http://www.renault-clio.com.mx/sport...eristicas.html
post #1023 of 1138
Thread Starter 

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

> > Renault Clio Sport: 0 to 100kph (55mph or so) in 7 seconds, for the
> > price of a depressing automatic Toyota...
> >
> > http://www.renault-clio.com.mx/sport...eristicas.html

>
> 0 to 55 in 7 seconds? Hell, I'd be depressed if my car couldn't do the
> quarter mile in that length of time. Get an automatic toyota, and the
> toyota will easily blow that POS right off the road. -Dave


The problem with most Japanese cars is their Mickey Mouse suspension,
made to accomodate to the sophisticated driving taste of Aunt
Jennie...

Mowing machines for the masses...
post #1024 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Brent P wrote:

> In article <4163026c$1@news.ysu.edu>, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>So don't ask others to put up with the effects of your failed mission.

>
>
> My failed mission? What's failed is the last 60 years of doing things
> your way.


My way is installing speed humps in residential neighborhoods. The
concept is relatively new, certainly not 60 years old. And it's
apparently quite successful.


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
post #1025 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <4162c920$1@news.ysu.edu>, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> What the hell am I arguing for? *You're* the one who arguing for
>>>> more coddling of bad drivers, not I.

>>
>>
>>
>>> There's too much mollycoddling going on here. Learn to drive. And
>>> drive responsibly.

>>
>>
>>
>> Your policies don't encourage anyone to do that. They encourage the
>> opposite. Your solutions aim for safety by reducing the competency
>> required to drive. Slavish obedency to signs set well below the actual
>> maximums, surface hazards to slow people down, cameras to punish
>> misdeeds.
>> Who's coddling here?

>
>
> The coddling has been coming from auto enthusiasts who are whining about
> why it's SO difficult to judge an appropriate speed for a freeway turn.


No whining.

> Or who are defending people illegally and dangerously overdriving their
> headlights on rural roads at night.
>


No overdriving either.

> Both of those are fundamental "Driver's Education 1" mistakes. R.a.d.
> folks shouldn't be defending them.
>


You are *so* missing the whole point of everyone's posts to this thread.

>
> OTOH, given the incompetence of many drivers (even enthusiasts) it makes
> no sense to wait to protect neighborhoods until they're all competent.
> Not when a perfectly workable alternative exists, one that's being
> implemented now and working well now.


"well?" I do not think that word means what you think it means.

>
>
>> Who's trying to lower standards and introduce more control measures?
>> People comform to the expectations placed on them. You seek to lower
>> the expectations.

>
>
> I see no conflict between enforcing lower speeds in residential
> neighborhoods and increasing expectations of drivers. In fact, if you
> were successful in raising driving quality, people wouldn't be demanding
> - and getting - these means of enforcement.
>


A very few people are demanding them. Unfortunately, the opposition
isn't vocal enough (yet.)

> So don't ask others to put up with the effects of your failed mission.
>


Don't ask me to put up eith the effects of *your* failed mission, either.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
post #1026 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>> http://www.thecarconnection.com/inde...&article=3252:
>>>
>>>
>>> "The usual range of properly aimed headlights is about 150 feet for low
>>> beams and 350 to 400 feet for high beams."

>>
>>
>>
>> Horse****. And yes, I'm quite qualified to judge that and say it.

>
>
> :-) Oh, and I'm sure your qualifications are just excellent! Why, we
> have your opinion on them - and what more would we need? ;-)
>


Oh, this is good.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
post #1027 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article <4162d3a3$1@news.ysu.edu>,
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@mousepotato.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My issue is roads that get shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, farm
>>> tractors, horse-drawn vehicles, cautious elderly drivers and the like.

>>
>>
>>
>> Then why are you insisting on "solutions" (speed bumps) which are bad
>> for cars,
>> bicyclists, tractors, horse-drawn vehicles, and cautious elderly
>> drivers?

>
>
> <sigh> Yet another person who can't retain the difference between speed
> BUMPS and speed HUMPS.
>
> I've pointed to the definitions perhaps a dozen times. Please do some
> reading on your own. If you don't know the vocabulary, you can't
> discuss the topic intelligently.
>


To non-automobile traffic, there really isn't much difference, they are
still unpleasant and annoying. To an automobile owner, the difference
is that bumps and improperly-designed humps can be dangerous, while your
ideal (never seen in the wild) humps are, again, merely annoying (but
ineffectual.)

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
post #1028 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>> but there are similar signs on every exit ramp on many highways, most
>>> of which are safely navigable at much higher speeds.

>>
>>
>>
>> I believe that some of the advisory signs correspond to the speed
>> limit of the road that one is exiting onto. At least that's what I've
>> seen with advisory signs for speeds that are way too low for the given
>> curvature of an exit ramp. Traffic engineers should seriously
>> consider using the "Reduced Speed Ahead" / "Speed Limit xx MPH"
>> combination instead of a meaningless advisory sign.

>
>
> As with Brent, if that's your serious proposal, you should start working
> on it. At least, write letters to the editor, or to your state DOT.


I agree.

>
> If you're sufficiently convincing, you'll see a change. Traffic
> engineers get lots of advice from the public, because nearly all
> motorists are pretty expert in road design, legal issues, state budget
> priorities, etc.
>


Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were actually starting an intelligent post.
Now realize you were just being a prick, as usual.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
post #1029 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> are you *sure* you drove this stretch of road?
>>>
>>>
>>> There's no other way to go by freeway from the Carolinas, through WV,
>>> west of Pittsburgh and to the PA turnpike.

>>
>>
>> Actually, you could have taken I-81 to US-15 to I-76, although that
>> passes *east* of Pittsburgh (closer to Harrisburg.)

>
>
> Oh good grief.
>
> Heading north from North Carolina. Into Virginia. Into West Virginia.
> Through Beckley, is it? And I think it's Route 19, the
> finally-completed highway? Over the New River Gorge? Pick up the
> interstate through the Morgantown area? And yes, WEST of Pittsburgh to
> the Turnpike. All interstate except for WV 19, or whatever that number is.
>
> Nate, you're making yourself look silly.
>


No, actually, *you* are, as if you had driven the road as you claim you
have, you would remember that feature. I dare say that that is one of
the few roadways that one can legitimately claim that *nobody* who has
driven through it ever forgets.

yes, your description is correct, but anyone with a computer could have
looked that up on a map in minutes.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
post #1030 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <41623681@news.ysu.edu>, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>>> You (and Brent) perceive a problem on the distant freeways. And you
>>> think _nothing_ should be done to alleviate their problems until
>>> _your_ problem is solved to _your_ liking.

>>
>>
>>
>> You treat symptoms frank. You strike me similiar to some engineers I
>> have worked with running from one problem to the next never looking at
>> the system as whole. Never seeing the cause and effect relationships
>> between
>> things. You go from fighting one fire to next never understanding how
>> to lessen the work load and really solve the problems once and for all.
>>
>>
>>> It's hard to believe anyone would take your argument seriously.

>>
>>
>>
>> Frank, mostly what you've done is insult anyone who disagrees with you
>> and talk down to them. That's what passes for your primary 'arguement'.
>> I take the road system and road safety as an engineering problem and I
>> set out to find root causes and find real, lasting changes for the
>> better just as I do on the job. You take the route of patching and
>> firefighting. I want thoughtful design, you want kludges.

>
>
>
> To continue your analogy:
>
> Brent the firefighter: "I keep telling you, the solution is to build
> all our buildings from fireproor materials! Anything else is a kludge!"
>
> Homeowners: "BUT OUR HOUSES ARE BURNING! OUR KIDS ARE IN THERE!"
>
> Brent: "Yes, yes, ma'am, I know about your child, but hear my out! This
> is a beautiful plan..."
>


No, the situation is more like, there is a grease fire in a kitchen.
Brent is proposing to put it out with a fire extinguisher and then
investigate why it occurred. Your solution is to call the fire
department and break down the door with axes and hose the kitchen down
with high pressure water. Your way *may* put out the fire, but is
infinitely more destructive and doesn't do anything towards preventing
the problem from recurring, either in the same place or elsewhere, in
the future.

nate


--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
post #1031 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

In article <Uuadnbbf1LOmhP7cRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, Nate Nagel wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.thecarconnection.com/inde...&article=3252:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "The usual range of properly aimed headlights is about 150 feet for low
>>>> beams and 350 to 400 feet for high beams."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Horse****. And yes, I'm quite qualified to judge that and say it.

>>
>>
>> :-) Oh, and I'm sure your qualifications are just excellent! Why, we
>> have your opinion on them - and what more would we need? ;-)
>>

>
> Oh, this is good.


this will be amusing.
post #1032 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

In article <41630ddf$1@news.ysu.edu>, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>
>> In article <4163026c$1@news.ysu.edu>, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>So don't ask others to put up with the effects of your failed mission.

>>
>>
>> My failed mission? What's failed is the last 60 years of doing things
>> your way.

>
> My way is installing speed humps in residential neighborhoods. The
> concept is relatively new, certainly not 60 years old. And it's
> apparently quite successful.


The overall theme of treating symptoms and using patches which has
resulted in this latest patching concept.

And digging a big trench in the road would also be successful. No one
claimed they aren't successful in lowering traffic speeds, it's the
downsides of that success that people object to.
post #1033 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> I think you simply need to drive slower. Or perhaps pay more
>>> attention to the road ahead. This isn't rocket science.
>>>

>>
>> Explain to me again how "paying attention" will help one detect a
>> decreasing radius curve that isn't possible to see from the approach.

>
>
> ??? What can I say? You watch the contours of the road ahead.


the ones you can't see. Right.

> You
> don't drive on the _assumption_ that the road will curve the way you
> like. You pay attention!
>


You're just being deliberately obtuse. It's standard design practice
for any curve on an Interstate to only *increase* in radius, not
decrease. You can see about 70-80 degrees into the curve as you
approach. The radius decreases *sharply* after that point - but it's
hidden by the supports for the I-70 overpass. There is no logical
reason for it to be that way, but it is.

The whole point is not what *I* did in that situation, the point is that
it's hazardous because the danger of driving too fast IS NOT EVIDENT
until it's too late. Therefore, advisory signs are posted; but they are
ineffective (as evidenced by the marks on the barriers.) They are
ineffective because the motoring public, as a whole, has been
conditioned to completely ignore any advisory signs as 98% of the time
they are completely meaningless in terms of selecting a safe speed for
travel. And, of course, that brings us back to the point that I made so
long ago - people don't respect the speed limit in your neighborhood
because they've been conditioned to not respect the speed limit, period.


> Why is this so hard for you, when so many people don't have your
> problems? Aren't you ashamed of your relative incompetence??


Only thing I'm ashamed of is being baited into this long, stupid
exchange. However, it beats laundry. I think.

>
> And what _do_ you do when you're driving on two-lane mountain roads??
>


Ummm... drive?

nate
--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
post #1034 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

In article <m2is9ovqxc.fsf@Stella-Blue.local>, Tim McNamara wrote:

> Indeed, my review of some of the traffic management literature (e.g.,
> http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Travel/traff...k/chapter5.htm)
> suggests that traffic flow obeys the mathematics governing hydraulic
> flow, and that there is a maximum throughput in any hydraulic system
> before turbulence is created. Turbulence in turn creates drag and
> slows throughput dramatically. You can set the speed limit at the
> 85th percentile, but that will not "smooth out" traffic flow when
> there are just too many cars on the road at the same time- which is
> about 8 hours of every day in major urban areas.


A smooth flow can sustain a higher throughput delaying the onset of
traffic jams and lessening how long they last.
post #1035 of 1138

Re: Cities Turning to Bicycles

Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If a person were to apply _real_ reading comprehension to your
>>>>> paragraph, they'd note that you never actually said what that car's
>>>>> headlights were, other than "not stock." Now are you seriously
>>>>> claiming that they gave you adequate visibility on a rural two-lane
>>>>> road at 75+ mph? Unless you'd hung driving lights all over the
>>>>> front end, I find that highly doubtful.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, just everyday high-output halogens from the parts store, with a
>>>> properly maintained electrical system. It's not rocket science.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.ou.edu/oupd/nightdr.htm

>>
>>
>>
>> Just took a closer look at that site. There are some more glaring
>> (heh) errors in the assumptions they've made.
>>
>> 1) the distances calculated for "reaction time" are based on a
>> reaction time of 1.5 seconds. If it takes you 1.5 seconds to
>> recognize a hazard and react to it, it's probably time for a motorized
>> wheelchair.
>>
>> 2) There's no mention at all of what headlights were used to calculate
>> the visible distance numbers, and as I and other posters have pointed
>> out, they were all based on some generic "low beam" headlight.
>> Obviously when one's driving at night on a mostly deserted road, one
>> is using high beams unless there's oncoming traffic or you are
>> approaching or being passed by traffic in the same direction.
>>
>> 3) The site also assumes a coefficient of friction of 1.0 which is
>> fairly optimistic, about the only way that's achieved with normal
>> tires is on dry, clean asphalt. Granted, asphalt is becoming more and
>> more prevalent, but there are still a few concrete-paved highways left.
>>
>> 4) "deceleration" is listed as 17.02 ft/s^2. What the heck? If the
>> coefficient of friction is 1.0, the deceleration of the vehicle should
>> be appx. 32 ft/s^2. sounds like a "rectal number" to me, and what's
>> worse, it's given four significant digits, implying a precision that
>> isn't there - deceleration can and indeed does vary even over the
>> course of one braking maneuver due to weight transfer and the fact
>> that a typical tire/road interface does not have a constant mu when
>> load varies greatly (and, of course, it changes with the degree of
>> slip of the tire vs. the road as well, but I'm assuming that we're
>> talking about a panic stop sith a skilled driver here, so only 5-10%
>> slip not 100% as in a locked wheel stop.)
>>
>> nate
>>

>
> If you want to delve deeply into the psychology and physics, we can do
> it. But self-proclaimed "skilled drivers" are seldom as fast in
> reaction as they pretend. Unanticipated events take quite a while to
> process.
>
> The coefficient of friction = 1 is high no doubt; , and as is obvious
> from elementary physics, they're not basing the deceleration on that
> value.


so what are they basing it on then? Certainly not real world stopping
distances - they are way long. Check the back of any car mag for their
summary of the last couple years' road tests.

> But to get back to reality: Imagine your bias-ply tires after
> the first 100 feet of a panic stop from 75+ mph. The rubber temperature
> would be WAY up - in fact, you'd have left large amounts on the road -
> so the coefficient of friction has dropped tremendously.


a) I (why am I saying "I"? I wasn't driving, but you're completely
ignoring that fact) wouldn't have left "large amounts of rubber on the
road" - the best decel is usually found at maybe 5-10% slip, to leave
"large amounts of rubber" I would have to have locked the brakes up
completely.

b) You obviously know exactly squat about tires, as even if I did manage
to get the rubber temperature "WAY up" - that would be a GOOD THING.
The coefficient of friction does not "drop tremendously" with increased
temperature, it actually goes UP. If I'm wrong, you better tell all
those drag racers that they're just wasting fuel and tire rubber doing
all those long, smoky burnouts - they ought to be able to accelerate
faster if they just stage and go. The only detrimental effects of heat
in tires are shorter tread life, increased risk of a blowout if too-high
temperatures are maintained for a long period of time, and the risk of
"blistering" the tread. Reduced traction is generally not a problem.


> You don't know
> the road surface


No, *you* don't. I was there.

> - you may be trying to brake on a surface lubricated by
> road apples, further reducing "mu". Your car's weight is biased far
> forward, the rear is jacking up, and (correct me if I'm wrong) that
> Studebaker had no brake proportioning valve, so your rear brakes are
> likely locking.


You mean a major automotive mfgr. deliberately released a defective
product? Well, that's happened a few times before, but not in this
case. You're actually partly right - there's no prop valve, but they
did compensate for the increased line pressure required to activate the
front discs by fitting non-self-energizing drums in the rear as opposed
to the normal self-energizing type, and then making a power booster
standard equipment to reduce pedal effort, which would otherwise have
been high. As usual, if you overdo it with the brake pedal, the fronts
will still lock first.

> That means you're losing attitude control, and the rear
> has begun swinging around. The road has a camber (as do essentially all
> two-lanes) so you're drifting right.


Only if you've locked up any wheels.

> The only way to regain control is
> to reduce the deceleration rate, either by easing off the pedal or by
> rapidly pumping the brake. You're now trying to find that precise
> boundary between kinetic and static friction - which you haven't
> practiced in this car,


I wasn't driving. The driver has been driving Studes since they were
still in production.

> and which wouldn't help if you had, because the
> tire tread is now nearly molten,


again, were that possible, that would be a Good Thing

> and the hot rear drum brakes are
> behaving erratically.


That's the first almost-factual thing you've said in this post. The
real limiting factor in a panic stop, other than the tires, is the
temperature of the brake components. However, hot brakes don't "behave
erratically" - once they get above their optimum temperature, they just
don't work as well, commonly known as "brake fade." However,
contemporary road tests of similar vehicles are full of phrases like "no
perceptible brake fade in repeated stops from 80 MPH" etc. etc. etc. and
my own experiences driving these cars bear that out (not that I drive in
such a manner as to have required repeated hard stops from any
significant speed; but neither have I noticed any shortcomings with any
Stude braking system, disc or drum.)

> And to make matters worse, you've just peed your
> pants. If you do stop in time, you've got a mess to clean up.
>


Right.

> And that's how messy real life is, compared to the fantasies of boy
> drivers.
>


Again, you mean the 65 year old guy that was driving? The guy who owned
the car, and had a significant financial investment in it?

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Road Cycling
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › Cities Turning to Bicycles