Cities Turning to Bicycles



In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> 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.


My statement wasn't false.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Do you really think that we (as a society) should spend money misleading
> > people as to what speed is appropriate for access ramps?

>
> How do you propose that they set a speed that will work for everyone?
>
> Should they set it real low to make sure the guy in the 4x4 with the
> 6 inch lift kit won't have a problem? What exactly should they use
> as proper criteria for setting the recommended speed?


Why not simply give the turn radius?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
In article <L%[email protected]>,
"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Oh, please. The simple fact -- and you know it as well as I -- is that
> > access ramp advisory speeds are *ludicrously* low almost *all* the time.
> >
> > They should reflect an appropriate speed for an average vehicle, in good
> > weather, being properly driven. Instead, they are most frequently less
> > than half that speed.

>
> I have never once seen a speed that was set at less than half the
> speed that a reasonable vehicle could handle.


********.

Rephrased, you're saying that you never seen a ramp where an average
vehicle couldn't negotiate it at more than twice the posted speed?

Right.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
"Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <L%[email protected]>,
> "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Oh, please. The simple fact -- and you know it as well as I -- is that
> > > access ramp advisory speeds are *ludicrously* low almost *all* the

time.
> > >
> > > They should reflect an appropriate speed for an average vehicle, in

good
> > > weather, being properly driven. Instead, they are most frequently less
> > > than half that speed.

> >
> > I have never once seen a speed that was set at less than half the
> > speed that a reasonable vehicle could handle.

>
> ********.
>
> Rephrased, you're saying that you never seen a ramp where an average
> vehicle couldn't negotiate it at more than twice the posted speed?
>
> Right.

No. Not without running the risk of sliding off the outside of the curve.
My Corvette isn't counted as an average vehicle.

Given the number of trucks, SUVs and minivans being sold, they may
in fact be close to what would be considered an average vehicle.
Most of the ramps are set at an appropriate speed for my 2004 F-150
4x4 truck. Taking them at twice the posted speed would be asking for
major trouble.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=163,172&sid=172&article=3252:
> >>
> >>"The usual range of properly aimed headlights is about 150 feet for low
> >>beams and 350 to 400 feet for high beams."

> >
> >
> > Horseshit. 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? ;-)


Get into your vehicle tonight. Turn on the headlights to low beam and
walk 53 steps in front of it. Place something there.

Walk back to your car and see how hard it is to see that object.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > 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 *****, as usual.

>
>
> Ever notice how some people's language deteriorates when they've made a
> fool of themselves in a discussion? ;-)
>
> If you guys do write those letters, you'll be more convincing if you
> keep the obscenities under control.


I notice that you're pretty much the ***** that he claims you to be. And
I actually agree with you about speedbumps (humps; whatever)

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
"Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Do you really think that we (as a society) should spend money

misleading
> > > people as to what speed is appropriate for access ramps?

> >
> > How do you propose that they set a speed that will work for everyone?
> >
> > Should they set it real low to make sure the guy in the 4x4 with the
> > 6 inch lift kit won't have a problem? What exactly should they use
> > as proper criteria for setting the recommended speed?

>
> Why not simply give the turn radius?


I don't have a computer sitting in the seat next to me, nor enough
time to run the calculations before entering the ramp.

One day I might be driving my Corvette with the low profile racing
tires and the next day I might be in my 4x4 truck. Personally, I would
state the speed for the truck and this would avoid causing trouble
for most passenger vehicles. Large trucks would need to slow
down a little more than the posted speed.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >
> >>>> http://www.ou.edu/oupd/nightdr.htm
> >>>
> >>
> >> From
> >> http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=163,172&sid=172&article=3252:
> >>
> >> "The usual range of properly aimed headlights is about 150 feet for
> >> low beams and 350 to 400 feet for high beams."
> >>

> >
> > Get some real values and then tell us who should be embarrassed.

>
> So far, I'm the only one who's produced values. Do you have some? Put
> them up and we can discuss. If not, you really shouldn't complain about
> mine.
>
> >>
> >> I'm sure that in your mind, the Studebaker was _much_ better at panic
> >> stops than a typical car, right? ;-)

> >
> >
> > In my mind, as well as the minds of most automotive writers of the era.

>
> When I said "The typical car," I meant of _this_ era. The websites I
> listed were contemporary - not 1963 vintage!
>
> The rest of your post amounts to exactly what I predicted: that boy,
> that old Studebaker had terrific brakes! And its headlights were perfect
> or better! And this rural two lane road was guaranteed to be straight,
> well-paved and deserted. And that if anything _did_ happen, of _course_
> it would have been taken care of with perfect aplomb. And as a last
> tidbit, naturally, you're a better than average driver - just like 85%
> of the American drivers surveyed.
>
> And as evidence of all that, we have ... well, actually, all we have are
> your admission of nearly losing it on a freeway, and your personal need
> for super-accurate speed advisory signs.
>
> IOW, You're making no sense. And you're demonstrating in every way
> possible that you can't be trusted to drive responsibly, to choose your
> own reasonable speed. You make a _strong_ case for strict speed limit
> enforcement.


LOL

Nicely ignoring everything he posted.

What prevents the driver from having driven the road before and
*knowing* there are no hills curves or blindspots?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Do you really think that we (as a society) should spend money

> misleading
> > > > people as to what speed is appropriate for access ramps?
> > >
> > > How do you propose that they set a speed that will work for everyone?
> > >
> > > Should they set it real low to make sure the guy in the 4x4 with the
> > > 6 inch lift kit won't have a problem? What exactly should they use
> > > as proper criteria for setting the recommended speed?

> >
> > Why not simply give the turn radius?

>
> I don't have a computer sitting in the seat next to me, nor enough
> time to run the calculations before entering the ramp.


You don't need them. You don't need them to figure out your appropriate
speeds from the inaccurate (for your vehicle) speeds that are posted.
Why need it be any different with a radius instead?

>
> One day I might be driving my Corvette with the low profile racing
> tires and the next day I might be in my 4x4 truck. Personally, I would
> state the speed for the truck and this would avoid causing trouble
> for most passenger vehicles. Large trucks would need to slow
> down a little more than the posted speed.


The problem is the inconsistency, Mark.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <L%[email protected]>,
> > "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Oh, please. The simple fact -- and you know it as well as I -- is that
> > > > access ramp advisory speeds are *ludicrously* low almost *all* the

> time.
> > > >
> > > > They should reflect an appropriate speed for an average vehicle, in

> good
> > > > weather, being properly driven. Instead, they are most frequently less
> > > > than half that speed.
> > >
> > > I have never once seen a speed that was set at less than half the
> > > speed that a reasonable vehicle could handle.

> >
> > ********.
> >
> > Rephrased, you're saying that you never seen a ramp where an average
> > vehicle couldn't negotiate it at more than twice the posted speed?
> >
> > Right.

> No. Not without running the risk of sliding off the outside of the curve.
> My Corvette isn't counted as an average vehicle.


You're a liar.

>
> Given the number of trucks, SUVs and minivans being sold, they may
> in fact be close to what would be considered an average vehicle.
> Most of the ramps are set at an appropriate speed for my 2004 F-150
> 4x4 truck. Taking them at twice the posted speed would be asking for
> major trouble.


I've driven my brother's Nissan Pathfinder (even before it had its
shocks replaced) and it can easily -- easily -- more than double the
advisory speeds on most ramps.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Do you really think that we (as a society) should spend money misleading
> > people as to what speed is appropriate for access ramps?

>
> How do you propose that they set a speed that will work for everyone?


I propose an objective *standard* so that whatever speed is written, it
will always bear the same relationship to the speed you can actually use
in your vehicle.

>
> Should they set it real low to make sure the guy in the 4x4 with the
> 6 inch lift kit won't have a problem? What exactly should they use
> as proper criteria for setting the recommended speed?


--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 
In article <[email protected]>, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Furthermore, even the longer and lower
>> obstructions you mention are bad for bicyclists, horse-drawn vehicles,
>> and cautious elderly drivers.

>
> Not in my experience, and not from what I've heard.


My elderly neighbors are complaining about the cracks in the road. The
freeze thaw cycles have caused these cracks in the road were the pavement
drops .5-.75" up and down in span of about 3". I find it unpleasant while
driving, they find it painful. And these frost created cracks are nothing
compared to speed humps and bumps. (BTW I find these cracks painful when
I am riding the bicycle, which has no suspension to damp them out)
 
In article <[email protected]>, Mark Jones wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message


>> > I have never once seen a speed that was set at less than half the
>> > speed that a reasonable vehicle could handle.

>>
>> ********.
>>
>> Rephrased, you're saying that you never seen a ramp where an average
>> vehicle couldn't negotiate it at more than twice the posted speed?
>>
>> Right.


> Given the number of trucks, SUVs and minivans being sold, they may
> in fact be close to what would be considered an average vehicle.
> Most of the ramps are set at an appropriate speed for my 2004 F-150
> 4x4 truck. Taking them at twice the posted speed would be asking for
> major trouble.


I don't consider an F150 a reasonable vehicle for these purposes myself.
My winter car, as worn as it is, can still handle many a ramp at 2x the
posted speed. It's got be at the low end of reasonable vehicle given it's
age and condition.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Mark Jones wrote:
> "Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I'm not interested in excuses about how difficult decreasing radii can be

>
> This is bad design. For a PE to say what you just said is ridiculous.
> To resort to a decreasing radius means that the overall design is flawed.
>
> You should be able to go through a curve without needing to slow
> down the whole time. This is how you end up with trucks on their
> side with their cargo spilled all over the place.


I would suggest Frank ride his bicycle through a decreasing radius turn
that wasn't visable until he was in it such that it forced him to brake
hard. This would probably be the best lesson as to why this sort of
design should be avoided. Braking while turning is as ill-advised on a
bicycle as it is driving. Probably more so.
 
Frank Krygowski wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.ou.edu/oupd/nightdr.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> From
>>> http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?n=163,172&sid=172&article=3252:
>>>
>>>
>>> "The usual range of properly aimed headlights is about 150 feet for
>>> low beams and 350 to 400 feet for high beams."
>>>

>>
>> Get some real values and then tell us who should be embarrassed.

>
>
> So far, I'm the only one who's produced values. Do you have some? Put
> them up and we can discuss. If not, you really shouldn't complain about
> mine.


I shouldn't have to, that claim is so ludicrous that it's not even worth
mentioning. For reference, 300-350 feet is the average length of a city
block in many areas. Are you really going to tell me, with a straight
face, that with my high beams on a hazard only a city block away is
going to be near the edge of visibility? Even in the total absence of
other light? (which NEVER is the case, except in the instance of a new
moon in a VERY remote location)

Also, any quotation of seeing distance with relation to headlamps is
automatically suspect, as there are so many variables that must be taken
into consideration - voltage being the main consideration. System
voltage can vary dramatically car to car, as can voltage drop from the
alternator to the headlight socket itself. However, overall headlamp
output is dramatically related to voltage - a difference of a few volts
on a nominal-12V system can actually make an incandescent lamp up to 50%
brighter or dimmer. (don't believe me? Grab a Fluke and pull a dimmer
switch out of the wall, and watch the voltage readings as you dim the
lights. Your house is a nominal 120V so just move the decimal point
over one to translate into automotive terms.) Finally, how does one
define "seeing distance?" The distance at which you see a
retroreflective road sign? A white object on a dark background? An
object almost the same color as the background? You can use different
standards to "prove" almost anything you want to, but the fact remains
that high beams that can't provide illumination that is clearly
acceptable a city block away aren't going to be found on any vehicle *I*
am willing to drive at night.

FWIW the headlights on this car are likely *better* than whatever you're
driving, as it's been my experience that many US-spec "aerodynamic"
composite headlamps are actually inferior to a good halogen sealed beam,
especially if they've got a few years on them and the plastic lenses
have started to cloud. (best would be E-codes, but the owner of this
car didn't want to go that route as they would have probably been a
points deduction. I'm going to have to take him for a ride in my 944
now that I have E-codes installed with a relay harness - he may change
his mind. Then again, he probably won't - he will likely never drive
this car after dark again; it is a show car after all.)

>
>>>
>>> I'm sure that in your mind, the Studebaker was _much_ better at panic
>>> stops than a typical car, right? ;-)

>>
>>
>>
>> In my mind, as well as the minds of most automotive writers of the era.

>
>
> When I said "The typical car," I meant of _this_ era. The websites I
> listed were contemporary - not 1963 vintage!


Most of the advances in braking technology over the past 40 years have
been in three areas - one, making the brakes more resistant to fading
(which was apparently not a problem with the Stude brakes.) Two, making
them easier to modulate (i.e. "threshold brake") in a panic stop
situation. Three, electronic controls to take the responsibility for
threshold braking away from the driver (which kind of negates advance
number two, if you think about it.)

The BIGGEST advance in brakes, however, hasn't been the brakes
themselves - it's the TIRES. Unless you're driving a vehicle with
sorely defective brakes, and/or have fitted ridiculously sticky race
tires to your vehicle, you will be able to lock 'em up at any speed,
simply by pushing harder on the brake pedal. Bigger, sexier brakes
aren't going to make you stop any quicker - they're only going to allow
you to stop MORE OFTEN (i.e. fade resistance.) Bigger calipers are
often more stable as well, allowing better control and modulation by the
driver. But the basics remain the same.

So anyway, as with most cars, the characteristics of the vehicle's
brakes are more or less irrelevant in this particular instance. In a
single panic stop from normal traffic speeds, fade should not be a
factor (although, of course, it's sadly entirely possible to find
examples of vehicles with deficient base brake systems, but that's not
what we're dealing with here.) What we're concerned with here are the
tires, as they will be the limiting factor in a single panic stop
situation. Now I did state that this car had bias plies on it, which
are admittedly inferior to modern radials. However, they're not *that*
bad in acceleration or braking - their biggest shortcoming is in
accepting lateral forces i.e. cornering. Still and all they can't be
expected to perform like a new tire, let's be very conservative and say
that they can handle a max of 0.5G in the fore-aft direction. That's
*half* of what a good modern radial should be able to handle under ideal
conditions (even modern tires are still slightly better at acceleration
and braking than they are at cornering, so while 1.0G of cornering is
excellent, although becoming more and more common, 1.0G braking isn't
nearly so noteworthy.) I think that's a very low number, I don't think
they're quite *that* bad, but I'll use it just so I can't be accused of
not being conservative enough. At 100 ft/s (a hair under 70 MPH) it
would therefore take a little over 300 feet to stop not counting
reaction time. Therefore even if near asleep at the wheel, it should be
possible to stop in under 400 feet.


>
> The rest of your post amounts to exactly what I predicted: that boy,
> that old Studebaker had terrific brakes! And its headlights were perfect
> or better! And this rural two lane road was guaranteed to be straight,
> well-paved and deserted. And that if anything _did_ happen, of _course_
> it would have been taken care of with perfect aplomb. And as a last
> tidbit, naturally, you're a better than average driver - just like 85%
> of the American drivers surveyed.


Yes, although I realize you meant that sarcastically, that about sums
the situation up exactly.

>
> And as evidence of all that, we have ... well, actually, all we have are
> your admission of nearly losing it on a freeway, and your personal need
> for super-accurate speed advisory signs.


you are confusing "need" and "want." There are very few situations
where one actually "needs" advisory signs at all.

>
> IOW, You're making no sense. And you're demonstrating in every way
> possible that you can't be trusted to drive responsibly, to choose your
> own reasonable speed. You make a _strong_ case for strict speed limit
> enforcement.
>


Where you come to that conclusion from my posts is beyond me.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
 
"Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > One day I might be driving my Corvette with the low profile racing
> > tires and the next day I might be in my 4x4 truck. Personally, I would
> > state the speed for the truck and this would avoid causing trouble
> > for most passenger vehicles. Large trucks would need to slow
> > down a little more than the posted speed.

>
> The problem is the inconsistency, Mark.

I enter a ramp at the posted limit, even in the Corvette, if I am not
familiar with the ramp. If I see that I can safely go faster, I do.
 
Alan Baker wrote:
> "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:


[advisory sign speed for curves]
>>Should they set it real low to make sure the guy in the 4x4 with the
>>6 inch lift kit won't have a problem? What exactly should they use
>>as proper criteria for setting the recommended speed?


> Why not simply give the turn radius?


And superelevation :)
 
"Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <L%[email protected]>,
> > > "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Oh, please. The simple fact -- and you know it as well as I -- is

that
> > > > > access ramp advisory speeds are *ludicrously* low almost *all* the

> > time.
> > > > >
> > > > > They should reflect an appropriate speed for an average vehicle,

in
> > good
> > > > > weather, being properly driven. Instead, they are most frequently

less
> > > > > than half that speed.
> > > >
> > > > I have never once seen a speed that was set at less than half the
> > > > speed that a reasonable vehicle could handle.
> > >
> > > ********.
> > >
> > > Rephrased, you're saying that you never seen a ramp where an average
> > > vehicle couldn't negotiate it at more than twice the posted speed?
> > >
> > > Right.

> > No. Not without running the risk of sliding off the outside of the

curve.
> > My Corvette isn't counted as an average vehicle.

>
> You're a liar.

No I am not. You however are an asshole for calling me a liar.

> >
> > Given the number of trucks, SUVs and minivans being sold, they may
> > in fact be close to what would be considered an average vehicle.
> > Most of the ramps are set at an appropriate speed for my 2004 F-150
> > 4x4 truck. Taking them at twice the posted speed would be asking for
> > major trouble.

>
> I've driven my brother's Nissan Pathfinder (even before it had its
> shocks replaced) and it can easily -- easily -- more than double the
> advisory speeds on most ramps.

If you are doing that, you should have your license suspended.
 
Arif Khokar wrote:

> Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>
> [advisory sign speed for curves]
>
>>> Should they set it real low to make sure the guy in the 4x4 with the
>>> 6 inch lift kit won't have a problem? What exactly should they use
>>> as proper criteria for setting the recommended speed?

>
>
>> Why not simply give the turn radius?

>
>
> And superelevation :)


ayup, for instance there ought to be a *minimum* advisory speed posted
for the outside lanes of a superspeedway <G>

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Mark Jones" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > One day I might be driving my Corvette with the low profile racing
> > > tires and the next day I might be in my 4x4 truck. Personally, I would
> > > state the speed for the truck and this would avoid causing trouble
> > > for most passenger vehicles. Large trucks would need to slow
> > > down a little more than the posted speed.

> >
> > The problem is the inconsistency, Mark.

> I enter a ramp at the posted limit, even in the Corvette, if I am not
> familiar with the ramp. If I see that I can safely go faster, I do.


Again, you're lying.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
 

Similar threads