Cities Turning to Bicycles



Nate Nagel wrote:

> Wayne Pein wrote:
>
>> That is why there is a sign warning of it.
>>
>> Wayne
>>

>
> Wouldn't it be better to simply make the curve a constant radius rather
> than seemingly "trick" drivers?


Nate, once again, you should be embarrassed by what you write.

Only a tiny percentage of the drivers are "tricked" by that situation -
that specific tight freeway ramp with impossible-to-miss warning signs.

The fact that you were among the very few who are "tricked" indicates
you've got something lacking. It doesn't mean you're the worst driver
on the road, but you're clearly not the cream of the crop.

I think you need to slow down. Always.


Incidentally, I drove through there southbound, not northbound, these
last few days. I didn't get to experience the horror of driving that
terribly confusing ramp. ;-) But I did get a look at the warning
sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
just didn't look like a trick to me!

Oh, and I did quite a bit of driving on narrow Appalachian mountain
roads this weekend. Somehow, I managed to successfully negotiate many
decreasing radius curves! Maybe this was a result of my world-beating
driving skills? ;-)

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Wayne Pein wrote:
> >
> >> That is why there is a sign warning of it.
> >>
> >> Wayne
> >>

> >
> > Wouldn't it be better to simply make the curve a constant radius rather
> > than seemingly "trick" drivers?

>
> Nate, once again, you should be embarrassed by what you write.
>
> Only a tiny percentage of the drivers are "tricked" by that situation -
> that specific tight freeway ramp with impossible-to-miss warning signs.


Except that such warning signs are almost always incorrectly signed by a
factor of two...


>
> The fact that you were among the very few who are "tricked" indicates
> you've got something lacking. It doesn't mean you're the worst driver
> on the road, but you're clearly not the cream of the crop.
>
> I think you need to slow down. Always.
>
>
> Incidentally, I drove through there southbound, not northbound, these
> last few days. I didn't get to experience the horror of driving that
> terribly confusing ramp. ;-) But I did get a look at the warning
> sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
> just didn't look like a trick to me!


Perhaps that should tell you something about the affect of all the
improperly posted warning signs that people have encountered that they
should have to make that one so very large...


>
> Oh, and I did quite a bit of driving on narrow Appalachian mountain
> roads this weekend. Somehow, I managed to successfully negotiate many
> decreasing radius curves! Maybe this was a result of my world-beating
> driving skills? ;-)


Because on such roads you expect that they will have to follow the
conditions of the mountains themselves. But I bet you still encountered
warning signs that gave you a very inappropriate idea about the speeds
you would need to round certain bends...

--
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."
 
Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
> My apologies to regular readers of RAD for dragging this long, stupid
> thread out to its current long, stupid lengths; sometimes I just don't
> know when to quit.


.... like, for example, when entering a 25 mph turn at 35 mph! :)


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
> My apologies to regular readers of RAD for dragging this long, stupid
> thread out to its current long, stupid lengths; sometimes I just don't
> know when to quit.


.... like, for example, when entering a 25 mph turn at 35 mph! :)


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
> My apologies to regular readers of RAD for dragging this long, stupid
> thread out to its current long, stupid lengths; sometimes I just don't
> know when to quit.


.... like, for example, when entering a 25 mph turn at 35 mph! :)


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Alan Baker wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Incidentally, I drove through there southbound, not northbound, these
>>last few days. I didn't get to experience the horror of driving that
>>terribly confusing ramp. ;-) But I did get a look at the warning
>>sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
>>just didn't look like a trick to me!

>
>
> Perhaps that should tell you something about the affect of all the
> improperly posted warning signs that people have encountered that they
> should have to make that one so very large...


From the description on the website Nate mentioned, it's not clear that
the problem is inaccurate labeling of the turn. It sounds like the turn
is at the bottom of a long descent. IOW, it sounds like certain drivers
are letting their cars speed up on that descent, and are unwilling (or
too inattentive) to hit the brakes.

I suppose we could dumb down _all_ the highway system so road zombies
_never_ have to wake up. But it does get a bit expensive, especially in
places like the Appalachians and their foothills, where this interchange
sits.

>
>
>
>>Oh, and I did quite a bit of driving on narrow Appalachian mountain
>>roads this weekend. Somehow, I managed to successfully negotiate many
>>decreasing radius curves! Maybe this was a result of my world-beating
>>driving skills? ;-)

>
>
> Because on such roads you expect that they will have to follow the
> conditions of the mountains themselves. But I bet you still encountered
> warning signs that gave you a very inappropriate idea about the speeds
> you would need to round certain bends...


"Inappropriate" as in too high? Never. "Inappropriate" as in too low?
Perhaps, if we go by the standard that every turn should always be
taken near its maximum. That's not my standard.

But in any case: Somehow, somehow, I survived! Again, maybe this was a
result of my world-beating driving skills? ;-)



--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
 
Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >
> > > Wayne Pein wrote:
> > >
> > >> That is why there is a sign warning of it.
> > >>
> > >> Wayne
> > >>
> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be better to simply make the curve a constant radius rather
> > > than seemingly "trick" drivers?

> >
> > Nate, once again, you should be embarrassed by what you write.
> >
> > Only a tiny percentage of the drivers are "tricked" by that situation -
> > that specific tight freeway ramp with impossible-to-miss warning signs.

>
> Except that such warning signs are almost always incorrectly signed by a
> factor of two...
>
>
> >
> > The fact that you were among the very few who are "tricked" indicates
> > you've got something lacking. It doesn't mean you're the worst driver
> > on the road, but you're clearly not the cream of the crop.
> >
> > I think you need to slow down. Always.
> >
> >
> > Incidentally, I drove through there southbound, not northbound, these
> > last few days. I didn't get to experience the horror of driving that
> > terribly confusing ramp. ;-) But I did get a look at the warning
> > sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
> > just didn't look like a trick to me!

>
> Perhaps that should tell you something about the affect of all the
> improperly posted warning signs that people have encountered that they
> should have to make that one so very large...


I believe I've addressed this already - even if you accept the "larger
means they really mean it" premise, it doesn't hold up, as every
tollbooth in the state of PA has similarly sized signs recommending
similar speeds, and are pretty much uniformly ludicrous (i.e. 25 MPH
or 35 MPH 1/2 mile away from a tollbooth, which you can still see
anyway because the road is dead flat and arrow straight.) As an added
bonus, they throw up rumble strips before the signs to make *sure* you
see them.

>
> >
> > Oh, and I did quite a bit of driving on narrow Appalachian mountain
> > roads this weekend. Somehow, I managed to successfully negotiate many
> > decreasing radius curves! Maybe this was a result of my world-beating
> > driving skills? ;-)

>
> Because on such roads you expect that they will have to follow the
> conditions of the mountains themselves. But I bet you still encountered
> warning signs that gave you a very inappropriate idea about the speeds
> you would need to round certain bends...


Yeah, I've just accepted the fact that Frank is immune to reason.
There's a difference between a mountain road and an Interstate
highway, but he refuses to acknowledge that.

nate
 
Nate Nagel wrote:

> Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>... I did get a look at the warning
>>>sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
>>>just didn't look like a trick to me!

>>
>>Perhaps that should tell you something about the affect of all the
>>improperly posted warning signs that people have encountered that they
>>should have to make that one so very large...

>
>
> I believe I've addressed this already - even if you accept the "larger
> means they really mean it" premise, it doesn't hold up, as every
> tollbooth in the state of PA has similarly sized signs recommending
> similar speeds, and are pretty much uniformly ludicrous (i.e. 25 MPH
> or 35 MPH 1/2 mile away from a tollbooth, which you can still see
> anyway because the road is dead flat and arrow straight.) As an added
> bonus, they throw up rumble strips before the signs to make *sure* you
> see them.


This is at least partly because a tractor trailer plowed through a toll
booth a few years ago. The toll booth workers _really_ prefer that
drivers come out of their trances. It helps their life expectancy.

And I imagine it's partly because accidents happen when drivers somehow
miss the fact that traffic is actually backed up and stopped at the toll
booths.

Now you may wonder, how on earth could someone drive along and not see a
line of cars, or a tool booth, sitting stationary in the road ahead of
them?

But then, we wonder how someone could misjudge a 25 mph ramp to the
point they have to do a "controlled four wheel drift" [sic] to make it
through!

Road zombies. They need to wake up, and slow down.


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> > Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>... I did get a look at the warning
> >>>sign for that ramp. The sign is literally the size of a billboard! It
> >>>just didn't look like a trick to me!
> >>
> >>Perhaps that should tell you something about the affect of all the
> >>improperly posted warning signs that people have encountered that they
> >>should have to make that one so very large...

> >
> >
> > I believe I've addressed this already - even if you accept the "larger
> > means they really mean it" premise, it doesn't hold up, as every
> > tollbooth in the state of PA has similarly sized signs recommending
> > similar speeds, and are pretty much uniformly ludicrous (i.e. 25 MPH
> > or 35 MPH 1/2 mile away from a tollbooth, which you can still see
> > anyway because the road is dead flat and arrow straight.) As an added
> > bonus, they throw up rumble strips before the signs to make *sure* you
> > see them.

>
> This is at least partly because a tractor trailer plowed through a toll
> booth a few years ago. The toll booth workers _really_ prefer that
> drivers come out of their trances. It helps their life expectancy.
>
> And I imagine it's partly because accidents happen when drivers somehow
> miss the fact that traffic is actually backed up and stopped at the toll
> booths.
>
> Now you may wonder, how on earth could someone drive along and not see a
> line of cars, or a tool booth, sitting stationary in the road ahead of
> them?
>
> But then, we wonder how someone could misjudge a 25 mph ramp to the
> point they have to do a "controlled four wheel drift" [sic] to make it
> through!


Because the portion that required 25 mph was out of plain view and
advisory limits are so habitually wrong by a factor of two that there's
no way any reasonable person would trust them.

>
> Road zombies. They need to wake up, and slow down.


--
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:

snip
>
> Road zombies. They need to wake up, and slow down.


Or maybe just hang up!

Almost bought it yesterday because of some inatentive drivers yaking on their
cell phones.

I was as far to the right in a bike lane as you can get.

HAND

Yo! Frank! You on sabatical this semester???
 
In article <[email protected]>, Frank Krygowski wrote:

> This is at least partly because a tractor trailer plowed through a toll
> booth a few years ago. The toll booth workers _really_ prefer that
> drivers come out of their trances. It helps their life expectancy.


See this is the speed kills idiotcy at work. Someone bribes their way to
an IL CDL, starts driving a truck without the proper training, trades it
in for CA CDL, eventually rams a line of cars at toll booth and kills a few
people and what's the answer? Lower the speed limits. Typical dishonesty.
Bringing this up allows for the illustration of the corruption of IL
government, but anything else.
 
Nate Nagel said:
...Yeah, I've just accepted the fact that Frank is immune to reason.
There's a difference between a mountain road and an Interstate
highway, but he refuses to acknowledge that.

nate
Funny that Nate...I'm starting to come to the conclusion that you're the one who seems to have an obstacle embedded in your reasoning appartus. A variation of a cognitive short circuit. Frank's reasoning seems to be sound and clearly argued to me. I suspect that what you call reasoning on your part is a feeble attempts to justify your recalcitrant propensities. That is not reasoning per se but rather a pitiful pretense. A cant of concocted arguments and wooly confabulations parading as 'reasoning'.

Oh, and another thing - you seem have plenty of quantity in your spiels, but alas, quantity is no substitute for substance and quality. Notice how Frank manages to address the point so clearly, directly and concisely. Now I know that it is beyond your capabilities to match Frank's acute ability and clear cognitive vision, and you think that you can bluster your way through with volume - but hey- you're only fooling yourself.

It's not so much that you don't know when to quit - but the problem is your unwillingness to recognise the problems that underpin your own position and that beset your arguments.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

Roger
 
Mark Jones said:
"Frank Krygowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Jones wrote:
> > Works for me. I hate waiting around for a delivery when I could
> > be doing something else.

>
> There's _nothing_ to do at your home?

I might even want to go for a bike ride. If I have to wait around
for hours for a delivery to occur, then I am letting them determine
what I can do, instead of me getting to decide.

There is plenty to do around my house, but I do not like being
pinned down by a delivery window that runs for several hours.


Uh rent a Uhaul pickup for 19.99 the five or six times a year that you might need one. No waiting no wasting.
 
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:11:55 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:

>AZGuy wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:58:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Nate had previously talked about being able to see "miles" down the road
>>>at night. He needs to be brought back to reality. People who think
>>>their lights extend for "miles" are likely to overdrive them.

>>
>>
>> What seems to be ignored in this discussion sometimes is that the
>> 'overdriving' your lights is much more applicable to a situation where
>> you are the ONLY driver/car on the highway. In most cases you are not
>> and the dozens of people ahead of you have already "cleared" the path.
>> Aside from an area where there is a real likelihood of a large animal
>> jumping out onto the road, there's not a whole not of danger in going
>> 90 mph at night as long as you have all those clearing cars ahead of
>> you, esp if you can see their tail lights. There isn't going to be an
>> accident you don't notice that will suddenly surprise you, or a car
>> stopped in the lane ahead unless it purposely pulled out without it's
>> lights on and then managed to stop in the several seconds between when
>> the last car ahead of you went past and when you arrive at that spot.

>
>Understood. However, in the post that originally got us on this
>sub-topic, the poster was bragging about an old vehicle doing "75+ mph"
>on a rural two lane road.
>
>Can you count on nobody walking across that road at night? If, say, the
>speed limit is 55 mph and a pedestrian is waiting for several cars to
>pass, he will likely be judging the time available based on the motion
>of the 55 mph cars, since ordinary depth perception is fairly useless in
>such circumstances.
>
>So we'd likely have this situation: the pedestrian saying, after
>waiting a while as cars pass, "OK, based on what I just saw with the
>last 5 cars, if the next car is at least as far as that distant
>billboard, I'll have just enough time to safely cross."
>
>But if the next car is doing 90 instead of 55, there's not time to
>cross. And pedestrians are no more illuminated than deer and dogs and
>tree branches.
>
>So briefly, we have our hypothetical driver exceeding his capabilities
>and those of his vehicle based on certain assumptions. Often the
>assumptions are true, but sometimes they're not.
>
>The benefits go to the driver, and are - let's face it - not worth much.
> They are: getting home to watch the beginning of the Simpsons; and/or
>feeling really cool while pretending to be a race car driver.
>


There's a difference between going 50 instead of 90 for 4 miles from
the grocery store to your house and the small savings of time but if
you are driving from Phoenix to LA, there is a HUGE difference in time
between poking along at 50 instead of 90. I wasn't suggesting that
it's safe to go 90 at night everywhere, only that there are certainly
plenty of instances where it is safe to go 90 at night.


>The detriments go to everyone else: more risk, less mobility, more
>noise, more taxes for police enforcement, more funding for emergency
>personnel and ER teams who have to scrape Speed Racer out of the ditch
>and put him back together, etc.



Well, as long as cops feel it's OK for them to drive WAY faster then
the rest of traffic I'm going to think it's OK for me to (as long as I
can avoid the cops). If it's safe for them, it's safe for me. Most
of them can't drive worth a **** anyway but they still let them
endanger everyone else on the road and usually for no worthwhile
purpose.

--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789
 
AZGuy said:
Well, as long as cops feel it's OK for them to drive WAY faster then
the rest of traffic I'm going to think it's OK for me to (as long as I
can avoid the cops). If it's safe for them, it's safe for me.



Hey yeah, a thread bout inner cities going to bikes, transit, smart cars and commercial vehicles only! ahhhh para dise.....but no, just rednecks lol, ahhh the internet, information super highway studded with roadhouses filled with drunken inbreds.

oh did i quote something? oh well, now we can read about AZguys adventures as he took the training classes in driving required of law enforcement and how he decorated his truck to give the impression he's in a vehicle that draws more attention and observation from the folks he shares the road with. Didja paint stripes on it or stick scotchlite all over it or didja go buy an old set of lights to flash if needed?

j/k j/k don't blow a gasket milita man, I drive 90+ on I-10 between cities too.

but the point of laws regarding safety is just that. If you don't trust your fellow man to decide for himself if he really needs to observe that red light then you yourself must stop when you encounter one.
 
Attention petrolheads and recalcitrant speedsters (Brent P and Nate Nagel??)

Heres a news release from downunder that might tickle your fancy - I'm sure that you'll agree with this...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14 October 2004

MEDIA RELEASE For immediate use

Cyclists call for lower road speeds

National organisation the Cycling Advocates' Network (CAN) today supported a review of blanket open road speed limits, but said the upper speed limit should not be raised from 100 km/h.

CAN also called for speeds in many urban areas to be reduced to 30km/h, reinforced by traffic calming measures.

CAN spokesperson Robert Ibell said there are good safety and environmental reasons for lower speeds.

"Raising the open road speed limit would increase fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. That's the wrong way to go, with climate change already having an impact on New Zealand." said Mr Ibell.

"Lower speed limits would also help lower the road toll." said Mr Ibell. "Installing 30km/h zones in urban areas would significantly reduce the number and severity of crashes for pedestrians and cyclists, especially amongst children and the elderly."

"Review speed limits by all means," said Mr Ibell, "but review them downwards."

Ends.

For further information, contact Robert Ibell, CAN, 04-972 2552

Supporting information
- "The probability of death for a pedestrian is five per cent if hit by a vehicle travelling at 32 km/h, 45% if hit by a vehicle travelling at 48 km/h and 85% if hit by a vehicle travelling at 64 km/h." (Down With Speed, ACC, 2000, p.27)

- "Child pedestrian and child cyclist accidents fell by 70 and 48 per cent respectively after the [20mph] schemes were installed, giving an overall reduction of 67 per cent for all child accidents. The reduction in accidents for all cyclists was 29 per cent." (Review of traffic calming schemes in 20 mph zones, TRL, UK, 1996)

- "Encouraging slow drivers to speed up would lead to more crashes and injuries. Slow drivers could instead be encouraged to pull over at safe locations if they hold up traffic." (Down With Speed, ACC, 2000, p.23)

- "Fast drivers rather than slow drivers comprise the core safety problem, and encouraging all speeding drivers to slow down would have greater benefits for overall road safety than targeting the speed of slower drivers." (Down With Speed, ACC, 2000, p.23)


The Cycling Advocates' Network of NZ Inc. (CAN) is this country's national network of cycling advocate groups. It is a voice for all non-competitive cyclists - recreational, commuter and touring. We work with central government and local authorities, on behalf of cyclists, for a better cycling environment. We have affiliated groups and individual members throughout the country, and links with overseas cycling organisations. In addition, some national/regional/local government authorities, transportation consultancies, and cycle industry businesses are supporting organisations.

--
Robert Ibell
Campaigns & PR Secretary
Cycling Advocates Network of NZ Inc.
PO Box 6491, Auckland, NZ
 
In article <[email protected]>,
H. M. Leary <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Road zombies. They need to wake up, and slow down.

>
>Or maybe just hang up!


Driving to work is boring enough with a cell phone. If I regularly commuted
by car I'd need a DVD or book to occupy me.

--
<a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/">Home Page</a>
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.
 
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 15:55:38 -0600, [email protected] (Drew Eckhardt)
wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>H. M. Leary <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Road zombies. They need to wake up, and slow down.

>>
>>Or maybe just hang up!

>
>Driving to work is boring enough with a cell phone. If I regularly commuted
>by car I'd need a DVD or book to occupy me.


Audio books, HUGE market these days. Used to just be something for the blind and
aged. Now it's a major branch of the publishing industry.

Ron
 

Similar threads