Traffic Calming vs Bicycles

On Sat, 31 May 2003 08:38:05 -0700, Eric Vey wrote: ...

Quoted message said:

Bricking streets in this city has become a major effort. Looking over the city commission minutes
from the last few months, it appears that everyone in town wants brick streets to slow down
traffic. Indeed, when I saw all the bricked streets, many of them in disrepair, I purchased a MTB
rather than a street bike. The brick streets don't bother me too much.

...

Quoted message said:

But I was not happy when I saw what took shape as work continued over the last few months. The
street was dramatically narrowed as well as bricked. A sidewalk was added, so that there are now
sidewalks on both sides of the street, but the new sidewalk is almost 6' wide. This looked odd to
me, so I asked one of the workers why the sidewalk was so wide.

He said that the wider sidewalk was to give room to the bicycles since the street had been
narrowed. It is not illegal to ride on the sidewalks in Florida.

Riding on a sidewalk, expecially in a residential area, is unsafe, don't do it. You have the
bike, ride the street. The lanes are probably too narrow so you will need to take the lane.
Consider yourself a critical mass of one (except that you can control your actions and ride in a
legal manner).

Quoted message said:

I am not too concerned about this particular stretch, since I have found side streets to get
around it, but I am concerned that the traffic engineer may be on the wrong track and already they
are talking about bricking a section where there is no way to get around it. I am also concerned
that the city got a federal grant to brick this street and I wonder if the state and fed engineers
think this wide sidewalk business is a good idea or if they even looked at the plans at all.

Enlist other cyclists to ride the street too. You may want to review your state's vehicle/traffic
code. There should be a bikes are vehicles or bikes have the same rights and responsibilities as
vehicles clause. This means you cannot be forced of the road by threats or by law. Your idea is to
make the city aware of the bad effects of narrow roads. Knowing the law ahead of time will keep the
backlash focused on the roads as the problem and not cyclists.

Quoted message said:

I am new here and don't know anyone. There is an advocacy club for the area, but not in the city.
I will join it this month. I am new to this whole idea of traffic planning for bicycles, but there
is a lot of info on the web and I haven't seen any of it advocating wide sidewalks for bicycles.

Join ASAP. Get a copy of John Forester's Bicycle Transportation and JF's Effective Cycling if you do
not have a copy. Other good references are AASHTO's Guide to Bicycle Facilities (may not be the
exact title). If you are not familiar with the methods of Effective Cycling then find a League
Cycling Class. Read JF's five rules, they are available on his web site at
johnforester.comjohnforester.comOpen ↗.

Quoted message said:

Am I off base to ask the city traffic engineer where he got this idea knowing that he will
probably take offense to the question?

Propose that bicycle lanes be put in to narrow the lanes for traffic calming. While actually
detrimental to cyclists, they do seem better than what is being done. Make sure the bike lanes end
before each intersection. Where I live the bike lane lines turn to dashed lines and drivers still do
not merge to the right before turning right.

Someone better informed about federal programs may be able to help as these "improvements" are
removing bicycle facilities and may not conform to federal guidelines.

Richard "I have stuff to do in Huntington Beach too" Kaiser

"Richard Kaiser" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sat, 31 May 2003 08:38:05 -0700, Eric Vey wrote: ...

Quoted message said:

Bricking streets in this city has become a major effort. Looking over the city commission
minutes from the last few months, it appears that everyone in town wants brick streets to slow
down traffic. Indeed, when I saw all the bricked streets, many of them in disrepair, I purchased
a MTB rather than a street bike. The brick streets don't bother me too much.

...

Quoted message said:

But I was not happy when I saw what took shape as work continued over the last few months. The
street was dramatically narrowed as well as bricked. A sidewalk was added, so that there are now
sidewalks on both sides of the street, but the new sidewalk is almost 6' wide. This looked odd
to me, so I asked one of the workers why the sidewalk was so wide.

He said that the wider sidewalk was to give room to the bicycles since the street had been
narrowed. It is not illegal to ride on the sidewalks in Florida.

Riding on a sidewalk, expecially in a residential area, is unsafe, don't do it. You have the bike,
ride the street. The lanes are probably too narrow so you will need to take the lane. Consider
yourself a critical mass of one (except that you can control your actions and ride in a legal
manner).

Right, but this *should* be a net positive for bikes. The idea is to slow traffic to such an extent
that riding with the cars should be safer than before (and the through traffic will seek other
routes). We've got some of those changes coming here, too -- mostly in the form of one way streets
being converted back to 2-way.

"Eric Vey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Am I off base to ask the city traffic engineer where he got this idea knowing that he will
probably take offense to the question?

Perhaps its time to form a Bike Advisory group that would sit down with the traffic engineers and
planners on a quarterly basis to review changes that would affect bicycles.

At our last Bike/Ped Advisory meeting, we worked with a city engineer who was trying to figure out
how far to extend a speed hump on a street that needs traffic calming that the city has designated
as a bicycle route. He knew that they didn't want it to only go as far as the fog line, because
drivers would dip over to the right side past the fog line to avoid half of the hump. He thought the
best thing to do would be to have the hump go half way between the space between the fog line and
the curb pan. After much discussion, the cyclists on the committee said the best plan of action
would be to have the hump go all the way to the curb pan. Our concern was that a cyclist riding at
night to the right of the fog line could easily hit the sloping edge of the hump unexpectedly and
fall. If the hump went the whole distance to the curb pan and then was marked with reflective
chevrons, a cyclist would at least see the hump clearly, anticipate its existence, and hit it
straight on. Since the road is a back way in to Microsoft (accessible by bike but not by car) the
idea that there is a fair bit of regular bike commuter traffic in the dark on that street is not
that far fetched.

A part of the conversation I thought was revealing. I asked the engineer if the intent was to slow
the bicycle traffic to the same 15 mph as the cars. He looked dumbfounded and asked, "you mean, you
can go that fast?" As it turned out, the next weekend I happened to be riding on that street and
took a glance at my cyclocomputer. The road has a minor slope, and I was cruising at 24 mph with
little effort.

OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the people designing these facilities are not
cyclists, and perhaps the majority of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a sidewalk when
they were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about regular bicyclists when they design
traffic facilities, and perhaps they might appreciate your input.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky ([email hidden]) Home of the meditative cyclist:
home.earthlink.netWelcome.htmOpen ↗

Singing with you at: tiferet.nettiferet.netOpen ↗

Books just wanna be FREE! See what I mean at: bookcrossing.comCpeterskyOpen ↗

"Claire Petersky" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Eric Vey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Am I off base to ask the city traffic engineer where he

got this idea

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

knowing that he will probably take offense to the

question?

Quoted message said:

Perhaps its time to form a Bike Advisory group that would

sit down

Quoted message said:

with the traffic engineers and planners on a quarterly

basis to review

Quoted message said:

changes that would affect bicycles.

<snip>

Quoted message said:

OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the

people

Quoted message said:

designing these facilities are not cyclists, and perhaps

the majority

Quoted message said:

of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a sidewalk

when they

Quoted message said:

were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about

regular

Quoted message said:

bicyclists when they design traffic facilities, and

perhaps they might

Quoted message said:

appreciate your input.

I think you're right on all counts.

What do you think the best resource is that we could point traffic engineers to? What would a
cycling-savvy traffic engineer use as a reference for best practices?

Matt O.

In our city of about 25,000 there's an effort to speed traffic up, not slow it down. Consider
youself lucky. Traffic planners insist on keep traiffic moving as quickly as possible, safe or not.

Regards,

"Eric Vey" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Bricking streets in this city has become a major effort. Looking over the city commission minutes
from the last few months, it appears that everyone in town wants brick streets to slow down
traffic.

Rainman said:

In our city of about 25,000 there's an effort to speed traffic up, not slow it down.
Consider youself lucky. Traffic planners insist on keep traiffic moving as quickly as
possible, safe or not.

Well, if they accomplish this by creating roads with multiple lanes, it's good. I'd rather ride on a
road with 2 lanes going in my direction because I can just take the lane whenever I want. Those
sections that have had "traffic calming"(which I call driver enraging, because that's all it does),
and are reduced to one lane and instead have a quite useless left turn lane are rather difficult to
navigate. People trying to pass in all sorts of unsafe ways.

Goimir said:

I'd rather ride on a road with 2 lanes going in my direction because I can just take the lane
whenever I want.

One wide lane is better than two narrow ones, IMO. Motorists seem comfortable with sharing one wide
lane with a bicycle, but they tend to get testy when the see you taking up one of "their" lanes.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

Terry Morse said:

One wide lane is better than two narrow ones, IMO. Motorists seem comfortable with sharing
one wide lane with a bicycle, but they tend to get testy when the see you taking up one of
"their" lanes.

I've had more obscenities yelled at me, by far, when cycling on a street with one lane in the
direction that I'm traveling in. If your experience is different, let me know, I've really only
cycled in the Scranton PA area.

Goimir said:

Terry Morse said:

One wide lane is better than two narrow ones, IMO. Motorists seem comfortable with sharing one
wide lane with a bicycle, but they tend to get testy when the see you taking up one of "their"
lanes.

I've had more obscenities yelled at me, by far, when cycling on a street with one lane in the
direction that I'm traveling in. If your experience is different, let me know, I've really only
cycled in the Scranton PA area.

No such problem around here when the lane is wide enough. Maybe the lanes in Scranton don't have a
wide curb. When there's plenty of width, cars don't seem to have any problem sharing the lane around
here. I suspect bikes on the street are more common in this area, also.
--
terry morse Palo Alto, CA terrymorse.combikeOpen ↗

Claire Petersky wrote:

[ ... ]

Quoted message said:

A part of the conversation I thought was revealing. I asked the engineer if the intent was to slow
the bicycle traffic to the same 15 mph as the cars. He looked dumbfounded and asked, "you mean,
you can go that fast?" As it turned out, the next weekend I happened to be riding on that street
and took a glance at my cyclocomputer. The road has a minor slope, and I was cruising at 24 mph
with little effort.

OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the people designing these facilities are
not cyclists, and perhaps the majority of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a sidewalk
when they were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about regular bicyclists when they
design traffic facilities, and perhaps they might appreciate your input.

This is one of the most important things to keep in mind when the issue of bicycle/motorist
interaction is at issue -- both from the standpoint of the planners and traffic engineers, as well
as individual motorists. For the majority of the non-cycling public, a cyclist is essentially a
glorified pedestrian, not a vehicle that participates in traffic as another vehicle with the same
rights and responsibilities as a motor vehicle.

To the majority of non-cyclists, the term "biker" (which, from that perspective, is interchangeable
with "cyclist"😉 tends to conjure a number of stereotypes:

- A child that rides a bicycle to school;
- A casual adult who rides a low-end bike purchased at *-Mart, in mostly residential neighborhoods;
- The person who rides an ill-repaired beater bike, with little regard for any kind of traffic
rules, including (frequently) riding against traffic.

These are all casual riders with frequently junk equipment, and minimal enough bike handling skills,
that are ill-prepared to ride in real traffic. The number of people who actually ride regularly and
whose cumulative weekly mileage is measured in tens, if not hundreds of miles
(e.g., commuters, fast fitness or competitive riders) is small enough as to be frequently invisible
to the planners.

For me personally, I find that the most frequent source of run-ins that I have with motorists is not
understanding how fast I'm going; even on a busy road that has traffic going in excess of 50 mph
(e.g., Hayden Road in Scottsdale, AZ), the 15 to 20 mph I'm going is far more compatible with the
motor vehicle traffic on the road, than the collection of miscellaneous runners, joggers, walkers,
roller bladers, etc.) on the nearby "bicycle path".

To this end, there are a handful of places where I ride, where I may stay well to the center of the
lane, because of the relative speed factor (motor vehicle traffic in these places is not especially
fast), I want to make sure that if a motorist overtakes and passes, he/she does so by having to move
into the left lane (on a 4-lane road) to deliberately pass me as a vehicle, rather than trying to
squeeze past me, and pass too closely.

When I lived in Pasadena, CA, there's a place near the Rose Bowl, where there's a 4-lane road that
goes about 1/8 of a mile between a major boulevard and a freeway crossing. In that place, the
majority of vehicles comes up the boulevard, makes a left turn onto the crossroad, and the moves
over into the right lane to make a right turn (normally on a red light) on to the freeway onramp.
When I rode there, I had numerous problems with impatient drivers that would cut me off, mostly
because they didn't realize that I was going a lot faster than they realized. On that particular
place, when I started riding the center of the lane, I had a lot less problem with being cut off.

Anyway, my .02

George Peavy

"George Peavy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Claire Petersky wrote:

[ ... ]

Quoted message said:

A part of the conversation I thought was revealing. I

asked the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

engineer if the intent was to slow the bicycle traffic

to the same 15

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mph as the cars. He looked dumbfounded and asked, "you

mean, you can

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

go that fast?" As it turned out, the next weekend I

happened to be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

riding on that street and took a glance at my

cyclocomputer. The road

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has a minor slope, and I was cruising at 24 mph with

little effort.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of

the people

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

designing these facilities are not cyclists, and perhaps

the majority

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a

sidewalk when they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking

about regular

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

bicyclists when they design traffic facilities, and

perhaps they might

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

appreciate your input.

This is one of the most important things to keep in mind

when the issue

Quoted message said:

of bicycle/motorist interaction is at issue -- both from

the standpoint

Quoted message said:

of the planners and traffic engineers, as well as

individual motorists.

Quoted message said:

For the majority of the non-cycling public, a cyclist is

essentially a

Quoted message said:

glorified pedestrian, not a vehicle that participates in

traffic as

Quoted message said:

another vehicle with the same rights and responsibilities

as a motor

Quoted message said:

vehicle.

To the majority of non-cyclists, the term "biker" (which,

from that

Quoted message said:

perspective, is interchangeable with "cyclist"😉 tends to

conjure a

Quoted message said:

number of stereotypes:

- A child that rides a bicycle to school;
- A casual adult who rides a low-end bike purchased at

*-Mart, in mostly

Quoted message said:

residential neighborhoods;
- The person who rides an ill-repaired beater bike, with

little regard

Quoted message said:

for any kind of traffic rules, including (frequently)

riding against

Quoted message said:

traffic.

I think these stereotypes are held more by people who consider themselves serious cyclists than the
public at large -- who probably lump the last 3 together.

Quoted message said:

These are all casual riders with frequently junk

equipment, and minimal

Quoted message said:

enough bike handling skills, that are ill-prepared to ride

in real

Quoted message said:

traffic. The number of people who actually ride regularly

and whose

Quoted message said:

cumulative weekly mileage is measured in tens, if not

hundreds of miles

Quoted message said:

(e.g., commuters, fast fitness or competitive riders) is

small enough as

Quoted message said:

to be frequently invisible to the planners.

I bet there are more people riding this "junk equipment", often reasonably long distances to work,
than "serious" cyclists on "good' bikes. I used to live in one of the most outdoor sports oriented,
toy obsessed, yuppie neighborhoods in the entire US. Still, there were many more restaurant and
warehouse workers riding Walgooses to and from work than all the yuppies on their "good" bikes. And
for every Walgoose rider going the wrong way or riding with no lights at night (while dressed in
black), theres probably a yuppie on a Merlin who's too important to obey red lights or stop signs.

In summary, I don't think these stereotypes are appropriate at all.

Quoted message said:

For me personally, I find that the most frequent source of

run-ins that

Quoted message said:

I have with motorists is not understanding how fast I'm

going; even on a

Quoted message said:

busy road that has traffic going in excess of 50 mph

(e.g., Hayden Road

Quoted message said:

in Scottsdale, AZ), the 15 to 20 mph I'm going is far more

compatible

Quoted message said:

with the motor vehicle traffic on the road, than the

collection of

Quoted message said:

miscellaneous runners, joggers, walkers, roller bladers,

etc.) on the

Quoted message said:

nearby "bicycle path".

I agree, and this is what caught my eye about your post. This is the #1 danger while riding in
traffic, and the #1 thing I've had to learn through all my years riding. I notice others with less
experience in traffic than I tend to have close calls related to this issue -- whether it's getting
right-hooked, people making left turns in front of them, or people pulling out right in front of or
on top of them, it's all drivers not judging cyclists' speed accurately.

Quoted message said:

To this end, there are a handful of places where I ride,

where I may

Quoted message said:

stay well to the center of the lane, because of the

relative speed

Quoted message said:

factor (motor vehicle traffic in these places is not

especially fast), I

Quoted message said:

want to make sure that if a motorist overtakes and passes,

he/she does

Quoted message said:

so by having to move into the left lane (on a 4-lane road)

to

Quoted message said:

deliberately pass me as a vehicle, rather than trying to

squeeze past

Quoted message said:

me, and pass too closely.

The law in most states usually says something about riding as far to the right as is practicable.
This means staying to the right in general, but allows you to make whatever adjustment is necessary
to avoid hazards, while still making reasonable progress. These hazards can be potholes, the threat
of car doors opening, or being squeezed off the road by an impatient driver. You are required to
stay to the right, but you are not required to yield right of way.

Quoted message said:

When I lived in Pasadena, CA, there's a place near the

Rose Bowl, where

Quoted message said:

there's a 4-lane road that goes about 1/8 of a mile

between a major

Quoted message said:

boulevard and a freeway crossing. In that place, the

majority of

Quoted message said:

vehicles comes up the boulevard, makes a left turn onto

the crossroad,

Quoted message said:

and the moves over into the right lane to make a right

turn (normally on

Quoted message said:

a red light) on to the freeway onramp. When I rode there,

I had

Quoted message said:

numerous problems with impatient drivers that would cut me

off, mostly

Quoted message said:

because they didn't realize that I was going a lot faster

than they

Quoted message said:

realized. On that particular place, when I started riding

the center of

Quoted message said:

the lane, I had a lot less problem with being cut off.

I am familiar with that spot, and I have done the same thing.

Matt O.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Am I off base to ask the city traffic engineer where he got this idea knowing that he will probably
take offense to the question?

No. Ask them.
-----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the people designing these facilities are not
cyclists, and perhaps the majority of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a sidewalk when
they were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about regular bicyclists when they design
traffic facilities, and perhaps they might appreciate your input.

I have doubts about any traffic engineer who thinks adding a a bump, or hump to a roadway is a good
idea. It is stupid and at best a band aid solution to the real problem.
-----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)

Terry Morse said:

No such problem around here when the lane is wide enough. Maybe the lanes in Scranton don't have a
wide curb. When there's plenty of width, cars don't seem to have any problem sharing the lane
around here. I suspect bikes on the street are more common in this area, also.

It would seem that I'm a problem to them when there isn't a line (solid or dotted) in between us.
Either in another lane, or in the shoulder(there's one shoulder that I ride in on my commute, up
what all you guys would consider a small 200' climb. I manage about 6 mph up it, and that's huffing
and puffing).

But there are some sections where it's a fairly wide single lane, and cagers still can't seem to
deal, at least not all of them.

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the people designing these facilities are
not cyclists, and perhaps the majority of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a sidewalk
when they were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about regular bicyclists when they
design traffic facilities, and perhaps they might appreciate your input.

I have doubts about any traffic engineer who thinks adding a a bump, or hump to a roadway is a
good idea. It is stupid and at best a band aid solution to the real problem.
-----------------

If you don't mind me asking, what is your solution to the larger problem? I like minimizing access
to residential areas and 20mph (strongly enforced - ha-ha!) speed limit.

--
Robin Hubert <[email hidden]

In article said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the people designing these facilities are
not cyclists, and perhaps the majority of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a sidewalk
when they were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about regular bicyclists when they
design traffic facilities, and perhaps they might appreciate your input.

I have doubts about any traffic engineer who thinks adding a a bump, or hump to a roadway is a
good idea. It is stupid and at best a band aid solution to the real problem.

I'm pretty happy about the humps they put on my street. It's a narrow residential street but it
lines up with a freeway exit, so a lot of cars were going 50 MPH or thereabouts down the block. No
more. I guess handling the real problem would be getting rid of the freeway...

"Eric Vey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

.

Quoted message said:

Am I off base to ask the city traffic engineer where he got this idea

knowing that he will probably take offense to the question?

As long as you're tactful, why would they be offended?

"Are you a clueless idiot, or did you intentionally set out to endanger cyclists" is always a
good ice-breaker.

I've seen all kinds of "clever" ideas for traffic calming. I'd say the "engineers" are even more
out of touch than usual. Creates hazards for vehicles and I doubt it makes it safer for
pedestrians.

"Best" are the streets where the sidewalk bulges 4 or 5 feet into the road every so often, to force
vehicles to swerve into oncoming traffic, or smash into the curb. Naturally, these are invisible at
night. So they added a small post with one reflective stripe on it. Enough people smashed into the
almost invisible post (after jumping the curb) that they put an orange safety pylon over it. Need I
continue ? My tax dollars at work.:-(

On other streets, they dropped large concrete planters here and there in the road. Again, lots of
crashes and damage. Oh, did I mention that we get snow? Did I mention that snowplows have a
slight problems running an obstacle course?

We also have some speed humps. We had speed bumps, but they did so much damage to cars and
snowplows that they were removed.

One reasonable idea is a 1 foot wide slot in some barriers, just enough for a bike to pass
through. Not everywhere. For example - they created a dead-end street by extending the sidewalk
to block most traffic, but left the one foot wide slot for bicycles to ride through.

We also have the mazes of one-way streets which reverse direction every block. This drives people
crazy. Wrong-way cyclists who ignore the law love them.

Speaking of slaloms, some of our bike paths have staggered gates intended to force cyclists to
dismount and walk. As one little girl put it as she slalommed (?word) through with a HUGE grin on
her face, "I ****LOVE**** these things !!!!"

(of course, the gates which are painted black are invisible at night. Don't ask me how I
know :-( )

You might suggest that the engineers actually ride along with some experienced cyclists and
solicit opinions on their hare-brained schemes to squander taxpayers' money.

hth

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the people designing these facilities are
not cyclists, and perhaps the majority of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a
sidewalk when they were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about regular bicyclists
when they design traffic facilities, and perhaps they might appreciate your input.

I have doubts about any traffic engineer who thinks adding a a bump, or hump to a roadway is a
good idea. It is stupid and at best a band aid solution to the real problem.
-----------------

If you don't mind me asking, what is your solution to the larger problem? I like minimizing access
to residential areas and 20mph (strongly enforced - ha-ha!) speed limit.

Depends on the problem. Roads are meant to allow fast and efficient flow of traffic, otherwise why
bother building a road. When you add a speed bump, you have just taken a step backwards. You analyze
the problem. See what is causing the problem, and then formulate solution. Many times the people
deciding on the solution, speed bump, have no formal training in traffic enginerring.
-----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

"Alex Rodriguez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

>OK, it's a long story, but it goes to show -- most of the people designing these facilities
>are not cyclists, and perhaps the majority of their life bike experience is going 5 mph on a
>sidewalk when they were 10 years old. They aren't necessarily thinking about regular
>bicyclists when they design traffic facilities, and perhaps they might appreciate your input.

I have doubts about any traffic engineer who thinks adding a a bump, or hump to a roadway is a
good idea. It is stupid and at best a band aid solution to the real problem.
-----------------

If you don't mind me asking, what is your solution to the larger problem?

I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

like minimizing access to residential areas and 20mph (strongly

enforced -

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ha-ha!) speed limit.

Depends on the problem. Roads are meant to allow fast and efficient flow

of

Quoted message said:

traffic, otherwise why bother building a road. When you add a speed bump, you have just taken a
step backwards. You analyze the problem. See what

is

Quoted message said:

causing the problem, and then formulate solution. Many times the people deciding on the solution,
speed bump, have no formal training in traffic enginerring.
-----------------
Alex __O

I'm not sure what you're saying. I live in CT. Let me explain two problems to you. On the street
where I live, there's an intersection with a 4-way stop (via signs). This street is in a "city" and
people tend to use the street as a thoroughfare. People generally blow through the stop, or barely
stop, then barrel down my street. By the time they're at my house, they're doing a good double the
speed limit. I used to live in a different area. There, the homes were on one-acre lots. My mailbox
was across the street that passed in front of my house. People regularly double the speed limit,
which is quite dangerous for a pedestrian, especially when you're standing basically in the weeds
trying to get your mail.

Basically, you can get as many engineers on this problem as you want to. There's no way that the
cities involved are going to change the structure of the roads, and they probably can't do it even
if they wanted to. There aren't many solutions other than adding a speed bump.

--
Bob ctviggen at rcn dot com