Our local authority has installed them just down the road from us, together with a sort of "chicane" kerb structure to narrow the road. As well as being a car driver, I also ride a motorbike and cycle as well, so see it from many perspectives. I honestly believe that these structures are a very serious hazard to motorcyclists in particular, especially when approaching them at night, on unfamiliar roads or otherwise poor conditions. I wonder if there is any published data to support my view. I cannot see the logic of placing a dangerous structure actually in the road whether it's signed or not.
Baz
|
|
Chicanes are a weird way of proming road safety as they force vehicles into a potential head-on collision situation if the one expected to stop doesn't.
|
I have come alarmingly close to collisions caused by vehicles not giving way - the age-old assumption that if the vehicle in front can make it, so can they. On the approach, all you can see is one vehicle making a cheeky late passage through - you slow down to let it, only to discover at the last second that there is another hidden behind. Cue load squeal of brakes.
A beautiful example was in Bicester - the local authority installed a flimsy-lloking temporary chicane with lightening speed one Sunday night. There were no prior announcements. The Monday morning was chaotic with several near misses. Fortunately, the chicane was removed mid-morning, when a bus ploughed into it and completely ripped it out.
Sadly, they learnt nothing whatsoever, and later replaced it with a huge concrete monstrosity, large enough to take on a bus and win.
I am amazed that these things are promoted as improvements to road safety.
|
Where was that then ?
There are couple of dumb things in Bicester, mostly related to the one way system. - that and half the northern hemisphere driving to Bicester Village every damn sunday.
BTW, I live in Ambrosden.
|
Where was that then ?
Banbury Road, just north of the turning to Bure Park. Used to live in there until earlier this year.
There are couple of dumb things in Bicester, mostly related to the one way system.
And they are multiplying - look at Buckingham Road (actually, best stay well clear!)
- that and half the northern hemisphere driving to Bicester Village every damn sunday.
::[shivers with awful memories]::
Don't forget the way they always assume that everyone is going into BV so they can turn across you....
BTW, I live in Ambrosden.
lucky lucky you ... nice spot
|
|
|
|
"NoWheels
It must be groundhog day :(
Why not just slow down for the bumps, which is what they are there to make you do ... and thereby avoid damage to the car?"
Because it can cause more discomfort and component damge, the optimim speed for an average Mondeo car is probably in the region of 50mph, but this depends on the hump rake and many other variables.
Read an automotive engineering book on suspension rate for more info.
I almost always have a claim in progress with the council for around £400-£500, as I have to go over 15,000 humps a year just going 7 miles to work and back this equates to 60,000 impacts on the car when you count the 4 wheel/suspension assemblies.
Many of the speed humps are illegal too, even after 12 months, the surrounding tarmac sinks making the too high, and verticle surfaces (ridges) to become exposed.
|
|
|
|
|
Bumps of these sort are vey dangerous to motorcycles.
The worst I know of are not bumps at all but lets call them striations on the A320M approaching Brcaknell from the M4.
Essentially there are a series of close together small bumps. I can only control a motorcyle over these bumps at around 20mph, the posted limit is 60 so when I slow down I have cars honking/trying to run me over/swerving in to the outside lane to get round me. In the daytime it is bad at night it is lethal.
Now No Wheels will no doubt tell me that the other road users are at fault, true, but that won't help me when I'm in A&E.
With the wider question of speed bumps and cars No Wheels is arguing that if you slow down then you can roll over these things with no damage to your car. If this was true then everybody else should stop arguing and give up and in fact it SHOULD one would think be easy to engineer a bump to do just this but they have not the anti-car loonies at the council offices have devised what I can only call car traps that can not be traversed safely at ANY speed and the documentary evidence is legion, not least of which comes from the London Ambulance Service who could hardly be accused of being petrolheads.
The only solution as for so much these days is to sue them. If we launch say 10,000 cases then even if we lose we gum up the court system and something has to be done. Maybe design them so they can be rolled over at the posted speed limit with no harm? No that woudl be too simple...
|
|
Bracknell even. So bad I named it twice...
|
|
|
With the wider question of speed bumps and cars No Wheels is arguing that if you slow down then you can roll over these things with no damage to your car. If this was true
It is true, except for very low-slung vehicles. Try it! :)
then everybody else should stop arguing and give up and in fact it SHOULD one would think be easy to engineer a bump to do just this but they have not the anti-car loonies at the council offices
I think you may have mistyped "oficials responsible for increasing road safety in residential areas, by implementing measures designed to force car drivers to do what they are supposed to do anyway"
have devised what I can only call car traps that can not be traversed safely at ANY speed and the documentary evidence is legion, not least of which comes from the London Ambulance Service who could hardly be accused of being petrolheads.
I'm afraid that's a bit of an old chestnut. One oficial from the LAS yakked on the subject, but I read recently about how the GLA got nowhere in its efforts to try to get them to offer any evidence for their wild claims. If you can point to the evidence, I'd be delighted to see it, but at the moment it just looks like a wild bit of rhetoric, particularly since the GLA has taken care to consult with emergency services on keeping arterial routes free of speed bumps.
The only solution as for so much these days is to sue them. If we launch say 10,000 cases then even if we lose we gum up the court system and something has to be done. Maybe design them so they can be rolled over at the posted speed limit with no harm? No that woudl be too simple...
The clear intention is to reduce speeds below the posted limit (which is, of course, a limit, not a license to drive at that speed). In fact, if you check the rules for 20mph limits, they are only allowed to be installed where speeds have already been driven down to around 20 (I forget the exact threshold figure).
|
What?
Are you serious?
The local councils have the right to SET the limits. So now you are telling me that they set the limits and then install devices that force speeds below the set limits?
This is bureaucratic madness.
There are many reasons why I am intending to move abroad and take my tax payments with me and I will add this as another one.
I will look up the LAS data but off the top of my head I seem to recall that one third of all ambulances are off the road at any one time due to speed hump damage. Plus unfortunately those troublesome individuals with no regard for bureaucrats have a nasty habit of needing ambulances away from arterial routes. The public huh? Don't you just hate them.
|
|
Sorry, one further point. One suspects that the individual from LAS 'yakked' the truth once and was immediately pulled in to a backroom and told to shut up by the PC police...
|
|
|
The local councils have the right to SET the limits. So now you are telling me that they set the limits and then install devices that force speeds below the set limits?
I'd prefer that they had the right to lower the speed limits as they saw fit, but I suspect that a lot of backroomers wouldn't like lots of 20mph zones (or 10mph zones) suddenly springing up.
Basically, the rules are that the urban speed limit is 30mph, and councils don't actually set that - it's antional default.
A lower limit can only be imposed once the speed has already been reduced. You and I might prefer that process to go t'other way round, but then there'd be yakking from those who claimed that they were caught unawares by the reduced limit.
|
|
sorry, for "antional default" read "national default"
|
|
|
I live in the Sefton Council area. It has created 20mph zones plus speed humps in many parts of my town and other areas which it controls.
To be honest, I'm quite happy with a 20mph limit on those local residental side roads in my area which are only wide enough to take three cars abreast comfortably.
My own road is the same but with a 30mph limit yet, even with cars parked down both sides, many motorists drive down at 30mph + to 50mph.
If an emergency occurs they almost certainly have no escape route.
Depending on the time of the day I drive along it at around 20mph - at other times it is safer, because of far fewer parked vehicles, to perhaps go up to 30mph.
Yet, although the circumstances are exactly the same as roads about half-a-mile from my home, the council fails to listen to requests to impose a 20mph speed limit and/or install speed humps.
Yet the stretch where I live forms the main gateway to all the other roads in the area and consequently carries a lot of traffic.
|
|
|
|
Per Thommo
The local councils have the right to SET the limits. So now you are telling me that they set the limits and then install devices that force speeds below the set >>limits?
And surely quite sensibly when the appropriate speed is lower for a short distance. An example we may both be familiar with (you are a fellow Northamptonian?) is that narrow road in Towcester past the Radstone Technologies site exiting onto Brackley Road just east of Sponne School. Presumably the parked cars are inadequate in slowing down the nutters.
I'd agree however that those installed on the other side of the A5 towards the A43 are a waste (and the Xantia will take pillows at 30+ anyway!)
|
|
|
|
No Wheels
I have resisted the temptation to answer your anti car ramblings until now. I have no idea who the LAS is or for that matter the GLA. Also your comments regarding the rules for 20mph limits certainly do not apply where I live.
This site and the back room is definitely a pro motoring forum. I feel you would be happier posting to a site which has a general aggreement with your views.
--
Alyn Beattie
I'm sane, it's the rest of the world that's mad.
|
No Wheels I have resisted the temptation to answer your anti car ramblings until now. I have no idea who the LAS is or for that matter the GLA. Also your comments regarding the rules for 20mph limits certainly do not apply where I live. This site and the back room is definitely a pro motoring forum. I feel you would be happier posting to a site which has a general aggreement with your views.
I'm just going to take this opportunity to go and hide under a table for a while...
|
|
|
No Wheels I have resisted the temptation to answer your anti car ramblings until now. I have no idea who the LAS is or for that matter the GLA. Also your comments regarding the rules for 20mph limits certainly do not apply where I live. This site and the back room is definitely a pro motoring forum. I feel you would be happier posting to a site which has a general aggreement with your views. -- Alyn Beattie I'm sane, it's the rest of the world that's mad.
:-( have to say I would be inclined to agree with this view.
Er... I think LAS = London Ambulance Service dunno GLA tho' ;-)
JaB
|
|
|
No Wheels I have resisted the temptation to answer your anti car ramblings until now. I have no idea who the LAS is or for that matter the GLA. Also your comments regarding the rules for 20mph limits certainly do not apply where I live. This site and the back room is definitely a pro motoring forum. I feel you would be happier posting to a site which has a general aggreement with your views. -- Alyn Beattie I'm sane, it's the rest of the world that's mad.
Why on earth would she be happier and anyway this place and all the other internet fora would be terribly boring if we were all in general agreement. I don't think NW is anti car as such but holds, and puts an articulate argument for, the view that sometimes we have the balance wrong between motorist's rights and their responsibility to the rest of society. Bit less cut and past may be, but if she went I for one would miss her.
::retreats to urban cycling forum::
|
|
|
No Wheels I have resisted the temptation to answer your anti car ramblings until now. I have no idea who the LAS is or for that matter the GLA. Also your comments regarding the rules for 20mph limits certainly do not apply where I live. This site and the back room is definitely a pro motoring forum. I feel you would be happier posting to a site which has a general aggreement with your views. -- Alyn Beattie I'm sane, it's the rest of the world that's mad.
Alyn,
Yes, she's irritating at times. Yes, she seems to be a square peg in our nicely machined round hole. And, yes, we seem to get a feeling of deja vu sometimes. But the BR would be less, err, engaging (?) without her.
Also, we must not forget that we are a self-selected bunch. This will mean that our collective views are likely to be unrepresentative of the country as a whole. There are plenty of people out there who don't like driving, don't like cars, and would like to see our freedom to use them severely curtailed. NoWheels forces us to confront those views from time to time. If we just kept agreeing with each other then we would probably never have to work out why we are right.
So, if I had to summarise, I'd say she's often wrong but having to work out why keeps us on our toes!
(No offence, NW!)
|
|
|
I have resisted the temptation to answer your anti car ramblings until now.
Alyn, it's a pity you characterise things that way. I'm not anti-car (don't own one for now, but drive quite a bit): I am just anti the irresponsible use of it.
We probably disagree on the meaning of irresponsible, but please do me the courteousy of not calling me anti-car just cos we disagree on how they should be used.
|
|
|
|
I think you may have mistyped "oficials responsible for increasing road safety in residential areas, by implementing measures designed to force car drivers to do what they are supposed to do anyway"
You mean force car drivers to take their attention away from what is going on around them to concentrate on where the next hump is? Not to mention the fact that by destabilising the car they are potentially increasing braking distances.
|
You mean force car drivers to take their attention away from what is going on around them to concentrate on where the next hump is? Not to mention the fact that by destabilising the car they are potentially increasing braking distances.
Driving on a few bump-ridden streets this evening, I found that at 15mph I could gently slow for the bumps and surmount them fine -- no gear change neded. My brain wasn't overtaxed by watching the road ahead, my passengers had a perfectly comfortable ride (car was an S-reg Fiesta), and the suspension wasn't getting whacked.
At 10-15mph, I have no doubt that my braking distances were much reduced from those at the 20-25mph I'd have been driving on that road if it was umbumped.
|
Driving on a few bump-ridden streets this evening, I found that at 15mph I could gently slow for the bumps and surmount them fine -- no gear change neded.
OK, so what is the intention of humps? I was told when they were installed on the street mine runs off that they were to reduce speeding. That implies keep people below 30 (and yes, I know you can argue that 15 is below 30 but that would just be being obtuse)
At 10-15mph,
You might as well get out and walk as it won't take you much longer...
|
OK, so what is the intention of humps? I was told when they were installed on the street mine runs off that they were to reduce speeding. That implies keep people below 30 (and yes, I know you can argue that 15 is below 30 but that would just be being obtuse)
Speeding is not just a matter of exceeding the limit. It is also a matter of exceeding an appropriate speed for the street in question. In this case, with parked cars and children playing, 10-15 was quite appropriate, but 30 would have been speeding.
>> At 10-15mph, You might as well get out and walk as it won't take you much longer...
If you walk at 10-15mph, you must have very long legs :)
A few hundred yards and reduced speed around the backstreets, then back up to 25 once I was back on the main road: having walked the same journey lots of times, this was a whole lot faster.
Thanks, though, for confirming my point that the real issue about speed humps is that some people don't want to slow down.
I doubt that was your intention, but you make the case for them very effectively.
|
You might as well get out and walk as it won't take you much longer...
>>>If you walk at 10-15mph, you must have very long legs :)>>
It clearly doesn't mean walking at that speed - only that it wouldn't take very much longer than using the car...:-)
The point being made about a road having a speed limit of, say, 30 mph and then using often crude speed humps to slow traffic down being obtuse is perfectly valid. Why not just reduce speed limits on these particular stretches such as outside schools?
|
>>>If you walk at 10-15mph, you must have very long legs :)>> It clearly doesn't mean walking at that speed - only that it wouldn't take very much longer than using the car...:-)
Walking speed is about 5mph, so it would take 2-3 times as long, even on that short stretch before you're back to 25-30.
You're a brave man if you suggest here that travelling at 1/3 of the speed isn't much of a disadvantage :)
The point being made about a road having a speed limit of, say, 30 mph and then using often crude speed humps to slow traffic down being obtuse is perfectly valid. Why not just reduce speed limits on these particular stretches such as outside schools?
'cos speed limits alone ain't effective enough -- that's why there are so many speed cameras being installed, which are les effective (unless of the SPECS variety) and muchly more expensive.
|
You're a brave man if you suggest here that travelling at 1/3 of the speed isn't much of a disadvantage :)
No, Stuart is right. The crucial factor is that my legs start up immediately (for now...) and I don't have to get into them. There is inevitably a short period of time required to find the keys, get into the car, start it & get off the drive before you start. The walker gets a head start during this period. And s/he catches up again while the driver is parking, locking etc.
It's only a factor in short journeys, obviously, and is made more evident by speed humps etc. And I don't feel that this helps the case for speed bumps, because those that need the exercise probably can't/won't work this one out, whiles those that can work it out already walk such journeys for the exercise. Meanwhile, those that have mobility problems suffer....
You're shooting down the wrong target again, NoWheels.
|
Patently, you are arguing that the problem is that drivers don't want to slow down, even on short journeys, and I agree. However, I think that's a compelling argument for speed humps in residential areas, where the slowdown is most needed.
As to those who have mobility probs, they can still do the journey by car with speed bumps.
What are arguing for here is for maintaining high speeds in residential streets. I've always said that this is really what the speed humps debate is about: not the technology, but whether vehicles slow down.
|
What are arguing for here is for maintaining high speeds in residential streets.
Can't agree there I'm afraid. Speed humps are not a good way of controlling speeds as their effect varies based on what car you drive. A 4x4 - which is much harder to stop quickly and control in general - can take them easily enough at 30+. I find some speed humps where I have to drop to almost a stop in my Yaris and still get a terrible jolt when I hit it. Even lower ones often suffer from being badly positioned - the street I referred to earlier has ones at both ends situated about 5 yards from the junction. At one end it's impossible to turn in in time to go over it square, at the other end they are at an angle to the road and set where the parked cars force even buses to go over them rather than straddle (or partly straddle for cars) them.
This on a road where the council admit there is not a speeding problem yet claim the humps were put in to control speeds.
Speed humps do not need to be high to get the message across to the drivers of small cars and those who drive larger ones would ignore them even if they were 6" high or more.
We also find that due to the installation of humps and change in the road layout the local buses often avoid the street in the evening or at busy times. That's hardly helpful as it takes away the alternative to the car or the only means of transport for those without one.
|
Speed humps are not a good way of controlling speeds as their effect varies based on what car you drive
true, it does vary. However, they do put some restraint on the speed of most vehicles, which is the aim of the exercise. Not ideal, but better than nothing.
So is there a better way to limit speeds in residential areas? Self-restraint doesn't work on lots of roads, so what else can be done? Speed cameras? A police officer on every corner?
|
|
|
Now No Wheels will no doubt tell me that the other road users are at fault, true, but that won't help me when I'm in A&E.
No, I think she'll tell you to drive a normal car not a motorbike!
|
>> Now No Wheels will no doubt tell me that the other road users >> are at fault, true, but that won't help me when I'm in A&E. No, I think she'll tell you to drive a normal car not a motorbike!
not quite -- those sorta roads are supposed to be safe for bikes.
That does sound like a bad idea, things that endanger one class of vehicle on a high-speed road. It's a different matter to the sort of low-speed restraints found in residential areas.
I don't actually think I have seen the sort of thing Thommo is talking about. However, they have a new device in Ireland in recent years, which I haven't seen in England: a series of close (abt 3ft apart) yellow lines running across the road at the aproach to roundabouts, providing a very effective visual reminder to slow and a very light rumble from the wheels. They strike me as being great for cars, tho I can imagine that they may be a bit slippery in the wet for motorbikes -- is that the sort of thing they've put on the A320M?
|
I drive over about 6 humps every day and have done so for quite a few years. I have not had to replace any suspension components (vehicles have been Nissans and Mercedes). A couple of guys who work for me both have Passats - they don't have any humps on their normal route and have both had problems with front suspension components.
I have been over humps in a 4x4 (Disco) and don't think it feels noticably different to a normal car at low speed.
When I approach a hump I brake up to the hump and then just touch the thottle to 'lift' the front of the car as I go up it. This reduces the impact. I also take them at a steady speed.
I also regularly use a chicane, but I've noticed a couple of the 4x4 numpties try to treat it like a hump and just drive straight over the raised area!
|
When I approach a hump I brake up to the hump and then just touch the thottle to 'lift' the front of the car as I go up it. This reduces the impact. I also take them at a steady speed.
Spot on - although MR highlights the inherent problem.
The issue seems to be the wide variation in style. The humps in Islip (Oxon) are exemplary - ok to take at 30 if otherwise safe, smooth at speeds below that, but harsh above.
Others are harsh at 2mph. Why?? There is clearly no need for them to be, as better designs exist!
|
|
|
|
Humps are also a concern for me.
In order to access my house, I must negotiate a single track lane littered with 7 reasonably harsh speed ramps. This means if I only go out once a day I must negotiate 14 speed ramps, but as I often go out 2 or 3 times a day, it's usually 28, sometimes 32....
I was aware of the effect on fuel economy - it crucifies it coming to a complete halt and then speeding up again when the engine is cold first thing in a morning, 7 times, but have often worried about the mechanical damage it may be doing to my car.
It's already pretty much prevented me from lowering the car, a problem given that the car looks rather odd becuase it has the 'sporty' looking Ford RSA Pack, yet regular ride height and enough space to house a family of immigrants in the rear arches. Looks considerably better when the suspension is lowered, but I'm not prepared to take the risk of damaging the car.
Never mind :(
|
Brompton.
Emglish by birth, Northamptonian by the grace of god.
Currently living elsewhere but still a Saints season ticket holder so visit often.
Was thinking of moving back but will probably go abroad now.
|
|
|
|
If you ever had a chance to be driven to hospital with bursting appendix just imagine what could it feel like if the ambulance had to go through number of speed bumps on the way. Your pregnant wife would appreciate them too. And just imagine yourself waiting for fire brigate to negotiate seven speed ramps before they can reach your house...
|
If you ever had a chance to be driven to hospital with bursting appendix
When I had my appendix exploding, I was sent to hospital by bus. Not fun, but any ambulance would have been much better than walking to the bus stop.
Mind you, the ambulance I had ten years ago for a difft problem had such hard springs that I'd hardly have noticed the speed bumps, cos every ripple on the road had me in such agony
|
|
|
|
|
"a series of close (abt 3ft apart) yellow lines running across the road at the aproach to roundabouts,"
They have something similar to this on the main road into Clacton, as you approach a roundabout which is almost hidden round a bend on a NSL road.
I would refer to them as rumble strips - about half or less the height of a speed hump and located well in advance of the roundabout, stretching for a couple of hundred yards.
The only such edifice to meet with my approval.
|
I've never had a problem with speed bumps, but I do slow down quite a lot for them. Not very nice for the people who live in the houses next to the speed bumps though, they get a lot more traffic noise.
Holes in the road (as I think the first post mentioned too) are much worse as they're more difficult to see, they're sharper and you do tend to hit them at speed!
|
|
|
Personally I find rumble strips or yellow lines before a roundabout to be distracting: the result is that, unless I conciously think about it I DON'T slow down as far in advance as usual.
Obviously what works for one person doesn't necessarily work for another.
|
|
|
|
However, they have a new device in Ireland in recent years, which I haven't seen in England: a series of close (abt 3ft apart) yellow lines running across the road...
Many implementations in this country. You do get them on the approach to roundabouts, usually on fast roads just to jolt people awake, but also often on country roads where there is a 30 limit. The trouble is that they usually put them on both sides of the road so you car gets rattled to bits acceleration out of the 30 as well as slowing down for it...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
