The speed humps where you have 3 individual humps across the road seem to be getting more popular.
These work fine when when the road is clear and you can drive over the hump on your side of the road, often without having to dip below the speed limit.
The problem comes when there are parked cars on either side of he road and to make smooth progress you need to drive over the centre hump in the road.
When 2 cars are driving towards each other towards the humps, an increasing number of people seem to think that the first car to get to the humps has right of way over the centre hump.
I've lost count of the amount of times when I' ve been approaching some humps only to have some plum coming the other way start veering towards me to take his position in the centre of the road.
I'd been suprised if there haven't been accidents caused by this stupidity.
Is this a nationwide problem or just London attitude.
|
It's a nationwide problem with obstructions and priority in general. An alarmingly growing number of drivers seem to think that the first person to get to an obstruction has right of way, even when the obstruction is on their side of the road. The same drivers think it's ok to swerve into oncoming traffic if someone in front of them is turning left, and just creep into the offside lane if there's a cyclist/parked car/bus or whatever in the nearside, no use of mirrors, no indicators.
I think it all starts when they begin to assume right of way from a slip road and gets worse from there...
|
|
|
I reckon if the speed humps are big enough to make cars want to go over the low section and some are forced to give way, then the speed humps are working well at controlling traffic speed, which after all is what they're designed to do.
Those that get fed up with having to give way at the "3 across" humps are probably the sort that are going too fast to start with.
Personally I'd go a long way out of my way to avoid a road with speed humps on it.
|
|
|
|
It's a Maida Vale attitude, particularly around Little Venice.
|
A speed bump is a stupid 'blunt instrument'. IF its purpose was to control speed to, say, 30 mph, then it should be possible to drive over it at 29mph without wrecking your suspension or spine or loosening your fillings. The technology for this does not exist so were are stuck with obstructions in the road, often not built in accordance with the regulations re dimensions, which damage our vehicles, our bodies, and look like causing accidents - see posts above. It is interesting to note that, as fast as some authorities are putting them in, others are digging them up. More joined up thinking needed!
|
|
|
AD, it's not about slowing the traffic and giving way, the problem is having someone who is not slowing down suddenly driving straight towards your car at 40 mph because they think they have right of way over you.
Giving way only works if you have to give way, if only one person is in on the deal this can lead to problems.
Sadly my house is surrounded by speed hump, I live in 20 mph zone. This is fine as I live near a school, the only problem being that some of the humps in our street break your back at 10 mph, whereas the one directly outside the school is so low and smooth that you could take it at 60.
Edited by krs one on 11/06/2008 at 09:45
|
i always give way to oncoming traffic, it has nothing to do with being super polite but has everything to do with not taking the chance that the other driver will take out my wing mirror or worse because they dont want to slow down for anyone or anything.
despite what the highway code says about right of way and obstructions it seems today its just a free for all but im sorry im not going to play that game.
|
Fair point welshlad, but the traffic shouldn't be oncoming, my point is there is plenty of room for both vehicles but some arrogant folk don't seem to think that they have to drive over the humps.
A speed hump is not an obstruction, I don't see people driving on the kerb to get around the full width humps.
Not yet anyway.
|
|
|
I cycle to work and had to change my route because of these bumps.
Cars would veer left to go over the left bump - but that would mean driving over the bit of road occupied by me on my bike.
Usually they didn't seem to care whether a cyclist was already occupying that piece of road and after being clipped by a wing mirror a couple of times I decided it wasn't worth the risk.
Same in the car too - there's a traffic calming pinch point with a 'give way' sign near my home and that's a total free for all. I've seen 2 cars 'squaring up' with neither refusing to budge there.
|
These chicanes are a nuisance too.
My girlfriend works for TFL and they will not sight them in the rougher parts of town for fear of gun battles on the street.
|
I hadn't thought of the potential for accidents in fighting for priority. This is yet another argument for removing them. They are an appalling intrusion into our lives. One US friend of mine said that if they tried it on 5th Avenue, a million people would sit down in the road until they took 'em away.
The three-bump ones are ridiculous, since they allow vans and other wide vehicles to avoid them [often the vehicles illegally speeding IMHO]. And why are there lower sides to them? Is it a game to see how accurately we can steer?
Is it impossible to design a bump that ensures people stick to 29mph, or if traversed at 40 may cause damage? In Wimbledon, the comfortable speed over most is around 10-12. And if you try and "across" the near-side one, you are usually faced with a deep drain - deliberate placing policy I'm sure, as it happens too often to be co-incidental.
WHAT ABOUT A CAMPAIGN HJ?
|
krs1 - I admit to some thread creep re humps! I am sometimes in Bracknell where one of the roads has a load of these "Give way to oncoming traffic" chicanes. In their "Wisdom" the local traffic bods have sited a bus stop 5 yards benfore one of them - to add to the chaos ad confusion!
|
I know a wide, more or less residential street, a regular rat run for many, where the gap in the middle of the road is wide enough to miss the cushions altogether. I always take this route unless there is something coming the other way at the wrong moment, in which case of course both cars have to go over the bumps.
It is surprising how many drivers are hypnotised into waddling over all of them even when there's no reason to. As for people driving down the middle of the street until they meet something coming the other way, and then generally reacting so slowly and clumsily that both cars have to slow down, people round here do it all the time in streets with no bumps in them. They do it because they are incompetent drivers and very dim and selfish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
