In that case I think we should all get one of these:
tinyurl.com/nllb9c
|
That sounds promising, both for Ilford and Donegal. Think I'll have the supercharged engine and the dog box. I assume that the slippy diffs are standard, not an option.
|
|
|
|
|
L'escargot, The springs which were damaged were 2 rear coil and one front coil. The total mileage of the car at time of breakage was 14,510, and had done only 903 miles since last MOT. The wheels and tyres are the originals. Hope this helps.
|
|
Just failed mot on rear near side spring 'fractured. £198 for 2 at local main dealer then fitting and vat. Humps put in by Basingstoke council are the cause, I shall send them the bill as a gesture.
|
We've got loads of them here in pot hole city, the wife's cars have got through various springs since she's had to drive along roads 'infected' with them and she is a very careful driver. Personally I wouldn't object as much to full width 'ramps' (sleeping policmen?) because you wouldn't get drivers swerving all over the place to avoid them. Driving an hydraulic Citroen definitely helps, if a sphere goes it's less than £30 and 10 minutes to change it.
I do think they make the roads more dangerous and think it's a matter of time before the facts and figures come out.
Steve.
|
>>> I do think they make the roads more dangerous and think it's a matter of time before the facts and figures come out. <<<
-------------------> www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm
|
Thanks for the link Perro.
Steve.
|
|
|
Hopefully, sooner or later a carfty lawyer will suffer some serious damage as a result of these humps and take someone to the cleaners as a result. What would be really good would be some sort of action against a decision maker in the local autority as opposed to an action against the local authority.
|
>>a carfty lawyer
It will be extremely difficult to prove that any defects on the car were caused by the road features. A reasonable approach might be to demonstrate that a particular oft used road feature was beyond its acceptable geometric tolerance for an extended period of time. However, the measurements of the feature's profile would have to be taken and recorded using a technically acceptable method, and with some care.
|
It would be amusing to see one of these speed-bumps-wrecked my car cases get to court.
"Yer honour, after driving my car repeatedly over these bumps twice a day for a year, it broke."
"OK, plaintiff, let me check I've understood this. These bumps are on a road near your home, are they not?"
"Yes, yeronnor".
"And the presence of these bumps is indicated by a sign, according to the council. Is this true?"
"Yes, yerronnor, that's correct".
"Good. Now, please can you explain to the court what you understand the purpose of these bumps to be"
"I understand that they are some evil bureaucrat's attempt to make me slow down".
"Good. You are of course entitled to your views about evil, but the court is grateful for your confirmation that you understand that these bumps are intended to make you slow down.
"So now, Mr Plaintiff, let me summarise your encounters with these devices. These bumps are signposted, and you are familiar with them from driving across them twice each day for the last year. Is that correct?"
"Yes, yeronnor. I know these awful things very well indeed, and curse them all the time. Work of the devil, they are".
"And yet despite your detailed knowledge of these speed bumps, you have by your own testimony repeatedly driven your car over them at a speed which caused damage to it. The damage is self-inflicted, so your claim is dismissed. I award costs to the council".
"But yeronor, but but but ...."
"But indeed. It is not in the power of this court to charge you with a motoring offence, but your testimony here provides clear evidence that you repeatedly drove your vehicle at a speed which was excessive for the conditions, and that your driving was reckless. I should warn you that the police may choose to prosecute you for those offences. Now get lost."
Next please?
|
Delightful to hear your voice again NW.
I note with sadness that your punitive attitude to the automobile and its driver are still misleading you on the value of nasty dangerous speed bumps though. But you have a right to your error.
:o}
|
Delightful to hear your voice again NW.
Thanks! Good to see you're still here, Lud :)
I note with sadness that your punitive attitude to the automobile and its driver are still misleading you on the value of nasty dangerous speed bumps though. But you have a right to your error. :o}
And despite the passage of time, Lud, you're still struggling to grasp the simple principle that speed bumps are neither nasty nor dangerous to those who slow down when they encounter them. You'll get there in the end :)
|
And despite the passage of time Lud you're still struggling to grasp the simple principle that speed bumps are neither nasty nor dangerous to those who slow down when they encounter them. You'll get there in the end :)
I'd have to disagree there NW, there are some truly horrible bumps near here that are vicious even at about 2 mph - they are like driving up a kerb. If you straddle them then they are not nearly as bad, but even my accord runs up the edges, with consequent tyre damage.
They can be okay - the bumps on our road are absolutely fine at about 20 mph so are a perfect solution to stop faster drivers, but they are unusually well thought out.
|
I'd have to disagree there NW there are some truly horrible bumps near here that are vicious even at about 2 mph - they are like driving up a kerb. If you straddle them then they are not nearly as bad but even my accord runs up the edges with consequent tyre damage.
Yes, there are some bad ones. Most of the so-called "cushion" type are appallingly sharp-edged, and their tyres-falling-off-sloping-edges approach seems to me to be conceptually flawed.
They can be okay - the bumps on our road are absolutely fine at about 20 mph so are a perfect solution to stop faster drivers but they are unusually well thought out.
The ordinary full-width roundtop humps work fine, and I have found no problems with the raised-area type.
If objectors concentrated on the badly-designed bumps, they might get a faiir hearing. But when the complaints are of the I-don't-want-to-slow-down variety, they will be ignored ... or may even strengthen the resolve of councils.
|
Lud, it's a bit like trying to explain sartorial fashion to a German. The glazed expression and the superior "I know better than you" standpoint. Leopards and spots scenario I'm afraid.
;-)
|
The real problem in this argument is that natural mimsers start from the position that these council twerps and the twerps whose bleating they respond to imagine they have been given the right to damage the roads and make them dangerous. It is those who want undamaged roads who may - only may, mind you - get a 'fair hearing if they concentrate on complaining about the 'badly designed' speed humps. Never mind the misconceived ones or the unnecessary ones.
Still, we or some of us have elected these clowns and some of us applaud their insolence and idiocy. It may help to justify our own unnecessarily cautious driving and give us a reason to foist it on everyone else whether they like it or not...
|
The real problem in this argument is that natural mimsers start from the position that these council twerps and the twerps whose bleating they respond to imagine they have been given the right to damage the roads and make them dangerous.
So a residential street in which drivers are regularly exceeding 30mph is not dangerous ... but one where cars which drive at excessive speed may be damaged is dangerous.
Where you get your dictionaries from?
|
|
|
|
|
The springs which were damaged were 2 rear coil and one front coil. The total mileage of the car at time of breakage was 14 510 .........
Are you saying that all three failed at the same time? Curiouser and curiouser.
|
|
I took my car in for a service, and MOT, it failed it's MOT on three broken coil springs, I do not know if they all broke at the same time. I had no idea they were broken. They were found to be broken at the same time.
|
|
A large part of the problem is the extreme variation in design of hump. Some are slight, and can be taken at the legal limit, whilst others are so extreme that you have to slow to a walking pace, and even then it can be uncomfortable. You cannot always be sure what kind you are approaching. And then there are some that are not marked, due to the paint coming off, and proceeding at the legal limit (30mph) you only realise you are about to hit a hump when it is too late, and the car gets a right rattling. Someone help any motorbiker who meets one of those at night.
Edited by Webmaster on 09/07/2009 at 01:30
|
|
|
I took my car in for a service and MOT it failed it's MOT on three broken coil springs .......... I had no idea they were broken. They were found to be broken at the same time.
I'm surprised that nobody has suggested that you might have been the victim of a member of that infamous brotherhood of unscrupulous franchised dealers. ;-)
Seriously though, have you seen the three broken springs?
|
I'm surprised that nobody has suggested that you might have been the victim of a member of that infamous brotherhood of unscrupulous franchised dealers. ;-)
In the days of 1 year warranty, I had my wife's 4yr old Clio serviced at a Renault dealer and they called to say both rear springs were broken. I went to have a look and they were broken in exactly the same place and the metal in the break was extremely shiny.
The dealer staff said it would fail MOT and looked dismayed when I told them it had passed its MOT the day before. I asked them to replace the springs FOC and they laughed. I called Renault Customer Service and had a fair but firm conversation with one of their people and 15mins later the dealer called to book it in with Renault picking up the whole bill.
I'm absolutely convinced that they either broke the springs on purpose, or else caused them to break. It a very quick and easy £200 job to change the rear springs on a Clio.
|
|
|
|
|
|
