Don't think any of us, NW and me incuded, like humps, Lud, but we dislike people who do silly speeds down unsuitable roads even more, and regretably humps seem to be the one thing that bring common sense speeds to these roads where drivers should know better and already be driving slower... And the "normal" way of driving over them seems to be to speed up between them which is why pollution is higher, rather than keep a lower constant speed which is far more sensible and less polluting...
Your jibe is directed at the wrong people, the polluting speeders should be your target...
|
the polluting speeders should be your target...
What polluting speeders?
The point of that story is that these stupid humps, which do nothing to bring commonsense to the infinitesimally tiny minority of reckless drivers, force everyone not only to slow to an uncomfortable, unnecessarily slow crawl, but also greatly increase pollution.
I accept that you and NW don't like speed humps. That being the case though, I think you are being misguided, and perhaps perverse, when you justify the things.
|
the infinitesimally tiny minority of reckless drivers
I think you may be deliberately a little obtuse here, Lud. In some neighbourhoods the frequency of speeding has forced the introduction of clumsy measures to reduce it, and no-one has come up with a better solution. 'Small' minority I might accept, but 'infinitesimally tiny' - no. If it were that small nothing would need to be done about the problem.
|
|
|
(humps) force everyone not only to slow to an uncomfortable unnecessarily slow crawl but also greatly increase pollution.
Isn't it true that speed humps "cause" pollution not because of the speed of traffic going over them, but because of the throttle on/brake on driving technique of some of the lesser-abled drivers as they traverse the things?
|
driving technique of some of the lesser-abled drivers as they traverse the things?
Damn cheek FT.
You may have a car that will traverse these obstacles at a bearable steady speed, but not everyone has. You may have the time - like NW and b308 - to go over the worse bumps at the speed they impose, and dawdle between them at the same speed, but not everyone has.
I speak with particular bitterness because the car I have now is less able over bumps than the shed I have been driving.
I can't imagine why you carphounds are so complacent about being forced to crawl everywhere. In some cases perhaps you are relieved not to have to mix it with the traffic at normal speeds, but obviously not in all cases. Perverse, that's what it is. It's the only explanation.
'Hit me! Hit me! I'm bad! I've got a car!'
Faugh.
|
I can't imagine why you carphounds are so complacent about being forced to crawl everywhere.
I would like you to withdraw that remark. It's offensive.
|
It's offensive.
Oh all right then, 'you individuals' or 'you specimens'. I'm sure most of you aren't carphounds except in your tolerant attitude to this local-authority vandalism and arrogance.
|
|
|
|
You may have a car that will traverse these obstacles at a bearable steady speed but not everyone has.
I don't think the difference is in the cars. My Almera is the hardest-spring vehicle I've ever used on a regular basis, but still manages to comfortably over most bumps at 10-15mph.
You may have the time - like NW and b308 - to go over the worse bumps at the speed they impose and dawdle between them at the same speed but not everyone has.
Lud, you complain about any constraint on your speed, so your idea of dawdling may not be universally shared.
Do a little maths. A road with speed-bumps is not one where you should be driving at 30mph even in their absence, but let's suppose that you'd go right at the 30mph maximum without the bumps. Suppose there's a half-mile of speed bumps, which you can take only at 10mph. Well a half mile at 30 mph will take you one minute, and at 10mph it'll take you three minutes -- a difference of only two minutes to your journey. What's the big deal?
I can't imagine why you carphounds are so complacent about being forced to crawl everywhere.
I'm somewhat bemused by the image of Lud driving around purple-faced about the wicked injustice of his journey taking a minute or two longer. Do yourself a favour, and relax a bit.
In some cases perhaps you are relieved not to have to mix it with the traffic at normal speeds but obviously not in all cases. Perverse that's what it is. It's the only explanation.
Nope, in my case I'll go at or near the limit on an open road, but on the urban or suburban streets where children may dart out between parked cars it's antisocial folly to go anywhere near the 30mph maximum (which should in most cases be reduced to 20 anyway). Pedestrians can cross the road more safely if vehicles are slower, and slower cars make less noise.
'Hit me! Hit me! I'm bad! I've got a car!'
Nope -- the problem is not the car. The issue here is that you want to appear to want to use your car as if urban streets existed solely for cars, rather than as shared spaces from which other users are pushed off if vehicle speeds are too high.
|
and slower cars make less noise.
No they dont!
At least not over speed bumps......
brake squeal, KERRRPLUMP...., sound of needless acceleration,
brake squeal, KERRRPLUMP...., sound of needless acceleration,
brake squeal, KERRRPLUMP...., sound of needless acceleration,
that 3 humps ....
brake squeal, KERRRPLUMP...., CLANG...... sound of road spring breaking,... OH BOTHER (sound of driver cursing more expense - and a week off the road.......
;-)
|
|
|
on the urban or suburban streets where children may dart out between parked cars it's antisocial folly to go anywhere near the 30mph maximum (which should in most cases be reduced to 20 anyway). Pedestrians can cross the road more safely if vehicles are slower, and slower cars make less noise.
This seems to be the kernel of what you say NW. What a load of silly exaggerated cobblers it is. Not much of it is true and none of it is relevant.
Why coin soppy expressions like 'shared space', if not in the attempt to justify arrogant interference with our use of places we have been 'sharing' with others all our lives? All this crap about children darting out and 30 being too fast for most urban and suburban streets is pathetic ideological garbage, based on nothing but a few old biddies and council wonks conspiring in a smoke-filled room. That moronic and malleable thing 'public opinion' is the playing field of these power-crazed idiots. Either you are their victim, or you are one of them. Either way you are seriously wrong.
No meeting of minds is possible for us on this question. You are an extremist and what you say is based largely on fantasy.
|
Either way you are seriously wrong.
>>
Or perhaps you are, Lud...
No meeting of minds is possible for us on this question. You are an extremist and what you say is based largely on fantasy.
I don't feel that either NW or I are "extremists" on this subject, Lud, but you are. We simply say that in an urban environment the speed limit should be lower to reflect the increased risk of accidents with more vulnerable users... regretably many (and I'd say its the majority rather than a minority) seem to think that a 30 limit is too low... so that leads to other methods of slowing people down as they obviously won't do it of their own accord, as we've said we don't like humps either, but the only other guaranteed method of keeping people within a safe limit would be limiters on all vehicles, is that what you want?
Or are you saying that a 30 limit is too low for such areas, in which case what do you suggest is acceptable, and why?
|
I do think there are a lot of places where the existing (often recently applied) 30 limit is too low, yes. I can think of places where 40, 50 and 60 limits are too low as well.
But I regret having been tempted into this argument and becoming annoyed with NW. It isn't as if this hasn't been rehearsed a few times in the past, after all. And we become a bit boring banging on like this, NW and I. Get tempted into digs and jabs that aren't always polite or strictly accurate.
OK: you and NW be the cheese-guzzling sheep and I will be a disagreeable old chalk-nibbling goat (we can do it the other way round if you would find that more flattering). I'm sure we could all get on famously, out of sight and out of mind of any road or vehicle.
|
Probably would get on even in sight of any road vehicle as well, Lud, this is only one aspect of motoring, I seem to remember we have things in common as well!
I really don't know what the answer is regarding inappropraite speed and the need to enforce limits because people can't or won't keep their speed down when they need to, the only ones that come up as ways of doing it (humps, limiters etc) just seem too draconian... but they tend to be the only ones that actually work...
Now if we could persuade people to be more responsible in their driving habits...
|
>>Now if we could persuade people to be more responsible in their driving habits...
If the insurers were truly meeting all the costs of an accident, increased premiums for those involved in accidents where innocent parties are injured would provide a natural feedback mechanism. This would, after a settling in period, focus minds without any state or council roads department involvement. The need for speed limits, and other roadway impediments would also largely dissolve away.
|
|
Assuming all drivers did actually insure their cars, I think if premiums incrased there would be a corresponding increase in the uninsured figures...
|
|
NW - you say, inter alia "A road with speed-bumps is not one where you should be driving at 30mph even in their absence". If what you say is correct then the limit is too high! While I accept that a 30 limit is a limit, not a target, it should be possible to drive down that road at 29 mph, in safe and appropriate circumstances, without shredding your tyres, loosening your fillings, wrecking parts of your suspension and producing extra noise and pollution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
***Don't think any of us, NW and me incuded, like humps, Lud, but we dislike people who do silly speeds down unsuitable roads even more, and regretably humps seem to be the one thing that bring common sense speeds to these roads where drivers should know better and already be driving slower... And the "normal" way of driving over them seems to be to speed up between them which is why pollution is higher, rather than keep a lower constant speed which is far more sensible and less polluting***
Well said b308, says it all really, but I do 'take on board' Luds point about the majority having to suffer for the minority of nutters on the roads,
|
Reduce pollution, stop annoying people who are trying to drive down a road at a steady, safe and legal speed, stop wrecking people's tyres and suspensions, get rid of the humps and bumps and have a speed camera blitz. They are known to be a great source of income and the law could be altered to allow for on-the-spot and perhaps lower fines for people who admit speeding. It is already on the spot for phone use, no seatbelts etc. Just get the mobile cameras out, enforce the law in a sensible way and raise some money. It's a result!
|
We have them on our street, I don't like them but before the speed of **most** motorists was nearer 40 instead of the limit of 30 which is all the road is suitable for, so, sorry, Lud, but based on my own experience, it was the **majority** rather than minority.
No doubt you know of other roads where the opposite is true, but I can only speak from my own experience.
Re AS's post, regretably there are far too many roads in towns and villages for that to be a viable solution... and as soon as the van moves on the speeds go back up!
Edited by b308 on 13/07/2009 at 16:18
|
b308, I was slightly tongue in cheek, obviously! However, if mobile cameras were put on roads with a reported high incidence of 'speeders' they might raise enough money to fund their own existence and maybe have enough left over to buy more vans. Might even raise enough to get the police element of the Council Tax down. My lot in Lincolnshire wanted an 85% increase in the policing element this year, and they got it, until Central Government told them to back off! If it is Government policy to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by 2020 where do speed thingys fit into the equation as a positive contribution?
|
|
|
|
I complained to my local Council a few years ago about the inordinate number of light/medium commercial vehicles being kept on the feeder road near where I live, obstructing the road and making passage hazardous.. I stress 'kept' rather than 'parked' temporarily. Storage of vehicles on the grass verges was a problem too. They wrote back and said it was a good thing because it slowed traffic down. Shortly after that they placed some of the most vicious speed humps imaginable. Less than 10mph is the appropriate speed for them, so we still have all the atationary vehicles to contend with as well as the speed humps. I really don't know how people manage to see other things around them what with avoiding oncoming vehicles, driving around obstacles and trying to avoid suspension and tyre damage. As for driving at the same speed between the humps, forget it. I'm not travelling at 10mph is 2nd gear for 2 miles (unless I knew I'd got a Councillor or Highway Engineer behind me). Of course they increase carbon emissions, and noise for that matter.
|
The very people at whom the speed hump is targetted treat them as take off ramps. Our local "boy racers" try to get "big air" off them. This of course totally negates their purpose. Hateful things.
If 30mph is proven or even widely regarded as too fast for a given road, indeed there are some where I would support that view, then make the limit 20 or 15 or whatever the need requires. Find a way of enforcing it and do away with the wretched humps.
Simples.
|
I can't believe that CO2 impact of speed bumps is amything approaching that of all of Fiji.
Anyway, if people drove properly we wouldn't need speed bumps. OK, they are irritating but if you're a pedestrian, cyclist or a resident living on a rat-run, the bumps are preferable to speeding traffic.
|
And if you are in the back of an ambulance dying they are a bit of a nuisance! Same for fire engines and SWAT teams and hot pursuits too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I come across so few speed humps that when I do see one it takes me by surprise and I involuntarily pass wind as I go over it. That's the only pollution effect of speed humps of which I can think.
|
I come across so few speed humps ............
Where do you live Mr Snail?
round these parts (Thames Valley) the darn things are so common I would say theres as much tarmac piled in heaps on the road, as there is on the actual road surface!
Humps and needless traffic lights are a nightmare... it now takes me over 1/2 an hour to travel 7 miles, 6 of which is the A40 - AND thats at 6am!
BTW theres one hump (1st one heading towards Caversham, passing through Sonning) that hurts my back, at any speed over 5mph.....
|
|
|
Here in rural Leicestershire we have negative speed bumps to slow traffic. They are known locally as 'Potholes!'
|
They are known locally as 'Potholes!'
We have those as well.... great fun dodging them AND the humps, while watching the traffic lights....
Hmmm just thinking - how do we find the time to look where we are actually going?
|
Hmmm just thinking - how do we find the time to look where we are actually going?
Much better to keep to tha rules rather than to look where you are going and anticipate hazards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
