IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Speed Humps.., Save lives or a drain on motorist money?
Brad
post Feb 22 2011, 12:54 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 18-June 10
Member No.: 954



It's not only potholes causing the motorists to spend out. Speed humps.. I drive up shaw hill almost every day in my classic mini and really annoy other motorist by having to go 2mph over the monster sized speed humps. Not only do I have to either drive in between 2 of then (Illegal) or 1 wheel over the middle which destroys the suspension, if i go through as I'm supposed to I scrape the standard exhaust even going at 1mph.

Maybe I should send repair costs through to the WBC and see how it goes? wink.gif

Actually selling the car now due to prices it costs to drive are ridiculous repairs/petrol/ tax/ins easily save myself a good £3000 a year by walking 2 hours a day!!

Oops should be in random rants..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rosewinelover
post Feb 22 2011, 02:08 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 444
Joined: 25-June 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 966



QUOTE (Brad @ Feb 22 2011, 12:54 PM) *
It's not only potholes causing the motorists to spend out. Speed humps.. I drive up shaw hill almost every day in my classic mini and really annoy other motorist by having to go 2mph over the monster sized speed humps. Not only do I have to either drive in between 2 of then (Illegal) or 1 wheel over the middle which destroys the suspension, if i go through as I'm supposed to I scrape the standard exhaust even going at 1mph.

Maybe I should send repair costs through to the WBC and see how it goes? wink.gif

Actually selling the car now due to prices it costs to drive are ridiculous repairs/petrol/ tax/ins easily save myself a good £3000 a year by walking 2 hours a day!!

Oops should be in random rants..


I also drive up Shaw hill every day and I must admit I hate them. BUT if it saves lifes then I am all for it. Not sure how it could be proved so I suppose were stuck with them.

What could be used properly up Shaw Hill though is cyclists using the cycle lane instead of being stuck behind them all the way, Grrr
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Brad
post Feb 22 2011, 02:41 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 18-June 10
Member No.: 954



I actually got run over as a kid along that road, my fault as I wasn't looking properly. If there were speed humps back then it wouldn't have a made a difference I do not think. If there was another way to get to my job without going that way I would.. but no matter what way I go I am surrounded by speed humps!

Just annoyed at how much I am getting stung for repairs to my car that most likely wouldn't have been if it wasn't for those speed humps!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 22 2011, 03:18 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



I am not against these traffic calming devices, but many do not conform to the design requirements. If one does not conform it needs to be reported to StreetCare quoting Traffic Advisory Leaflets 1/98, 4/94 and X/06, and detailing the feature that does not conform. As with not repairing reported potholes, the Council can be liable for damage caused as a result of failing to maintain the road surface

TAL X/06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Feb 22 2011, 05:19 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



The thing is your car is not what I would consider "standard". You have an old classic which does not have decent suspension (for commuting) or shock absorbers and stupid tiny wheels. Therefore I think you have to accept a certain amount of discomfort when travelling around Newbury. Having said that I don't think the speed humps serve a purpose particularly and I don't think there is a need for them.

On the point of having to drive between them, as there is no double white line, I'm not sure that it is illegal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NWNREADER
post Feb 22 2011, 05:27 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,414
Joined: 20-November 10
Member No.: 1,265



QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 22 2011, 05:19 PM) *
The thing is your car is not what I would consider "standard". You have an old classic which does not have decent suspension (for commuting) or shock absorbers and stupid tiny wheels. Therefore I think you have to accept a certain amount of discomfort when travelling around Newbury. Having said that I don't think the speed humps serve a purpose particularly and I don't think there is a need for them.

On the point of having to drive between them, as there is no double white line, I'm not sure that it is illegal.


If the cushions comply then there shouldn't be a problem - unless your car has been lowered. The reason I don't buy a Ferrarri is the front valance catches on even legal humps/cushions.

Driving between the cushions is only likely to be trouble if there is another vehicle coming the other way.......
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Feb 22 2011, 05:39 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (NWNREADER @ Feb 22 2011, 05:27 PM) *
The reason I don't buy a Ferrarri is the front valance catches on even legal humps/cushions.

I wish that was my reason for not buying one! wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Feb 22 2011, 07:51 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



If they are similar to the ones in Kiln Road, it's the positioning of the cushions that annoys me. If nothing is coming the other way, I can straddle them at a steady 30 and not feel anything. However they are positioned too far from the kerb, so if there is oncoming traffic I have to slow right down and take the hump with the offside wheels.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gardeb
post Feb 23 2011, 10:19 AM
Post #9


Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 25
Joined: 19-December 09
Member No.: 570



[
QUOTE
quote name='Strafin' date='Feb 22 2011, 05:19 PM' post='35774']
The thing is your car is not what I would consider "standard". You have an old classic which does not have decent suspension (for commuting) or shock absorbers and stupid tiny wheels. Therefore I think you have to accept a certain amount of discomfort when travelling around Newbury. Having said that I don't think the speed humps serve a purpose particularly and I don't think there is a need for them.


Just because a car is considered a classic it is not necessarily non-standard. An old mini is a standard car and has wheels that were designed for a purpose, they are not "stupid". The suspension may not have modern features but again it serves the purpose for which it was designed. Why should someone accept discomfort simply because modern planners fail to consider all users, just the vociferous groups.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Feb 23 2011, 06:29 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,833
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (JeffG @ Feb 22 2011, 07:51 PM) *
. However they are positioned too far from the kerb, so if there is oncoming traffic I have to slow right down and take the hump with the offside wheels.

hmm.. err.. so you have to slow 'right down'... So they are achieving the desired effect presumably? What are you complaining about..? rolleyes.gif

Actually they are an absolute pain but the problem is that many residents along roads that suffer from drivers speeding past their properties demand that 'something should be done about speeding' and want the things introduced. Once they're in, the other half of the road (and the motorist who was used to travelling along at an inappropriate speed) complain about them and demand they're whipped out...

What can you do though?
Asking drivers to slow down doesn't work...
The local plod are very selective on where they set up their speed traps (only where they're guaranteed to catch some motorists in a very short time so they can tick the box of 'speeding' from their monthly targets, rather than hang around residential roads all day with no prospect of catching speeders)
Buildouts aren't very effective at slowing traffic down if there's nothing coming the other way (and even if there IS something coming the other way drivers often speed up to beat the other one through so these can make the problem worse)

If speed hump don't conform to spec report them. If they conform to spec but you don't like them then use a different road...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Feb 23 2011, 07:39 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (spartacus @ Feb 23 2011, 06:29 PM) *
hmm.. err.. so you have to slow 'right down'... So they are achieving the desired effect presumably? What are you complaining about..? rolleyes.gif

There is no need to roll your eyes at me. I am complaining that I am unable to proceed at 30mph, which is the speed limit along there. What is your point?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Feb 23 2011, 08:31 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (gardeb @ Feb 23 2011, 10:19 AM) *
[

Just because a car is considered a classic it is not necessarily non-standard. An old mini is a standard car and has wheels that were designed for a purpose, they are not "stupid". The suspension may not have modern features but again it serves the purpose for which it was designed. Why should someone accept discomfort simply because modern planners fail to consider all users, just the vociferous groups.

It served a purpose 25 years ago, now it is very much a specialist vehicle. I know there are plenty about still and it is not rare, but planners can hardly start considering cars from a byegone era as usual vehicles likely to be using the local roads. By your logic they should be considering non pneumatic tyres and model T fords!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Strafin
post Feb 23 2011, 08:32 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,930
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 55



QUOTE (JeffG @ Feb 23 2011, 07:39 PM) *
There is no need to roll your eyes at me. I am complaining that I am unable to proceed at 30mph, which is the speed limit along there. What is your point?

Exactly - it's a limit, not a target.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Feb 23 2011, 10:01 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (Strafin @ Feb 23 2011, 08:32 PM) *
Exactly - it's a limit, not a target.

I don't understand your point. If 30mph was not a safe speed for that road, the limit would (and should) be lower. Are you saying that the speed humps are designed to make traffic travel at less than the speed limit?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Feb 23 2011, 10:03 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (JeffG @ Feb 23 2011, 10:01 PM) *
I don't understand your point. If 30mph was not a safe speed for that road, the limit would (and should) be lower. Are you saying that the speed humps are designed to make traffic travel at less than the speed limit?

I hate them as well, but I would imagine they are there to reduce the average speed, rather than 'limit' the driver to 30 mph.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rosewinelover
post Feb 23 2011, 10:13 PM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 444
Joined: 25-June 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 966



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2011, 10:03 PM) *
I hate them as well, but I would imagine they are there to reduce the average speed, rather than 'limit' the driver to 30 mph.


Totally agree
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Feb 23 2011, 10:17 PM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



I can't speak for anyone else, but I would avoid buying a used car from someone who lived in an area with speed humps like those in Thatcham and Turnpike.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rosewinelover
post Feb 23 2011, 10:20 PM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 444
Joined: 25-June 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 966



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2011, 10:17 PM) *
I can't speak for anyone else, but I would avoid buying a used car from someone who lived in an area with speed humps like those in Thatcham and Turnpike.


Oh no.....I live near Turnpike and Thatcham! Thankfully I have a company car wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Feb 23 2011, 10:31 PM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Rosewinelover @ Feb 23 2011, 10:20 PM) *
Oh no.....I live near Turnpike and Thatcham! Thankfully I have a company car wink.gif

That helps!


I remember a while back, some estate - possibly in Greenham, but I am not sure - who complained of speeding and it was discovered that the majority of the speeders were from the same estate!

I suspect speed humps are a 'necessary evil', but they come at a cost. I prefer the speed awareness signs that flash on when you are going too fast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rosewinelover
post Feb 23 2011, 10:33 PM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 444
Joined: 25-June 10
From: Newbury
Member No.: 966



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Feb 23 2011, 10:31 PM) *
That helps!


I suspect speed humps are a 'necessary evil', but they come at a cost. I prefer the speed awareness signs that flash on when you are going too fast.


I always make the one past Lakeside flash up when I am doing the speed limit!! ohmy.gif blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th January 2022 - 12:01 PM