Speed bump help

[ChavWivaLawDegree]

But back to speed bumps, dangerous waste of money in my opinion.

They encourage cars to race down the centre of the road before a vehicle coming the other way makes them have to actually ride over them in the way some person with very little imagination thought they would when they were designed.

[dc]

And I therefore refer you back to my post above.

[kford]

Barnet council got rid all theirs, much to the annoyance of Ken Livingstone, who tried to withold council funding as a punishment. They saw a 14% drop in casualty rates.

[PeckhamRose]

I hate speed bumps for the following two main reasons. 1) They punish us ALL for the actions of a few. 2) You are taught to drive well by working out what is happening way ahead of you and preparing accordingly. You can't do that if you're concentrating on the immediate obstruction in front of you, again and again and again and again as each bump appears in front of you. They are specially dangerous for PTWs (powered two wheel) and cyclists as the car drivers swerve. OK, we do too.

As a motorcyclist we know that if we have an accident we are likely to come off and HURT. Even some young male riders realise this after the first smack. We have to be safer road users therefore than the average cage user with their air bag and their bumpers and their straps and so on. If all car drivers knew that if they were to have an accident by driving badly - that a pointed stick would come out from the middle of the steering wheel and puncture their forehead, you can be sure we'd all drive well and safely.

I think all road humps, traffic lights and signage should be taken away - when traffic lights do not work it is understood that there are fewer accidents because everyone usually drives more safely. The most effective thing (and "green") is a roundabout. We all know we'll be able to go when it is our turn and won't be held up unnecessarily when there is nothing else coming (like what happens when lights are red with no other traffic).

I tried to get Southwark to consider the idea, and when they stopped laughing they showed me the door, the short sighted fools.

There should only be one rule of the road. Drive on the left. The second one should be: don't hit any one or anything.

Dream lecture over. I'll get my jacket.

[kford]

PeckhamRose, I'll vote for you.

[Only me!]

I have to say that traffic calming measures are very much a two edged sword.

Humps & bumps, they do slow traffic, a bit.

& expensive as they are to install they have a much larger cost to the driver.

As has already been mentioned they cause more noise & air polution as drivers accelerate-brake-accelerate away.

But the substantial unseen cost is however very much down to the driver with the additional cost of maintaining your car.

Fuel consumption is appaling with the stop go driving & the hidden cost of replacing suspension bushes, anti-roll bars, tyres, exhausts & steering components are only revealed at annual Service time.

When the reaction is all about how expensive cars are to maintin in London!

Humps & bumps are nowhere near as effective as a luminously coated Police Officer weilding a spped gun, but unless somebody is knocked over that just doesn't seem to be a priority these days.

[lozzyloz]

I like the system in South Africa where everyone goes in turn at crossroad junctions. No need for lights just a little courtesy. I also seem to vaguely remember an experiment some years ago where they found that by merging pavements with roads, removing barriers and other distractions people actually drove slower and more carefully.

[BJL]

I came across that alternating system somewhere in the US (I think) - it seemed to work well.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't stop cars, vans and trucks racing down the road I live on (with a primary school on it).

[kford]

The US stop sign system works very well, just like their turn-right-at-a-red-if-clear idea.

[Cllr Richard Thomas]

There are very few alternatives to humps available to councils. Fore example, the police won't enforce traffic offences in 20mph zones. The best hope is average speed cameras which track a vehice's speed over a distance between two points and fines anyone who covers the ground too quickly. They are being trialled in Camden I think. I am pushing for Southwark too be allowed to install them too. Any suggestions as to where? I think Barry Road might be a good place to start.

[kford]

These devices don't work on the real speeders, because their cars are not registered at the DVLA. And, according the police and DVLA, this is a growing problem, arguably aggravated by the influx of ANPR based speed and congestion camera systems.

Average speed cameras also keep the eyes of us safe drivers fixed on the speedo and not the road, even when we're edging along at less than twenty. Look away for a second at just 20 mph and you've covered 30 feet.

Next time you're in a SPECS average speed camera roadworks zone on the motorway, count how many times you look away from the road at your clocks.

Plus, don't you think we're being watched enough these days?

[KalamityKel]

Speed cameras don't stop cars from speeding at that particular moment in time, during which they may have knocked someone/something down or caused an accident of one kind or another.

[Nero]

The growth in speeding links in with that of people not stopping at zebras and bus drivers and the like going through reds, and speeding up when they see an amber light. If people don't stop for me at zebras I wave at them, and it clicks. Nero

[KalamityKel]

On the subject of jumping red lights... there's a woman who always drive through the red light at the traffic lights by Iceland. The first time I assumed she wasn't paying attention as I could see her on a mobile. The second time I thought "oh dear" but the 8th and 9th time? PLEASE! So missy if ur reading this WAKE UP! grrrr

[kford]

ED residents, especially those around Barry Road, look forward to your ?60 fines and three points for straying up to 24 mph when you pop to the tip.

[BJL]

Cllr Richard Thomas Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There are very few alternatives to humps available

> to councils. Fore example, the police won't

> enforce traffic offences in 20mph zones. The

> best hope is average speed cameras which track a

> vehice's speed over a distance between two points

> and fines anyone who covers the ground too

> quickly.

I live near Goodrich School and the speed that cars race up and down Dunstan's Road (a shortcut between LL and Peckham)and Upland Road is often frightening. I can't see how the "average speed cameras" would work on those roads.

kford Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ED residents, especially those around Barry Road,

> look forward to your ?60 fines and three points

> for straying up to 24 mph when you pop to the tip.

Barry Road itself has a 30mph limit, doesn't it? Why people need to drive in excess of 20mph on the "back roads" off Barry Road is beyond me, since the travelling time "saved" is negligible and it justs put others at risk.

[Mark]

Why not just put police there with speed guns every now and then? Word will get out that it's a speed trap area and some will slow down, and the others that Kford mentioned who are not registered will be busted.

[BJL]

kford Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> These devices don't work on the real speeders,

> because their cars are not registered at the DVLA.

I wasn't aware of this and would be interested to see some evidence to support this statement.

[Siduhe]

A 2007 DoT survey estimated that 6% of cars in regular use were untaxed. It also concluded that these drivers were more likely to flout traffic and parking laws because they were at less risk of being caught and fined (due to the fact their cars are unregistered). Can't find a direct ref, but here's a link to the AA press release about it.

http://www.theaa.com/public_affairs/reports/roadtax-evasion-feb2007.pdf

[Cllr Richard Thomas]

I agree that policiing of speed offences would be a very good step forward. For reasons I don't understand the police don't want to enforce 20mph zones.

There is evidence that illegal drivers are more likely to commit offences. But there is also evidence that the vast majority of road users speed too - around 80% admit to speeding in surveys.

[kford]

There is also evidence, from the DoT (Sept 2006), that speeding is responsible only for 5% of accicents. That means that on Barry Road, for example, 95% of accidents are through other causes, like driver error, using mobile phones, being drunk/high/tired or driving too close to the car in front, driving an unroadworthy car. It would be a better use of resources, would it not, to target and educate drivers who fall into this category rather than the majority of law-abding drivers who may inadvertently stray above a 20 mph limit.

Here are two possible solutions:

1. Remove all road markings and signage. The Dutch have experimented with this and found that the eye contact between drivers, cyclist and pedestrians made for safe and calm urban roads. See this BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4213221.stm

2. Active road signs. The ones that flash up the limit, or your speed when you pass. There are a few already in Southwark, they work nicely in gently shaming passing speeders.

[KalamityKel]

I always get confused with those active ones - seeing which driver it means :s

[kford]

There are clever ones which flash up your reg. Maybe they should have 'dickhead' added underneath.

[BJL]

kford Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> There is also evidence, from the DoT (Sept 2006),

> that speeding is responsible only for 5% of

> accicents. That means that on Barry Road, for

> example, 95% of accidents are through other

> causes, like driver error, using mobile phones,

> being drunk/high/tired or driving too close to the

> car in front, driving an unroadworthy car.

I assume you got that 5% figure from this report? It also states (table 4f) that other contributory factors in accidents are:

Careless, reckless or in a hurry 18%

Travelling too fast for conditions 11%

While it's obvious that accidents are not simply caused by people exceeding the speed limit, it's undeniable that when accidents do occur, the damage done is far greater.

> Here are two possible solutions:

>

> 1. Remove all road markings and signage. The Dutch

> have experimented with this and found that the eye

> contact between drivers, cyclist and pedestrians

> made for safe and calm urban roads. See this BBC

> article:

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4213221.stm

I'd like to see trials of the Dutch method but I'm not sure how effective it would prove. I think the problem is the aggressive nature of a large number of drivers in this country and their addiction to fast driving.

> 2. Active road signs. The ones that flash up the

> limit, or your speed when you pass. There are a

> few already in Southwark, they work nicely in

> gently shaming passing speeders.

Yes, I agree - these seem to have some effect.

[Cllr Richard Thomas]

The issue with speed is not just about the cause of the crash but the impact the crash then has. Hit by a car travellling at 40mph, nine out of ten children will be killed. At 20mph its one in ten.