No Access to Home without Several Speed Humps

cyclonebri1

Just realised why the UK is embarking on another Badger cull, was against now decidedly for, bovine tb anyone.

fatbadger2

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Just realised why the UK is embarking on another Badger cull, was against now decidedly for, bovine tb anyone.

poor badger!

fatbadger2

DirectDebacle wrote: »

All very interesting. The debate has moved the topic of the original post, of someone who feels their vehicle is virtually marooned because it has been surrounded by a tide of speed humps, to the speed a china teapot can be safely driven at.

Speed is not in itself dangerous but, as almost anything else in life, carries an element of risk. In driving, at any speed, by constantly assessing the risk factors that may or may not be present will determine whether or not the speed is appropriate.

As an example I can be driving at 50mph on a road and the circumstances (risks) at the time dictate that this speed is as safe as it can possibly be.

Circumstances change and a fat badger waddles out into the road in front of me. Re-assessing the risk determines whether it is safer, for me and other road users, to come to a controlled stop, allowing it to continue its journey unharmed, or continue and squash the T.B. carrying creature into the tarmac.

The speed itself under these circumstances is neither safe nor unsafe but one of several factors that need to be considered in making a risk assessment. Similarly the OP has to assess the risk of regularly driving over speed humps poses to the integrity of their vehicle. Some options are to campaign to have some or all of the speed humps removed, change vehicles, move house to a road where there are no speed humps or perhaps consider they are making a mountain out of a speed hump.

I agree almost entirely. There, I've said it

But the OP was about speed humps. Speed humps are not on 50 mph roads they're on 20 mph roads. And I have never ever had a car that cannot deal with a speed hump tackled at less than 20 mph.

The OP is not marooned, he/she is (in my opinion) simply impatient.

Lets just agree that I'm right :rotfl:and I do waddle with style

Indout96

they're on 20 mph roads

They are on 30 mph roads !!!
And last night whilst driving over the 6 in 1/4 mile near work at 18mph (indicated so probably slightly lower) as this gives the best ride over (its a convertible so flex is an issue) I had a car 6 inch from my rear, high beams flashing and weaving out then back in (there were cars coming the other way) when they flew past after the humps they pulled in slamming on brakes with the aim of intimidating me. Now I'm 6'4'' and there are several items in my car to use as "Weapons" but change that to a young girl alone in the car and where is the safety there.
Yes it was the fault of the antagonistic driver but there are plenty of them around and had I not been "in the way" they would have sped over the humps anyway.

Lum

fatbadger2 wrote: »

But the OP was about speed humps. Speed humps are not on 50 mph roads they're on 20 mph roads. And I have never ever had a car that cannot deal with a speed hump tackled at less than 20 mph.

How fortunate for you that you don't have any severe back problems or similar disabilities.

Rossy.

Lum wrote: »

How fortunate for you that you don't have any severe back problems or similar disabilities.

Without sounding rude "your" back issue is the only thing you've mentioned in relation to speed hump safety in this thread.

Now i sympathise and am fortunate to not have any back problems but please dont use a back problem as the sole reason speed humps should not be installed.

My boss has severe back pain - And yes he states they do cause him discomfort, but he clearly states he'd rather them than not at all.

I suppose it differes as a matter of opinion but seriously you've metioned your back problems so many times in this thread already.

Lum

Actually I've discussed a number of safety issues caused by speed bumps, for example how they provide an additional distraction to drivers as they attempt to line up or go around the hump. That additional distraction makes a driver less likely to spot a pedestrian stepping out. For bonus points, an alarming number of pedestrians think that the full width speed bumps are pedestrian rights of way so you double the effect by encouraging pedestrians to step out without looking at the same time as a driver is more likely to be distracted.

There's also the noise issue for residents as cars slow down and speed up for each hump, not to mention the increased pollution and CO2 from this.

The other one I brought up is the delays to the emergency services. Where I live there are a lot of elderly residents and we usually see at least one ambulance a week. I think it wasv the London ambulance service that went on record saying that each speed bump costs them 10 seconds of response time, so 6 of them and you lose a minute. In the event of a stroke or a heart attack that could make the difference between a full recovery and death or brain damage.

So, yeah, the fact that they also discriminate against disabled people is just one of many reasons why they shouldn't be installed. (Just to clarify, I don't make any claim to be disabled myself)

cyclonebri1

fatbadger2 wrote: »

poor badger!

Kill the !!!!er, poor or otherwise.

Quote;

But the OP was about speed humps. Speed humps are not on 50 mph roads they're on 20 mph roads. And I have never ever had a car that cannot deal with a speed hump tackled at less than 20 mph.


This seems to be in your own mind, we are talking 30's here, not 1 hour per day 20's.

Badger never driven a proper sports car then?????????????????, No I guessed not.;)

almillar

Ha I see the irony of my 'safe bonnet' comment was completely missed by fatbadger. Oh well.
Also the point I was making about driving at 10mph everywhere, and fatbadger said to use my common sense - you've proved my point entirely - my point being, I'm not allowed to use my common sense if there's a huge lump of tarmac in the way can I? If people used their common sense, the bumps wouldn't be necessary.

esmerobbo

johnson293 wrote: »

Then complain to your respective council instead of venting on an internet forum.

While I obviously can't comment on your own individual streets/estates, I know that if there weren't speed bumps on the estate road going around our estate, it would be like a race track.

The speed bumps/humps are there to do a job, and they do that job well on our estate.

There aren't any on our actual street, but there isn't a speeding problem (yet) on the street either.

I agree with your comments about the use of traffic calming devices, and totally agree with the idea. I do however think that they sometimes have the opposite effect to the one they are trying to stop. We have 3 in our street all it seems to have done is make the boy racers see how quick they can get from one to the next before having to slow down again!