Traffic Calming

modsandmockers

I have long thought that so-called traffic calming measures cause more aggravation than calming! If the humps were much closer together, then drivers would have nothing to gain by accelerating between humps. It would probably be possible to come up with some kind of formula which would provide a perfect pattern of humps and bumps to suit any particular speed limit. It might also be possible to provide a lane which would allow cyclists to match the speed of non-cyclists, and give them some kind of equality with other road-users.

Hedgehog99

I prefer cameras to physical calming. Drive as you should and there is no consequence from the camera, but you still get movement / wear & tear from the physical calming. People with neck pain etc can suffer badly. Additional chemical and noise pollution also results from acceleration/deceleration.

When I used to cycle, I hated badly-designed calming (e.g. pinch-points) that brought me into conflict with motorists. Also, with the stop-start of humps, the car would be alongside me for longer rather than passed and gone.

I'd be seriously put off buying a house in a road with physical calming - it'd warn me of local problems and I wouldn't want to have to drive through the calming every day. I wouldn't want to live on a rat-run either, of course.

wealdroam

modsandmockers wrote: »

It would probably be possible to come up with some kind of formula which would provide a perfect pattern of humps and bumps to suit any particular speed limit.

This formula would also need to consider the wheelbase of all the vehicles using that stretch of road.

modsandmockers

Hedgehog99 wrote: »

I prefer cameras to physical calming. Drive as you should and there is no consequence from the camera, but you still get movement / wear & tear from the physical calming. People with neck pain etc can suffer badly. Additional chemical and noise pollution also results from acceleration/deceleration.

When I used to cycle, I hated badly-designed calming (e.g. pinch-points) that brought me into conflict with motorists. Also, with the stop-start of humps, the car would be alongside me for longer rather than passed and gone.

I understand what you say, but cameras are even more intermittent than speed bumps, and can create their own kind of pinch point. It ought to be possible to design a road surface which would create a certain level of noise and/or vibration which would encourage drivers to maintain a steady speed.

wealdroam wrote: »

This formula would also need to consider the wheelbase of all the vehicles using that stretch of road.

No - the formula would be applied across the carriageway, with the exception of a fairly narrow lane for cyclists.

brat

Jump the humps, zip past the cagers!

I love traffic calming!

wealdroam

modsandmockers wrote: »

No - the formula would be applied across the carriageway, with the exception of a fairly narrow lane for cyclists.

I think you are mixing up wheelbase and track.

For clarity, wheelbase is the distance between the front and rear axles, and of course if there are more than two axles then your formula need to take that measurement into account too.

Track is the distance between two wheels on the same axle.

It appears to me to be impossible to produce a formula that would be able to regulate all vehicles with various wheelbases to the required speed limit... unless of course these humps were movable and reacted as each vehicle passes.

fred246

There are some speed bumps at the entrance to my work that are quite entertaining. There is a gap at the left so cyclists can avoid them. I cycle quite quickly but some motorists have to overtake you at all costs. They drive alongside you and then see the speed bumps. The ones with a few neurones then stop and give up but a lot carry on regardless and hit the bump at full speed. BANG BANG. There must be some broken springs and suspension damage all to overtake a cyclist.

esuhl

modsandmockers wrote: »

I have long thought that so-called traffic calming measures cause more aggravation than calming!

It very much depends on how the "traffic calming" measures are implemented. A road near me was changed about 12-ish years ago, with traffic islands, chicanes and speed bumps put in. The layout somehow made it quite exhilarating to drive -- taking the racing line right up to the traffic islands and zig-zagging back to the kerb, hopping over the speed-ramps, etc. It made a boring road a lot of fun!

But it didn't make the road any safer -- nervous people would be confused by the layout, and confident people would see it as a challenge. Both "types" would be distracted by the road layout, and be less able to focus on potential hazards such as pedestrians or cyclists.

Thankfully, someone saw sense and the road was re-designed (although it took a few years).

Traffic calming can be done well... but it is often done very badly in a way that infuriates drivers. Just like cycle paths can be done well, but so often infuriate and endanger cyclists enough that ignoring them is the best option.

I've also been flabbergasted at other local road improvements -- where, say, a roundabout with two approaching lanes, and room for two lanes of traffic round the roundabout... has been altered so that the two lanes split into three on the approach... with three cars side-by-side trying to jostle for position in the two-lane width of the roundabout.

There are also plenty of traffic-light controlled junctions where there are three lanes at the lights, that suddenly become two lanes on the other side. Merging lanes really shouldn't happen on (or close to) a junction. It's crazy.

Tobster86

"These so called speed humps are a terrible idea. If anything, they slow you down!"

PDC

modsandmockers wrote: »

I have long thought that so-called traffic calming measures cause more aggravation than calming! If the humps were much closer together, then drivers would have nothing to gain by accelerating between humps. It would probably be possible to come up with some kind of formula which would provide a perfect pattern of humps and bumps to suit any particular speed limit.

They tried to so something like this on a road locally. It was a series of long 20m strips wherein the idea was if you drove over the strips below/on the speed limit it would be smooth but if you went over at speed it would rattle your car about. It didn't really work, it rattled your car no matter what speed you went over it so it was more tempting to get over it as quick as possible as it was to slow for it.

modsandmockers

It’s a bit of a paradox that motor vehicle technology and road technology is now so advanced that we are forced to downgrade their potential by the somewhat Neanderthal method of placing obstacles in the way!

We hear more and more about the brave new world of driverless motor vehicles, but in the meantime more and more road vehicles already have speed management systems which are switched on and off electronically. It ought to be possible for a speed limit sign to incorporate an overhead gizmo which would remotely activate a motor vehicle’s speed limiter/retarder. Any motor vehicle which regularly recorded a manual over-ride of the speed limiter/retarder would be liable to be investigated by the authorities.

In a 20mph zone, one of the problems would be that motorists would sometimes be overtaken by unregulated cyclists, so probably the motorists would need to equip themselves with some kind of roof-mounted zapper which would be capable of causing considerable pain.