Traffic Calming

MacMickster

I tend to slow down to approximately 2 mph when I encounter speed humps (clearly what they were designed to make you do) then accelerate up to the speed limit of the road with as much noise as possible as soon as my rear wheel has cleared it. The more of these menaces that there are on a road then the more noise that I will make to annoy the local residents.

If people ignore the speed limits then enforce them. If it is considered that lower speed limits are necessary then introduce them (and accept the consequential environmental damage). To try to make people drive slower than the legal limit is utter stupidity however and causes significant problems for those with muscular and skeletal problems.

Take a leaf from my book and "encourage" local residents to campaign to have these menaces removed.

MacMickster

fred246 wrote: »

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.

You think that the speed humps are there just to make cars go slower? Surely they are there to make TRAFFIC go slower to make the roads safer for pedestrians.

If you are cycling faster than cars through these stretches then YOU have a serious attitude problem which needs correction.

esuhl

MacMickster wrote: »

You think that the speed humps are there just to make cars go slower? Surely they are there to make TRAFFIC go slower to make the roads safer for pedestrians.

If you are cycling faster than cars through these stretches then YOU have a serious attitude problem which needs correction.

Speed bumps are there to slow motor vehicles to below the speed limit so that they are less likely to break the speed limit before reaching the next speed bump.

Cyclists aren't able to accelerate quickly to speed-limit-breaking velocity (and aren't bound by speed limits anyway), so speed bumps aren't intended to slow cyclists.

The potential damage and injuries sustained in a collision with a pedestrian are related to the energy transferred by the momentum of the impact. Momentum is the product of velocity and mass, so the greater mass of motor vehicles means that, at any given speed, they are more likely to cause more severe injuries.

Also, the smaller width of a bicycle means that is much easier for a cyclist to avoid hitting a pedestrian than a motorist on a collision-course.

MacMickster

esuhl wrote: »

Speed bumps are there to slow motor vehicles to below the speed limit so that they are less likely to break the speed limit before reaching the next speed bump.

Cyclists aren't able to accelerate quickly to speed-limit-breaking velocity (and aren't bound by speed limits anyway), so speed bumps aren't intended to slow cyclists.

The potential damage and injuries sustained in a collision with a pedestrian are related to the energy transferred by the momentum of the impact. Momentum is the product of velocity and mass, so the greater mass of motor vehicles means that, at any given speed, they are more likely to cause more severe injuries.

Also, the smaller width of a bicycle means that is much easier for a cyclist to avoid hitting a pedestrian than a motorist on a collision-course.

Absolute nonsense. Speed humps are there to slow traffic. Although speed limits don't generally apply to cyclists this is predominantly due to most of those primitive bits of kit not having anything for the rider to use to monitor their speed. They can however be prosecuted for cycling furiously.

In areas where speed humps have been installed to slow traffic, then this law should be used to take action against any cyclist who doesn't slow to walking speed whilst going through that area.

I do know a number of cyclists who appear to be permanently furious. Lock a few up until they calm down and the world would be a far better place for all road users.

esuhl

MacMickster wrote: »

In areas where speed humps have been installed to slow traffic, then this law should be used to take action against any cyclist who doesn't slow to walking speed whilst going through that area.

I'm surprised you aren't suggesting that cyclists should be required to be led by someone on foot with a red flag to warn approaching traffic! :rotfl:

I do know a number of drivers who appear to be permanently furious. Lock a few up until they calm down and the world would be a far better place for all road users.

MacMickster

esuhl wrote: »

I'm surprised you aren't suggesting that cyclists should be required to be led by someone on foot with a red flag to warn approaching traffic! :rotfl:

Forget the red flag. Just make it mandatory to switch to using hexagonal wheels whilst cycling in built-up areas (ie attach the speed humps to the cycle so that they can't be ignored).

esuhl

MacMickster wrote: »

Forget the red flag. Just make it mandatory to switch to using hexagonal wheels whilst cycling in built-up areas (ie attach the speed humps to the cycle so that they can't be ignored).

Hey! I think you're onto something there! :rotfl:

brat

MacMickster wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Speed humps are there to slow traffic. Although speed limits don't generally apply to cyclists this is predominantly due to most of those primitive bits of kit not having anything for the rider to use to monitor their speed. They can however be prosecuted for cycling furiously.

Not normally. If prosecuted it's usually for careless or dangerous, rather than furious cycling, which requires other criteria.

Tobster86

MacMickster wrote: »

In areas where speed humps have been installed to slow traffic, then this law should be used to take action against any cyclist who doesn't slow to walking speed whilst going through that area.

So one minute, you claim to deliberately make a lot of engine noise to prove your point against speed humps to local residents, but then the next, state that they serve a function that cyclists should be equally (actually, worsely) subjected to?

I think someone's part of the 'jealous that I have to sit stationary in a lot of traffic' brigade, and is also probably a bit fat.

Richard53

Possibly an urban myth, but I read that somewhere in America they decided that the best way to regulate speed on a particular stretch was to time the traffic lights so that a car that maintained 30 mph got a set of green lights, whereas anyone driving faster was of course interrupted by reds every time. Great idea, but it was abandoned when someone realised that what works for 30 mph also works for 60, and 90 as well.