Invisible speed camera + traffic calming rants

[Steve]

I was chuckling to myself earlier. On the way home from where I work is a speed camera - front facing on the left grass verge. Cant miss it. A few weeks ago, someone blew it up. I had to laugh earlier, as everyone was still slowing down for this square post and camera bracket at the side of the road! Funny what psychological effect speeds cameras have!

And on the way to my new place of work is a road which, for about a mile, goes through a village, and traffic calming measures have been put there. This consists of little humps in the middle of the road, faintly painted with little white arrows. I didn't see the first hump the first time, due to it being practically invisible Bet it knocked a couple of PSIs out of my tyres. Anyway, you CAN drive over the humps at 30, if you align the wheels right, but some are on bends, and it is rather irritating when they make the rear end "skid" out slightly as the back end passes over/between them.

Theres a zebra crossing too. Now the sign does say "humped zebra crossing", but driving on and off it, theres an almighty bang, its like driving up a frigging kerb! You have to slow riiight down to make it bearable. I thought the idea of these things was to keep people at 30, not 5! [/rant]

 

[ban-all-sheds]

If I had the time and the money I would love to take a council to court to sue them for damage to my car because they had deliberately made it damaging to the car to drive at the posted speed limit.

It can't be right.

 

[securespark]

I feel exactly the same. And if my car ever suffers this way, I will make my council suffer.

 

[paulbrown]

Can't remember where it actually was, but there was a case where a council completely surrounded a cemetry with these things. The hearses etc were all either getting stuck or ripping of their exhausts because of their extra long wheelbases. I seem to recall the mourners had to get out of the cars in some instances because they were jammed solid on the humps

 

[Gary_M]

Yep, fully agree. I had to sell one of the cars because they had put these sleeping policemen down many of the roads I needed to travel. The car was too low to the ground to get over them I didn't have the car lowered, it was 'naturally' low due to its design.

What I always wondered was - the car always sailed through the MOT, which basically meant that it was 'road-worthy', so how can the Council's make their roads 'unworthy' for the car? Surely the car then posed a risk, because the front and rear lower spoilers were likely to have been ripped off by going over these speed-bumps - posing an immediate risk to anyone behind me. There were no signs to say that the road was unsuitable for certain vehicles, but more to the point, I pay my road tax, so I feel entitled to use that stretch of road if my car has been passed as road-worthy

 

[keyplayer]

30 mph is the speed limit, not a mandatory speed at which to drive. Speed humps are an effective way of slowing traffic - let's have more of them and cameras I say. If you damage your car on the humps, tough luck, and if you haven't manage to spot them then you probably shouldn't be driving in the first place. A lot of roundabouts fall within 30mph limits. That doesn't mean you plough straight over them at 30mph, you slow down and negotiate your way around them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Roundabouts, junctions, bends - all of these things are inevitable features which mean you have to slow down, or even stop.

Can you really not see the difference between those, and the deliberate introduction of features that are designed to damage vehicles, or render them dangerously unstable?

If on a stretch of road it is felt that the speed limit should be 10mph not 30, then the way to do that is to reduce the speed limit to 10mph, not to re-engineer the road so that becomes unusable or damaging to vehicles that are being driven legally.

 

[scott1968]

Roundabouts, junctions, bends - all of these things are inevitable features which mean you have to slow down, or even stop.

Can you really not see the difference between those, and the deliberate introduction of features that are designed to damage vehicles, or render them dangerously unstable?

If on a stretch of road it is felt that the speed limit should be 10mph not 30, then the way to do that is to reduce the speed limit to 10mph, not to re-engineer the road so that becomes unusable or damaging to vehicles that are being driven legally.

Because irresponsible drivers will still speed

You have to educate the motorist and punish the irresponsible motorist harder.

 

[baldy01]

We have just had traffic calming measures installed on our road. Its made a hell of a difference as we no longer get people driving through the village at 60+ while the kids are queueing for the schoolbus.

In many cases they are a necessary evil. Having said that they should NOT be designed to cause damage to cars driving at the posted limit. Coloured tarmac is fine, lots of coloured lines are dangerous as they get slippy in the wet (this gets interesting on a motorcycle).

The only damage ours has caused was to some idiot who tried to ignore the half-dozen warning signs and drive through a 8x8 wooden post at 60MPH. HA!

 

[Diyisfun]

I am trying to get traffic calming.
The council are against it.
My car was written off in April estimated impact speed 40+ not bad for a bend (residential 30mph).
We have just had resurfacing work in adjacent Rd our road became a no through Rd 2 wks of heaven

The only way to slow traffic is to force it to slow & divert it to roads designed to take it. Residential areas should be 20mph & made to be difficult to take the 'rat run'.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Because irresponsible drivers will still speed

You have to educate the motorist and punish the irresponsible motorist harder.

What's wrong with a 10mph speed limit enforced by cameras?

Why should responsible motorists be made to suffer discomfort and/or damage and/or danger unless they slow down to a speed well below what the law considers acceptable because of measures introduced to prevent irresponsible ones exceeding the legal limit?

 

[ban-all-sheds]

We have just had traffic calming measures installed on our road. Its made a hell of a difference as we no longer get people driving through the village at 60+ while the kids are queueing for the schoolbus.

What was, and is, the posted speed limit?

In many cases they are a necessary evil. Having said that they should NOT be designed to cause damage to cars driving at the posted limit.

The problem is that they all do, or at least all the designs I have ever encountered do. I guess it's not true to say "they are designed to cause damage" - it would be more accurate to say "they are designed in such a way that damage is inevitable, and those designing them know, or ought to know, this".

I can't think of a way to add physical obstacles, such as humps, that will effectively prevent someone from exceeding a given speed but not represent a hazard to someone driving at that speed. Nor, it seems, can the "experts".

Coloured tarmac is fine, lots of coloured lines are dangerous as they get slippy in the wet (this gets interesting on a motorcycle).

But those are just reminders, surely, not enforcers?

The only damage ours has caused was to some idiot who tried to ignore the half-dozen warning signs and drive through a 8x8 wooden post at 60MPH. HA!

I hope he was prosecuted.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I am trying to get traffic calming.
The council are against it.

They may be right to be against it.

My car was written off in April estimated impact speed 40+ not bad for a bend (residential 30mph).
We have just had resurfacing work in adjacent Rd our road became a no through Rd 2 wks of heaven

What are you trying to achieve? An enforcement of a 30mph speed limit, or a lower one?

The only way to slow traffic is to force it to slow & divert it to roads designed to take it. Residential areas should be 20mph & made to be difficult to take the 'rat run'.

20mph seems eminently sensible, as do measures designed to make it inconvenient for people to use the roads as a through route, such as one-way systems, and appropriate turning bans.

But all of these can, and should, be done in a way that does not damage or destabilise cars that are being driven legally.

 

[scott1968]

Because irresponsible drivers will still speed

You have to educate the motorist and punish the irresponsible motorist harder.

What's wrong with a 10mph speed limit enforced by cameras?

I'm for that (as most speed cameras are in the wrong place).

Why should responsible motorists be made to suffer discomfort and/or damage and/or danger unless they slow down to a speed well below what the law considers acceptable because of measures introduced to prevent irresponsible ones exceeding the legal limit?

It’s probably easier for councils to get speed bumps installed than to get speed cameras installed.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Speed humps damage cars, they destablise them, they create discomfort, they make roads unusable by some vehicles and they put lives at risk by slowing down emergency services vehicles.

The fact that they are an easy option for councils does not excuse them.