Slightly [OT] but I like this
View Full Version : Slightly [OT] but I like this
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3628631.stm
I don't think physical "traffic calming" is good for drivers
or cyclists. Speed cushions are particularly horrible as
they encourage drivers not to give you any clearance when
overtaking, for fear of hitting the blasted things head-on.
As a driver I would much rather see measures that don't
knacker your suspension if you are driving within the limit.
Some speed cushions in 30mph zones can only be negotiated at
20mph (unless you drive a large 4x4 or a company car, haha)
and chicanes just increase congestion and pollution.
"Zog The Undeniable" <hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4080e0c0.0@entanet...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3628631.stm
>
> I don't think physical "traffic calming" is good for
> drivers or cyclists. Speed cushions are particularly
> horrible as they encourage drivers not to give you any
> clearance when overtaking, for fear of hitting the blasted
> things head-on.
>
> As a driver I would much rather see measures that don't
> knacker your suspension if you are driving within the
> limit. Some speed cushions in 30mph zones can only be
> negotiated at 20mph (unless you drive a large 4x4 or a
> company car, haha) and chicanes just increase congestion
> and pollution
I don't think it's OT, since calm traffic concerns all of
us. But as a cyclist, and driver when need be, I don't like
speed humps and I would not want to see speed cameras in the
residential streets where I live either. I find them an
eyesore, visual blight, and certainly unnecessary in my
local streets, where speeding was not a significant problem,
and to extent that a small minority did it, they still
manage to do it, and still will if a camera was put in
instead. I'd prefer the camera to speed humps, but I'd
prefer nothing at all even more. And I say that much more as
a cyclist and resident - with children, than as a driver.
Rich
"Zog The Undeniable" <hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4080e0c0.0@entanet...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3628631.stm
> Some speed cushions in 30mph zones can only be negotiated
> at 20mph (unless you drive a large 4x4 or a company car,
> haha) and chicanes just increase congestion and
> pollution.
The trouble with chicanes is that whether in your car or on
your bike you become part of the hardware that is meant to
psyche other road users into slowing down and if they don't?
--
Regards, Pete
"Zog The Undeniable" <hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4080e0c0.0@entanet...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3628631.stm
>
> I don't think physical "traffic calming" is good for
> drivers or cyclists. Speed cushions are particularly
> horrible as they encourage drivers not to give you any
> clearance when overtaking, for fear of hitting the blasted
> things head-on.
>
> As a driver I would much rather see measures that don't
> knacker your suspension if you are driving within the
> limit. Some speed cushions in 30mph zones can only be
> negotiated at 20mph (unless you drive a large 4x4 or a
> company car, haha) and chicanes just increase congestion
> and pollution.
We in Hull are installing our 120th 20 mph zone and that's
why we are now the third cycling city in the UK - people
here love them and want more and more. Whole estates are
now virtually traffic free and kids are now playing in the
streets like they did 30 years ago. It's great! I never
thought I'd say it but having an anti-car council is the
best thing that's happened here.
--
Simon Mason Anlaby East Yorkshire. 53°44'N 0°26'W
http://www.simonmason.karoo.net (http://www.simonmason.karoo.net/)
Zog The Undeniable <hrothgar19@yahoo.com> wrote in news:4080e0c0.0@entanet:
> I don't think physical "traffic calming" is good for
> drivers or cyclists. Speed cushions are particularly
> horrible as they encourage drivers not to give you any
> clearance when overtaking, for fear of hitting the blasted
> things head-on.
>
There's a road in Liverpool with the full-width speed ramps,
except for a gap at either end for the cycle lanes to pass
through. So of course, traffic zooming along goes into the
cycle lane so only their driver's side wheels have to cross
the ramp, so they don't have to slow down as much. They do
this even when there's cyclists using the lane (it's the
main cycle route to the university) and I've seen many side-
swipes. I stopped using that road long ago.
"John Hearns" <john@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.04.17.20.24.47.194711@nospam.nospam...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:45:19 +0100, Zog The
> Undeniable wrote:
>
>
> In my very humble opinion, sinusoidal profile humps
> across the full width of the road are the only viable
> traffic calming measures. Cars don't veer around to miss
> them, and on the bike you don't jar your wheels and spine
> going over them.
>
>
I am firmly of the opinion that if the wretched things are
to be put in at all, they should have to have a sinusoidal
profile as a statutory requirement. The majority of the damn
things seem to rise up like kerbs in the middle of the road.
Who decides how they should be profiled anyway? Is it just
the contractors who put them in according to their whim and
convenience or is it the Council?
Rich
On Sat, 17 Apr, Richard Goodman <rsk@NOSPAM.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I am firmly of the opinion that if the wretched things
> are to be put in at all, they should have to have a
> sinusoidal profile as a statutory requirement. The
> majority of the damn things seem to rise up like kerbs in
> the middle of the road. Who decides how they should be
> profiled anyway? Is it just the contractors who put them
> in according to their whim and convenience or is it the
> Council?
There used to be a defined standard with heights, profiles
etc. The last revision of it did away with all the
proscriptive values and replaced them with something like
"of an appropriate profile".
I've got the standard at work, if you _really_ want to know
the actual wording. Alternatively, I think I've posted it to
teh group in teh past, a google might turn it up.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
"Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnc84de4.13g.ian@phlegethon.smithnet...
> On Sat, 17 Apr, Richard Goodman
> <rsk@NOSPAM.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I am firmly of the opinion that if the wretched things
> > are to be put in
at
> > all, they should have to have a sinusoidal profile as a
> > statutory requirement. The majority of the damn things
> > seem to rise up like
kerbs in
> > the middle of the road. Who decides how they should be
> > profiled
anyway? Is
> > it just the contractors who put them in according to
> > their whim and convenience or is it the Council?
>
> There used to be a defined standard with heights, profiles
> etc. The last revision of it did away with all the
> proscriptive values and replaced them with something like
> "of an appropriate profile".
>
> I've got the standard at work, if you _really_ want to
> know the actual wording. Alternatively, I think I've
> posted it to teh group in teh past, a google might
> turn it up.
Oh well that's interesting to know. It seemed fairly clear
that there was no effective standard for them, but why did
they do away with proscriptive values if they used to exist?
Any idea why?
Rich
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004, Richard Goodman <rsk@NOSPAM.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
> "Ian Smith" <ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:slrnc84de4.13g.ian@phlegethon.smithnet...
> > On Sat, 17 Apr, Richard Goodman
> > <rsk@NOSPAM.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
[of humps]
> > > Who decides how they should be profiled anyway? Is it
> > > just the contractors who put them in according to
> > > their whim and convenience or is it the Council?
> >
> > There used to be a defined standard with heights,
> > profiles etc. The last revision of it did away with all
> > the proscriptive values and replaced them with something
> > like "of an appropriate profile".
>
> Oh well that's interesting to know. It seemed fairly
> clear that there was no effective standard for them, but
> why did they do away with proscriptive values if they
> used to exist? Any idea why?
It's an increasingly common trend in engineering standards
documents. I don't know why, but if forced to speculate I'd
go for one of two things:
1: It's a backside-covering exercise making use of the
incredible power of a somebody-elses-problem field. If
you write a standard saying 'appropriate profile' and it
bends someone's suspension, then you've got a cast-iron
defence - obviously teh profile was not appropriate. The
bent whatever must be somebody else's problem. If you
write a standard that says xmm high, approcah profile
blaah blaah and so on, then something bends, then teh
bendee might want to sue you.
2: It's promoted by the trend to europe-wide standards. For
example, suppose you write a standard for roundabouts
which you hope might be adopted throughout teh EC. You
can't write "traffic shall approach on teh left and
circulate clockwise". You might write "traffic shall
approach on teh appropriate side of teh road...".
Both of tehse are pure speculation on my part - I've never
written standards, only guidance documents (or 'advice
notes'), and only for national use (though one of them gets
referred to much more widely than that). Since what I have
been involved in writing is merely advice - here's a good
way of doing it, or here's what looks best amongst the
existing approaches, it's relatively safe from being sued.
Since it's target audience is teh UK I don't worry much
about which side of teh road people drive. Despite this,
there's still a tendency to write stuff like "the designer
should consider all appropriate load combinations, and
undertake teh following calculations at any point that may
be critical".
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Apr, Richard Goodman
> <rsk@NOSPAM.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>> I am firmly of the opinion that if the wretched things
>> are to be put in at all, they should have to have a
>> sinusoidal profile as a statutory requirement. The
>> majority of the damn things seem to rise up like kerbs in
>> the middle of the road. Who decides how they should be
>> profiled anyway? Is it just the contractors who put them
>> in according to their whim and convenience or is it the
>> Council?
>
Basically the contractors put them in in the way most
convenient for them - generally with a sudden start and end
and flattish top. Councils could insist on something better,
but generally don't.
The commonest dimension is 3.7m long by 100mm high. If this
were built as a uniform arc, the hump would be a lot less
jarring than most.
>
> There used to be a defined standard with heights, profiles
> etc. The last revision of it did away with all the
> proscriptive values and replaced them with something like
> "of an appropriate profile".
But there is a legal height limit of 100mm. Since most are
specified to be 100mm high, the chances are that about half
are illegal. You may want to make something of this, with a
suitable measuring tool.
Sinusoidal humps, or ones 75mm high with a uniform curve,
are fine to cycle over at 20mph. There's research to say
that these have little less calming effect than the usual
100mm walls.
Colin McKenzie
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:39:14 +0000 (UTC), Ian Smith
<ian@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
<slrnc84tgd.1du.ian@phlegethon.smithnet>:
>> Oh well that's interesting to know. It seemed fairly
>> clear that there was no effective standard for them, but
>> why did they do away with proscriptive values if they
>> used to exist? Any idea why?
>It's an increasingly common trend in engineering standards
>documents. I don't know why, but if forced to speculate I'd
>go for one of two things:
Dunno. In some cases legislation and such will use this
phrase to avoid the necessity to constantly revise the
wording as best practice evolves.
--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk (http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/)
88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
Washington University
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
