Potholed road with immaculate speed bumps

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/content/islington/gazette/news/story.aspx?brand=ISLGOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsislg&itemid=WeED28%20May%202008%2015%3A07%3A37%3A760

Potholed road with immaculate speed bumps

THIS is the picture that "shames Islington" - a potholed road that
would embarrass a Third World country studded with pristine,
mountainous speed bumps.

Now infuriated residents of Bregar Road, Archway, are demanding to
know why good money was spent on the bumps when the surface is in such
a dire mess. The patchwork quilt of tarmac has been described by one
resident as the "worst road in London" and by a Labour councillor as
like an "assault course from Gladiators".

Ben Harris, 30, a press officer, said: "When I learned to drive three
years ago my instructor told me to drive slowly down this road or it
would damage his car. That was three years ago and if anything it's
worse. The speed bumps are hardly necessary when the pot holes are
already so bad. Why are they spending money on them when the surface
is so terrible?"

John Hanley, 39, a carpenter, said: "It is ridiculous - they should be
ashamed. Whenever friends drive down here I warn them how bad the road
is. It is incomprehensible how they can do this much work on the bumps
and leave all the potholes. I've just started driving and I hope all
the roads aren't this bad. It is one of the worst roads in London."

Daniel Karlea, 26, a plasterer, said: "It is a nightmare, everyone
says it. I broke a wheel on my car on the bumps two months ago and I
had to buy a new one. The road needs resurfacing badly."

Councillor James Murray, Labour's environment spokesman, said: "This
road looks more like an assault course from Gladiators than a
residential street. The council are leaving the potholes and putting
in speedbumps - it's another example of taxpayers' money being spent
on things they don't want. The average person will wonder what planet
they are on."

Liberal Democrat member for environment, Councillor Greg Foxsmith,
said: "We carry out safety inspections on all roads twice a year. We
can assure residents around Bredgar Road that the pot holes do not
present a danger. With 14,400 streets, we have to prioritise work.
Bredgar Road is not currently one of these priority roads.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
<bea4f574-0af8-4af6-87d5-bc1b5d174fbe@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:

>THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"

Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
implemented. One wonders what kind of idiot would drive at speed
down a road parked up like that anyway, but obviously they did. As
you say, it shames Islington, or at least its drivers.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Nuxx Bar <derderderder619@hotmail.com>:

>> THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"

> Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
> slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
> implemented.

Well, either that, or there was a decision to implement the speed bumps
in that street, or in an area which happened to include that street,
irrespective of the quality of the road surface (for one or more of a
possible variety of reasons).

TBH, I dunno what the residents are complaining about - the speed bumps
near my house are one of the best things that ever happened here. But
they're not really complaining about the speed bumps - perhaps the poor
road surface lends a down-at-heel feel to that Islington (Upper
Holloway?) environment.

> One wonders what kind of idiot would drive at speed
> down a road parked up like that anyway, but obviously they did.

That isn't "obvious" at all. You are assuming that the bumps were
required because of observed/measured excessive speed. Who knows? You
might be right, but you cannot say sp based on what was in the report.
It's just as possible that there was a bit of money left over in the
speed bump budget which had to be used up before the end of the
municipal year - or perhaps a local LibDem councillor or one of his/her
relatives lives down that street.

> As you say, it shames Islington, or at least its drivers.

Maybe. Maybe not.

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> wrote:


>Liberal Democrat member for environment, Councillor Greg Foxsmith,
>said: "We carry out safety inspections on all roads twice a year. We
>can assure residents around Bredgar Road that the pot holes do not
>present a danger. With 14,400 streets, we have to prioritise work.
>Bredgar Road is not currently one of these priority roads.

Strange that fitting speedbumps is a higher priority than basic safety
repairs.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 10:16:56 +0100, JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

>Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> Nuxx Bar <derderderder619@hotmail.com>:
>
>>> THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"
>
>> Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
>> slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
>> implemented.
>
>Well, either that, or there was a decision to implement the speed bumps
>in that street, or in an area which happened to include that street,
>irrespective of the quality of the road surface (for one or more of a
>possible variety of reasons).
>
>TBH, I dunno what the residents are complaining about - the speed bumps
>near my house are one of the best things that ever happened here. But
>they're not really complaining about the speed bumps - perhaps the poor
>road surface lends a down-at-heel feel to that Islington (Upper
>Holloway?) environment.

I don't share your enthusiasm about speed bumps and would fight any
attempt to put them outside my home. (A local man took a JCB to a
speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
noise and vibration.)

>> One wonders what kind of idiot would drive at speed
>> down a road parked up like that anyway, but obviously they did.
>
>That isn't "obvious" at all. You are assuming that the bumps were
>required because of observed/measured excessive speed. Who knows? You
>might be right, but you cannot say sp based on what was in the report.
>It's just as possible that there was a bit of money left over in the
>speed bump budget which had to be used up before the end of the
>municipal year - or perhaps a local LibDem councillor or one of his/her
>relatives lives down that street.

Probably true.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

> THIS is the picture that "shames Islington" - a potholed road that
> would embarrass a Third World country studded with pristine,
> mountainous speed bumps.

http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/images/0245120-SusanandBikeRoadToLivingstonia-400.jpg

a 'good' road in Malawi. Hmm... no journalistic embellishment there then
eh...


T

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:08:35 +0100 someone who may be Mark
<i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote this:-

>(A local man took a JCB to a
>speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
>noise and vibration.)

Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
any noise or vibration.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:13:01 +0100, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:08:35 +0100 someone who may be Mark
><i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote this:-
>
>>(A local man took a JCB to a
>>speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
>>noise and vibration.)
>
>Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
>any noise or vibration.

How are the busses and lorries going to avoid them then?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:08:35 +0100 someone who may be Mark
> <i@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote this:-
>
> >(A local man took a JCB to a
> >speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
> >noise and vibration.)
>
> Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
> any noise or vibration.

it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
should over the bumbs.

they removed them from one of the main roads in crickhowel as the school
kids couldn't cross the road. and the locals found the noise and smell
was intorible.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Nuxx Bar <derderderder619@hotmail.com>:
>
> >> THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"
>
> > Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
> > slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
> > implemented.
>
> Well, either that, or there was a decision to implement the speed bumps
> in that street, or in an area which happened to include that street,
> irrespective of the quality of the road surface (for one or more of a
> possible variety of reasons).
>
most likely yes, they have seperate budgets etc as far as i can see.

> TBH, I dunno what the residents are complaining about - the speed bumps
> near my house are one of the best things that ever happened here. But
> they're not really complaining about the speed bumps - perhaps the poor
> road surface lends a down-at-heel feel to that Islington (Upper
> Holloway?) environment.
>
i don't like speed bumbs and much prefure just a slower surface i grew
up along a old railway line which ment that my mother didn't have to
worry about fast cars etc. when i was a child. even at 20 mph you'd kick
up stones at 30 well the car wouldn't last long.

i find it much nicer to walk/bike/drive on a rought road than speed
bumbs.

> > One wonders what kind of idiot would drive at speed
> > down a road parked up like that anyway, but obviously they did.
>
> That isn't "obvious" at all. You are assuming that the bumps were
> required because of observed/measured excessive speed. Who knows? You
> might be right, but you cannot say sp based on what was in the report.
> It's just as possible that there was a bit of money left over in the
> speed bump budget which had to be used up before the end of the
> municipal year - or perhaps a local LibDem councillor or one of his/her
> relatives lives down that street.
>
> > As you say, it shames Islington, or at least its drivers.
>
> Maybe. Maybe not.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008, JNugent wrote:

> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> Nuxx Bar <derderderder619@hotmail.com>:
>>
>>> THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"
>>
>> Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
>> slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
>> implemented.
>
> Well, either that, or there was a decision to implement the speed bumps in
> that street, or in an area which happened to include that street,
> irrespective of the quality of the road surface (for one or more of a
> possible variety of reasons).
>
> TBH, I dunno what the residents are complaining about - the speed bumps near
> my house are one of the best things that ever happened here. But they're not
> really complaining about the speed bumps - perhaps the poor road surface
> lends a down-at-heel feel to that Islington (Upper Holloway?) environment.

Archway, i'd call that area.

There are some really terrible roads round there. The eastern end of
Tollington Way, where it joins Holloway Road, is somewhere i used to cycle
almost daily, to and from the gym, and it's like a scale map of the
highlands of Scotland.

tom

--
20 Minutes into the Future

On Jun 4, 6:16 pm, JNugent <J...@NPPTG.com> wrote:
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Nuxx Bar <derderderder...@hotmail.com>:
> >> THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"
> > Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
> > slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
> > implemented.
>
> Well, either that, or there was a decision to implement the speed bumps
> in that street, or in an area which happened to include that street,
> irrespective of the quality of the road surface (for one or more of a
> possible variety of reasons).

The speed bump clearly visible in the photo looks like it has been
there for years. Possibly it was there before there was a pothole at
all.

James

On 4 Jun, 11:08, Mark <i...@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote:
> I don't share your enthusiasm about speed bumps and would fight any
> attempt to put them outside my home.  (A local man took a JCB to a
> speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
> noise and vibration.)

I fought (OK I corresponded with the council) to get them reinstated
outside my house after they were removed for road resurfacing.
Without them the rat-runners and idiot kids were driving way too fast,
despite the 20MPH speed limit, and there were several collisions each
week. The sound of crunching metal and glass was very disturbing to
my sleep.

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 07:08:21 -0700 (PDT), "james.annan@gmail.com"
<james.annan@gmail.com> said in
<1e70f5de-97b8-4d64-b6f9-ac3109d7412d@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com>:

>The speed bump clearly visible in the photo looks like it has been
>there for years. Possibly it was there before there was a pothole at
>all.

There you go again, spoiling a good story with sense and facts.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:23 +0100 someone who may be
NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote this:-

>> Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
>> any noise or vibration.
>
>it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
>mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
>should over the bumbs.

Any noise and vibration is being caused by the motorists, not the
bump.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/content/islington/gazette/news/story.aspx?brand=ISLGOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsislg&itemid=WeED28%20May%202008%2015%3A07%3A37%3A760

If this is an attempt to show prove the existence of anti-motorist
measures then you have failed miserably.
Cyclists are more affected by potholes than motorists. A pothole that
would feel like a small bump in a car could throw a cyclist off his bike.

As someone else pointed out, the paint on the bumps is ancient, and
nearly worn away. This shows that the bumps have been there a long time.

> Daniel Karlea, 26, a plasterer, said: "It is a nightmare, everyone
> says it. I broke a wheel on my car on the bumps two months ago and I
> had to buy a new one. The road needs resurfacing badly."

So Daniel Karlea was driving too fast for the conditions, proving that
paul smith was dead wrong, and that drivers are unable to decide a
suitable speed.

David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:23 +0100 someone who may be
> NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote this:-
>
> >> Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
> >> any noise or vibration.
> >
> >it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
> >mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
> >should over the bumbs.
>
> Any noise and vibration is being caused by the motorists, not the
> bump.

maybe so but compared with the road with out lumps unless it forces
traffic else where it will be noiser etc.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Jun 4, 4:46 pm, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:23 +0100 someone who may be
> N...@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote this:-
>
> >> Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
> >> any noise or vibration.
>
> >it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
> >mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
> >should over the bumbs.
>
> Any noise and vibration is being caused by the motorists, not the
> bump.

Can you think of any road safety or noise problem which isn't "caused
by the motorists" in your opinion?

On Jun 4, 3:31 pm, POHB <goo...@hayward.uk.net> wrote:
> On 4 Jun, 11:08, Mark <i...@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't share your enthusiasm about speed bumps and would fight any
> > attempt to put them outside my home.  (A local man took a JCB to a
> > speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
> > noise and vibration.)
>
> I fought (OK I corresponded with the council) to get them reinstated
> outside my house after they were removed for road resurfacing.
> Without them the rat-runners and idiot kids were driving way too fast,
> despite the 20MPH speed limit, and there were several collisions each
> week.  The sound of crunching metal and glass was very disturbing to
> my sleep.

Bloody "rat-runners", using your personal private road which has been
a legal right of way for cars since they were invented (or the road
was built). Some might argue that you should have bought a house on a
cul-de-sac if you didn't want motorists going past your house, but
that's clearly nonsense.

Anyone who doesn't want to give themselves away as a motorist-hater
would do well to avoid such vile anti-motorist terms as "rat-runner".
Alternatively, you could make sure that when driving you always stick
to A and B roads everywhere that you possibly can, no matter how much
congestion there is, to avoid being a complete and utter hypocrite
(not to mention a "rat").

And this habit that NIMBYs like you have of saying that motorists on
your road are driving "too fast", when you actually just object to
their presence full stop, is dishonest. It also distorts road safety
priorities, which results in lives being lost. Congratulations.
Blood on hands.

On Jun 4, 10:09 pm, Martin <martin.d...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> >http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/content/islington/gazette/news/stor...
>
> If this is an attempt to show prove the existence of anti-motorist
> measures then you have failed miserably.
> Cyclists are more affected by potholes than motorists. A pothole that
> would feel like a small bump in a car could throw a cyclist off his bike.
>
> As someone else pointed out, the paint on the bumps is ancient, and
> nearly worn away. This shows that the bumps have been there a long time.
>
> > Daniel Karlea, 26, a plasterer, said: "It is a nightmare, everyone
> > says it. I broke a wheel on my car on the bumps two months ago and I
> > had to buy a new one. The road needs resurfacing badly."
>
> So Daniel Karlea was driving too fast for the conditions, proving that
> paul smith was dead wrong, and that drivers are unable to decide a
> suitable speed.

Whacked.