UKH

Given the wealth of knowledge on UKC I hope this is not a misplaced post.

We have had a couple of very near misses with speeding drivers almost hitting pedestrians close to where I live. It's in a 30mph zone in a semi rural area but because of road conditions (fairly tight corner leading to hotel with car park across the road, and just in the 30mph area reducing from 40mph) most vehicles are travelling at well over 30mph.

We recently acquired a speed gun and recorded vehicle speed in the 30mph zone and the results were. Rounded up or down to nearest 5%.

Average of 10 vehicles per minute passing in test 1, fewer in test 2.

Test 1. Midday.
60% of cars speeding.
50% of lorries speeding.
20% motorcycles speeding.

Test 2. 6.00am

85% of cars speeding
90% of lorries speeding
No bikes recorded.

Highest speeds recorded. Multiple 40+mph inc HGV's. Some 50+mph. One 58mph.

Results show only lead car in queue of traffic.


Our local group has spoken with the police who ocassionally carry our speed checks. However they are busy and can't come out very often.

Any thoughts on how to proceed? Our neighbours dog was run over last year by a speeding van and although it may sound cliched, it's only a matter of time.....

In reply to estivoautumnal:

You could petition the council for speed humps.
Our estate is a rat run and even though no one died a local action group got speed bumps installed.
Unfortunately they are just the 1mtr square rubbish so they don't slow anyone down.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Could you put a dummy with a high viz jacket on somewhere at side of road?

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Buy a knackered car for £50. Tax and insure it and park it up in a spot that will force traffic to slow down prior to getting to the bend

If possible.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

As you've got the speed detector, are you set up as one of the "Community Speed Awareness" groups?

If not, have a chat to the local police to see if you can become one. If I understand it right, you provide the data to the police and they send a warning letter to the motorist on police headed paper. Although it doesn't lead to a conviction, it's a shot across the bows of the motorist.

In reply to Dax H:

Speed humps are bad, all they do is damage vehicles and cause noise and sometimes damage to foundations. Some strategically placed natural chicanes (done by banning parking in some places and encouraging it in others) are much better if feasible.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


I was going to suggest this! There's one in one of the little hamlets along the A5 towards Snowdonia.

It depends on the road though. If the traffic passes through regularly then they'll ignore it after they've seen it twice.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Can you get the speed limit change put back a bit further from the bend?
Together with some chevrons on the bend and a warning of a blind entrance, that might make a big difference.

I certainly don't think police speed checks are the answer. It's obvious from the high %s you show that this is an issue of road design more than of driver lack of care.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

It would be interesting to hear the percentage over the speed limit these vehicles were recording. Can you share them?

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I seem to remember there was some evidence that those signseeking that give you a smiley face when you slow down a day a sad face when you speed were somewhat effective.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I will give you the noise, never heard of foundation damage so no comment there.
As for damage to cars, tough. If you slow down for them you don't do damage so I have no sympathy.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Isn't that kind of the point?

In reply to estivoautumnal:

would agree with the narrowings/chicane with priority on the direction most likely to force those coming the other way to slow.

The most effective anti speeding measure I've ever seen is a speed trap that activates traffic lights. If you speed then the traffic lights a bit further along turn red. If you jump the lights you get fined. The upshot is the quickest way to pass the system is to drive below the speed limit. Once people twig they simply do not speed. No one gets fined, no one speeds.

It seems that a tiny penalty of inconvenience applied frequently works a lot better than a big penalty applied sporadically.

I've never seen this in the UK but it would be very effective. You could replicate it in many ways - get caught on the phone - get your phone confiscated and posted back a few days later. Get caught speeding on the motorway - get your car clamped for an hour in a service station etc etc.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:


They have these in some villages in Ariège. Lights in the village aren't by a crossing or junction, so clearly just to neutralise or reverse any time gains from speeding. It's a good idea.



Who says developments from F1 don't trickle down to ordinary cars and traffic? This is the same idea as a 10 second pit stop penalty for speeding in the pit lane!

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Find someone in a Toyota Yaris to potter through the area at regular intervals. That should keep the speed universally below 30mph.

In reply to estivoautumnal:
Make a fake speed camera box?

In reply to estivoautumnal:


A shovel?



sorry I couldn't resist

In reply to Dax H:

I don't think I've ever seen a speed bump here, in Germany, and all I can say is that life without them is infinitely more pleasant.

Speed bumps do not damage your car if you drive at the correct speed but they do not only punish speeding drivers, they punish everyone. They are invariably irregularly constructed and nearly always require you to slow to a speed way below the actual, posted limit. They're intensely frustrating and only more so if you AREN'T offending.

Also, experience from South Africa says that speed bumps just cause SUVs and these SUV drivers don't give a damn about speeding over them, anyway. I'm pretty sure that these are the same drivers who don't give a damn about paying small financial fines, considering them to be merely another tax.

No. The correct solution is radar-activated rocket launchers. Noisy... fair enough... but only once.

In reply to Xharlie:




You raise an interesting point here. Are the punishments for speeding (or any other motoring offences) severe enough to deter? There must come a point at which the punishment, if caught, is so draconian that most drivers will not consider the risk worth taking. I know someone who gives me a lift sometimes. His driving was appallingly inconsiderate and he has accumulated several speeding fines and points on his licence. He has now accumulated enough points to know that if he is caught again, he will lose his licence. All of a sudden he has become a cautious driver and now always sticks to the speed limit.

There must be a message here, and I don't think it has anything to do with consideration to others.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Sorry to depress you but after living in a rat-run for 13 years I can tell you you've little chance of getting any serious action unless you suffer some deaths in the street. Our own street is at the bottom of Lancashire's accident league table because we train our kids to watch out for speeding short-cutters. In other parts of the town of Blackburn where residents take a more fatalistic view of safety matters, there have been many deaths and injuries and entire streets have a 20 mph limit and aggressive speed humps. Now after a 30 year campaign we have been given a 20 mph limit but only because Lancashire is making all residential streets 20 mph. We have also been given five pairs of table tops humps, which can be passed without hindrance if you straddle them. We are also limited to "access only"but this doesn't deter law-breakers who are racing to beat the traffic lights on the main road.

In reply to GrahamD:

Find someone in a Toyota Yaris to potter through the area at regular intervals. That should keep the speed universally below 30mph.

Driving below 30mph in a 30mph area?
The inconsiderate fools - take away their licence at once!

In reply to Rigid Raider: Unfortunately you are correct in that it requires death or serious accident to have occurred to get significant changes made - bit late then though isn't it.

The best way to stop speeding is to design the road so that it's not visually attractive to go fast along. What does that mean - no wide straight boulevards, chicanes (doesn't need to be crude, can be done nicely with flowers, landscaping, etc.), visual obstructions (tend to go slower if you can't see so far ahead). Unfortunately this is expensive to retro-fit so it doesn't happen much.

Another way is to remove all road-signs, lines, etc. If you've driven through Poynton (Cheshire) you'll know what I mean - there must be other places that have done this. Looks very attractive too.

In reply to bouldery bits:



Or hire/buy a couple of skips

In reply to Trangia:

Yes indeed. I have been a passenger with my boss driving (about as Bavarian as you can get) and, essentially, he only cares about points. If he doesn't get a point on his license for something, it's fair game, whatever the cost either financially or otherwise.

I have no respect for this style of driving.

Personally, I have got speeding fines but usually for making mistakes such as missing a completely unpredictable and unexplicable change in the limit. Sometimes, I wonder if I don't get MORE fines than the arseholes do. Sometimes, I wonder if the whole fining system is designed more to trick people than to actually punish habitual offenders.

In reply to FactorXXX:




Inside a 30mph AND outside. No chance of a Yaris driver entering any speed limit area at more than 30mph.

In reply to estivoautumnal:
Having worked with them as part of my job for the last few years, your most effective weapon is your local Councillor; relentlessly badger them, presenting your evidence (you'll need a lot more than that - get samples throughout the day for a week), and they will be able to help you get measures in place.

You have no chance of getting any road improvements without a death in the area - chicanes, for example, would cost hundreds of thousands, and the council have better things to do with that money.

You might be lucky enough to get some coloured surfacing, new roundels and signage painted on. The most effective thing councillors seem to be able to do is get those signs which say your speed and smile at you if you're within the limit. They are (relatively) cheap, and pretty effective when combined with road markings etc...

Nothing happens overnight, and it will take many years to get anything assessed for cost/benefit by the council, but your best bet is to badger your councillor, who has the power and spending money to carry out schemes like this.

*edit: you won't get speed ramps in a 30mph zone anymore - they require road reconstruction, and are recommended for use in 20mph zones only nowerdays. Departures from this standard usually end up with the 1m wide plastic ramps, which are less effective against anything wider than a Fiesta...

In reply to Robert Durran:

The point should not be to damage vehicles travelling otherwise safely at the speed limit. Slowing down and speeding up is also polluting. And bumps cause suspension wear generally. And catapult bus passengers in the air.

Chicanes, ideally "natural" ones built by placing planters and controlling parking, and 20mph (or even 10mph "home zones" with absolute pedestrian priority) limits are much better. This approach encourages a more fluid but slower movement of traffic.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I'm not entirely sure why the initial post has received dislikes, it seems to be entirely reasonable.

There are some really good ideas in this thread. A friend of mine has worked on studying how to slow down cars 'naturally' for Sustrans. Research on this is googleable.

The basic principles have been covered above; you gotta look at behavioural mechanisms that stop someone wanting to speed; so natural chicanes (cars, skips), trees / plants planted on the roadside etc.

Bigger changes (make the drop in speed more obvious, speed camera, traffic lights etc) will require your local councilor so building that link will be helpful.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Well yes, precisely, so you slow down to a safe speed to avoid damage.


Eh? So you suggest we don't bother slowing down at the sort of places where speed bumps are placed such as outside schools?


The whole point of all traffic calming measures is to encourage observance of speed safe speed limits. Obviously if speed limits alone worked (which they don't), there would be no need for them.

In reply to marsbar:


I saw a version in America that had 'Speed Limit/Your Speed' - it made it a bit more obvious if you were over the limit by showing your actual speed, rather than just lighting up regardless of how much over you were

In reply to Robert Durran:

Still causes wear.


Speed bumps are placed far more indiscriminately than that. Outside schools, I would choose camera enforced 20 or even 10mph limits.


There are, as I outlined, far superior options.

In reply to nufkin:


Those are reasonably common here too. They are good.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Speed bumps slow many people down as they go OVER the bump, but often not BETWEEN the bumps. They just stay in a lower gear, braking and accelerating as needed which means more noise pollution, more emissions and a less predictable traffic speed so children can't guage when it's safe to cross.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I think that your concern about the well being of your car going over a speed bump shows exactly why they are so effective, even if most of us are half as paranoid! They effectively encourage people to slow to walking pace where that is a safe speed.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Surely a speed camera is the answer? It's on 24/7 and will modify the behaviour of habitual speeders. It's quite noticeable how people respond to cameras more than anything else.

In reply to Toerag:

Speed cameras are only installed after an incident in which someone is killed or seriously injured.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:


Same with any traffic calming measure and an argument for more bumps closer together rather than none at all.


If you really think that is a valid argument, would you be suggesting that a constant but higher speed is preferable? And, if not, how do you suggest reliably enforcing a constant lower speed?

In reply to Trangia:



It's not the punishment, it's the likelihood of being caught. He's been caught twice but obviously didn't believe he'd be caught again, and then he was and has now realised he is likely to be caught again and the penalty will be higher.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

The solution is here

youtube.com/watch?v=OD5kxR3r5Yk&

In reply to estivoautumnal:
Our experience is that drivers make a snap decision as to where they think they will be delayed less and if there's a traffic light on their route they will risk the shortcut even when that road is limited to "access only". About 15 years ago Lancashire CC rebuilt a Victorian cast-iron bridge in our road so at to take 45 ton lorries (ridiculous waste of money) and took the opportunity to reinstate the roadway with one-way priority. This alone brought a 24% reduction in traffic. More recently we had sewer works and temporary traffic lights meaning short-cutters knew they risked being delayed as much as if they stayed on the main road so we had several days of blissful peace as only residents used the road.

The relevance to the OP is that short-cutters will always speed because they think they are getting ahead of the traffic that has been hindered by the traffic lights.

My advice to the OP is to involve the local traffic Police and get them to issue some Section 59 warnings to habitual speeders, meaning that the drivers risk having their cars confiscated. Word will soon get around that your area is not a good place to speed.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Could always try putting up fake speed cameras.... yellow box on a pole next to the road

In reply to Robert Durran:


They are mostly used where walking pace is not necessary.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Sometimes perhaps, but the deceleration and acceleration encouraged probably keeps speeds safe over the necessary length of road.

In reply to Robert Durran:
We have a couple of "your speed" signs near us.
On the other hand, a local village had one several years ago, but got rid of it, as people started competing to see who could get the highest recorded speed on the display.

Jon.

In reply to Rigid Raider:


The street I'm in, that has two schools on it, has a 20 mph limit.

Average speed of traffic? 40mph...?

Limits without enforcement will simply be ignored.

Not helped in my case that the road is a rat run to bypass a former A-road, now festooned with traffic lights and traffic calming measures, so everyone uses my road instead.

In reply to BFG:


UKC motoring lobby...?

In reply to estivoautumnal:


1. Compulsory driverless cars for everyone; AND
2. Anyone whose driverless car exceeds the speed limit has the car destroyed.

This may sound draconian but I am sick to death of people speeding - because it causes unnecessary accidents, and deaths.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Pedestrianise the road, banning cars and make the side roads one way to make it a pointless way to go from A to B

In reply to Robert Durran:


Somewhere on a Pyranese trip (I think it was) we came across a system on trial. Basically a speed gun outside the village that if it clocked you too high would trigger traffic lights to red on the way into the village and you were forced to a stop. If you were doing a slower speed the lights didn't trigger and you just carried on into the village at the correct speed. Seemed like quite a neat idea to me but I've never seen it since.

In reply to Xharlie:


Indeed, driving like an idiot requires you to be highly switched on, which includes knowing what the limit is how much you're exceeding it by at all times, as well as developing a keen eye for reflective yellow and blue, and white vans parked at the side of the road and on motorway flyovers.

When I was young and one of said arseholes I never got caught speeding. In my much more responsible middle age I've been caught out a couple of times through carelessness.

Although to be honest, neither is excusable... a speed limit doesn't need to be predictable or explicable - if you miss the big red and white circle at the side of the road with the numbers inside it you're not paying enough attention.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I think the counter point here is that most traffic calming measures aren't designed to slow you down to the speed limit, they're designed to make you reduce your speed well below the limit.

Which is why I really like the traffic lights system they use in parts of europe, if implemented properly - the light should be green as you approach IMO and only change if you are speeding, so it doesn't disrupt the flow of traffic if you slowed in time. The ones that default to red, and change to green at the last minute have the same problems for traffic flow as bumps.

In reply to Ciro:


Yes, I agree but they are usually in places where a safe speed is often well below the limit - speed limits are an upper limit, not a safe limit at all times.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Then the speed limit is wrong, no?

In reply to Robert Durran:


They often force vehicles to slow to a speed that is significantly slower than is necessary.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

How about lowering the risk be moving the hotel car park onto the same side of the road as the hotel?

In reply to Ciro:


Agreed. If traffic needs to be artificially slowed, a lower speed limit is the first thing to do.

In reply to timjones:


Yes, but the idea is that it is a small price worth paying for forcing vehicles to slow to a slow speed when it is necessary for, say, childrens' safety.

In reply to Robert Durran:


It does, but it's a very sub optimal way of achieving that.

In reply to Trevers:



And when you go past it at 5am, its terrifying as it looks like someone about to stroll in the road. Probably more dangerous than not, promoting unnecessary emergency stops.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Aren't there better ways of achieving the same result?

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Our kid was knocked down in our street. Luckily the driver was only doing 15ish. I had regular run ins with people up the street speeding and the occasional fisticuffs.
After the event I approached my MP. Fair play , he came to our house and raised the concerns for 'traffic calming measures'. The council refused and we moved house.
A poster above suggests parking a car tactically to slow them down. Myself and other residents did this with our cars to create a chicane which worked very well, as did the odd punch on the nose. ( not recommending this tactic)

In reply to estivoautumnal:

The road needs to be re-designed to make it feel like you should go slower and then people will go slower, e.g. remove white lines, mark a cycle lane, add parking to narrow the road etc.

In reply to timjones:


Possibly, but I suspect none so simply or cheaply.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Taking into account the amount of tax that is derived from car use it seems absurd to be so cheap when it comes to sensible and proportionate speed control measures.

In reply to springfall2008: That's the ideal solution, the road layout should be such that you don't feel comfortable going faster than is safe for that area - if that was done perfectly then you wouldn't even need speed limits.

One of my gripes is inconsistency - why does one main road going through a hamlet/village go down to 30 but a similar one only goes down to 50? The A5 to Wales used to be like that with 2 villages next to each other having similar frontage on the A5 but different speed limits (might have changed by now - I don't go that way anymore).

In reply to Michael Hood:


The afflence/influence of the residents? A "posh" village I pass through on my rural commute seems to have new anti-speed measures every few months!

In reply to timjones:


.........or given the amount spent by the NHS on traffic accident victims, it would seem absurd not to take effective, simple and cheap measures to control speed when practicable.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I thought that a lot of that cost was recovered from insurance companies?

I might be in broad agreement with you if they were capable of designing speed humps that reduced speeds to the designated speed limit rather than a mere fraction of it

In reply to timjones:

Really?!


I accept that the humps strongly encourage a speed which is well below the speed limit, but that speed is actually the safe speed, so perhaps the solution would be to reduce the speed limit at humps to 5mph. Problem solved!

In reply to timjones:


A well worthwhile result

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Not really, then you just accelerate and brake between bumps!

In reply to Robert Durran:



Not really, the lowest legal UK speed limit is 20mph!

In reply to springfall2008:


I that case the law is daft. 20mph is lethal in some situations.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Speed limits are not meant to tell you what speed it is safe to drive at, if you think that you perhaps need to take some driving lessons *grin*

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Lobby the council to put up some railings on the most hazardous stretch of road to keep pedestrians out of harm's way.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

I recently encountered these in Spain. It was very effective.

In reply to springfall2008:


That is precisely the point I have been making about speed bumps! I just think it daft that we apparently cannot legally have lower limits, say, outside schools.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I just think it daft that we apparently cannot legally have lower limits, say, outside schools.

What is really needed is variable speed limits that take into account such things as schools, pubs closing, etc.

In reply to FactorXXX:


Yes, but they still need enforcing. I think speed bumps are ideal for low limits.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Yes, but they still need enforcing. I think speed bumps are ideal for low limits.

Enforcement is definitely the key and while they're at it, they can catch all the people on their mobiles!
As for speed bumps, some people (young lads mostly) see them as a challenge and either try to go over them fast at a 'special angle' or drive fast/brake hard between them.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Here's and idea which may be helpful.

youtube.com/watch?v=60nC1vg0gYk&

Enjoy

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Get a school built there, the parents will block the road with their crap parking; no one can through above walking speed. Problem solved.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I do think 10mph should be possible. Below that less so as car speedos won't report it so you can't enforce.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I don't think they are ideal for anything.

They are cheap. That is the only benefit over other options, and some of those are cheap too, such as natural chicanes positioned by controlling parking.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

None of that stuff, dog or pedestrian, is happening specifically because of breaking the speed limit. Serious accidents (and near misses of serious accidents) happen because of lack of attention and because of poor judgement.

If you make it a 20 zone they'll just check their texts and email as they drive through.

If you put in speed bumps it will least affect the ones you want to target and your internet shopping will always arrive cracked.

Many years of DfT accident data (derived from police accident investigations) show that a low single figure percentage of serious accident have breaking the speed limit as a primary cause. In one recent year, lack of attention was primary in 37% and poor hazard judgement primary in a further 19%, totalling 56% of all serious accidents (those causing death or serious injury). In reports where the DfT had reported a TOP TEN CAUSES of serious accidents, speeding has NEVER made it into the top ten, and nowhere near.

In the last 50 years, UK road fatalities have dropped to about a quarter of what they were. Major effort on seatbelts and drink driving have had a huge impact and engineering has given us airbags and highly effective crumple zones.

What has been happening recently is not very encouraging. Technically, we are running out of things to fix. Regarding driver behaviour, we've barely scratched the surface. The numbers have stalled: we are stuck around 1700 to 1800 UK road deaths per year. During the time that the improvements have been slowing and stopping, speeding has been the obsession with politicians, media, and prosecutors. Unfortunately, the evidence is that this obsession is almost valueless.

If you make a huge effort about speeding and have great success, saving 50% of lives, then you save about 35 people per year.

If you make a token effort on carelessness and hazard judgement and have limited success, saving 5% of lives, then you save 50 people per year.

Would you like perhaps 500 people to live who might otherwise die this year? 500 next year too, ... and the next, ...

That's the sort of thing we could have achieved during the last 20 years if we hadn't obsessed about speeding. We could have done that by putting our highly trained road policing officers out on the road and lecturing in community centres helping motorists to do things better.

As hundreds of bored traffic cops and hundreds of camera vans across the country record the fine detail of what speed we are doing along a benign straight, elsewhere people are dying because we are too scared, and too cheap, to have our road policing officers out there using their world-class skills to make this country even safer.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Oh and a few home truths about 'traffic calming' and 'street furniture'.

To the people you want to target, a chicane is something they've seen on a race track so it must me kewl and worthy of some effort to negotiate at speed. Speed bumps do not affect motorcycles: well, maybe they'll cause them to leave the ground at 80 0r 90 but there will be no significant rider discomfort or vehicle damage that might modify behaviour. For cars too, there are ways of crossing speed bumps that lessen the effect.

If, on the other hand, you are a wheel chair user on a bus, then having the vehicle that you are in crossing a speed bump or negotiating a chicane really can be a problem. If you have a couple of hundred bottles of mayonnaise in the back of your truck it might also be a problem. Have you every seen the mess that several litres of mayonnaise makes in a vehicle full of groceries? If you are driving a maximum weight, maximum width and maximum length truck (there are many many thousands of those and they are EVERYWHERE) you can no longer do the empty leg at 70 on the motorway because of the limiter and now you've got to get down to 10mph to squeeze through this chicane. No maybe you can make it at 25mph (the boss is on the phone again: you're too slow: the other guy did far quicker) and it's true for 19 out of 20 times until a tiny mistake allows your 13t axle to rip out a kerb and chuck it at somebody.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
I am sure your argument is nonsense. Obviously speed is almost never the primary cause of an accident, but, once a mistake has been made, speed is almost always going to make it more likely that an accident will result and worsen the effects of that accident.

And your stuff about mayonnaise, wheelchairs and so on is laughable. Just cross speed bumps dead slow like they are intended to make you do and there will not be a problem.

Having said that, I do agree that anti speed measures do need to be appropriately targeted which they are not always.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Anything lower than 20mph is totally ridiculous, you will end up being overtaken by cyclists or even runners!

And can you imagine driving at 10mph at 1am Sunday morning past a closed school??

The solution is better driver training and good road engineering, just slapping up a speed limit sign doesn't work.

Now if we electronically limited cars to the speed limit that might work.....

In reply to springfall2008:

Yet 20mph outside a school is, at certain times, far too fast. And at a given speed, a car will do far more damage to you than a bike or a runner!


Obviously not. Variable limits and/or traffic calming measures are the answer.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

And just to emphasise how absurd your argument (that speed is not a major contributing factor to deaths) is, if you take it to it's logical conclusion then limiting all cars at all times to, say, 5mph at all times would do little to reduce deaths. In fact it would obviously reduce deaths to near zero - however bad driving was otherwise, hardly anyone would get hit hard enough to be killed.

In fact we have generally sensible speed limits which balance safety against actually getting around.

In reply to Robert Durran:

German autobahns are some of the worlds safest roads. Current discussions on introducing an 80 mph speed limit were prompted by a desire to reduce emissions rather than any concerns over speed.

In reply to Stichtplate:
Simply by demolishing all schools, houses, pubs and traffic lights we can achieve autobahn speeds safely.

Motorways are relatively safe here too.

In reply to elsewhere:

Much of the autobahn system is 2 lane . They generally have shorter entry and exit slips and due to so much of it being built earlier than the UK system, tighter bends abound.
Where have you seen traffic lights on motorways ?

In reply to Stichtplate:
Sorry, I was unclear.

Motorways are relatively safe but largely irrelevant to safety on the dangerous bits of the road system where you do have schools, houses, pubs, side roads, pedestrians, cyclists, parked cars and traffic lights etc etc etc.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

What amazes me is how inept drivers are that they can still crash into each other on motorways and autobahns.

In reply to elsewhere:

My point on motorway vs autobahn is that while important, speed is a relatively minor factor in road fatalities.
Over the last 50 years roads have become far better engineered and designed, motor vehicles infinitely safer and more capable, road fatalities per mile traveled have dropped through the floor and yet if speed limits are changed it is only ever to reduce them.
At what point does risk aversion become self sabotage of our road network?

In reply to Stichtplate:

I very much disagree. There will be few fatalities per 1000 collisions at 10mph. There will be far more fatalities per 1000 collisions at 30mph or 70mph.

Speed is what determines if the same mistake is a minor impact or something serious.

Somebody linked to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/road-safety/8702111/How-do-accidents-ha... on another thread.

There's loads of examples how speed is relevant, some quotes below.

1) followed by "loss of control" (34 per cent) which, says Greig, often means leaving yourself with "nowhere to go" after entering a bend or other situation, too quickly.
2) "failed to judge other person's path or speed" (11.6 per cent.).
3) Second biggest cause of fatal accidents, to blame for 31 per cent, is the "injudicious action", an umbrella term for "travelled too fast for the conditions' (15.9 per cent of those labelled injudicious), "exceeded speed limit" (13.9 per cent)
4) . But illegal speeding – when drivers exceed the posted limit – accounts for only 13.9 per cent of fatal accidents. A bigger cause [15.9 per cent] is going too fast for the conditions – entering a bend too quickly, for instance – when you might well be under the actual speed limit."


Easier to prosecute a lower speed limit than prosecute inappropriate speed below the speed limit

In reply to elsewhere:

Sloppy post on my part , should have said speeding instead of speed. Logically, the argument you're putting forward would lead to a sub 30 mph limit on all roads. I'd argue for an increased limit on some roads certainly on motorways and an increased police presence to prosecute poor driving.

In reply to Stichtplate:

Can't argue with that.

In reply to elsewhere:


People seem to be getting far too reasonable on here lately.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I'm certainly know people whose insurance companies have incurred a hefty bill for treatment after RTA's.


That isn't a solution it's a clumsy fudged up mess that merey seeks to justify the use of a crude solution.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Why?

If the limits are sensible and the means of enforcing them are fair and proportionate then motorists will be far more accepting of them.

When we are seeing suggestions that parents shouldn't be allowed to keep their engines running outside scholls whilst dropping off or collecting their kids it is absurd to blindly accept the use of speed humps that will increase pollution levels by imposing stop/start progress on passing motorists.

In reply to springfall2008:


In which case you might just as well bike (or run) and stop cluttering up the road

In reply to timjones:

Nonsense they don't impose stop start, that an action the driver chooses to selfishly make. They could just keep their speed down along that whole section benefitting us all.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Yes exactly, assuming that travelling at the speed limit is safe is dangerous, the solution to safer driving isn't lower and lower limits, which are largely ignored anyhow, it's better road engineering and more driver training.

What if everyone had to take a driving test every 10 years?

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Try driving along the whole road at 5 mph (the speed you have to drive over some speed bumps) and see what happens...! [honk honk, overtake]

In reply to springfall2008:

How will driver training stop speeding?

In reply to springfall2008:


Like I said, drivers just being self centred motons

In reply to Lion Bakes:


It might not, but it will reduce the accident rates which is what we want right?

In reply to Lion Bakes:


Yes, if you drove along at 5mph holding everyone up or forcing people to make a dangerous overtake you would be a self-centred moron!

In reply to springfall2008:


Nope they'd be the motons. Maybe just ban cars along that road to solve both problems and reclaim it for the majority not the few.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


I think you will find the majority are driving and the few walking/cycling *doh*

In reply to Lion Bakes:

You seem to be very anti car. Cars and personal computers have delivered more real individual freedom in the West over the last few decades than all other inventions and political movements put together (arguably).

In reply to estivoautumnal:
2 other ideas

Fake gates

Make the road seem narrow without actually changing it.

Wheely bin stickers. Some councils give them free, some hate them.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I refer the right honorable gentleman to the enclosed article

http://www.usroads.com/journals/aruj/9709/ru970901.htm

Summary says.....
Speed limits are unlikely to change driver behavior,and most drivers will choose a 'safe' speed. If the majority are choosing the incorrect speed (in your view) it is because they are ill informed.

The point of the exercise is to try and make things safer, and I think almost all drivers would support this. Unfortunately I think the research suggests imposing arbitrary speed limits is not an effective method of doing this. (And enforcement may well make things more dangerous).
I know that won't be popular on this forum, but as I say, it's about finding workable solutions,not imposing blanket limits.
Just sayin........

In reply to Robert Durran:


Do you want a road safety policy that years and years of DfT figures clearly show can keep people from dying or do you want a cost-cutting sham?



The reality of traffic calming is that it does not take account of how human beings actually behave or the nature of the traffic that uses our roads.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


I want safer roads and fewer deaths. Speed reducing measures obviously have an important part to play in this (or are you disagreeing with what you just quoted but didn't actually address?). The A9 average speed cameras are an excellent example.


The vast majority of people slow right down at speed bumps and chicanes and clearly this can save lives. If people don't and knacker their suspension or smash their mayonaisse, then that is their problem and an incentive to do so next time.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Sure it can save lives, but does it - I think that's what Jim's trying to say - that there are other more important factors than speed that should be concentrated on first as they'll have the most effect.

In reply to Michael Hood:

I'm not disagreeing that there are other more effective things worth doing, but tackling speed first might be more immediate and cheaper. For example, the average speed cameras on the A9 are saving lives over the years it will take to dual it.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Ludicrous. The A9 average speed camera implementation has resulted in reporting of all kinds of results. Clearly, the government are desperate to sell the party line on speeding. However, the whole thing is undermined by the concurrent implementation of the 50mph limit for trucks: on the A9 only. If there is any kind of reduction in accidents or fatalities then we can never have any idea whether it's because cars went slower or trucks went faster.



Truck drivers in traffic-calmed locations are concentrating largely on unnecessary street furniture instead of other road users. You have to be a bit twisted to think that is a positive thing.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-38458586

So this is lies is it? Where are your alternative facts? I suspect that you are one of those who is simply incapable of accepting facts because you resent not being free to drive up and down the A9 at well over the speed limit (which has not actually changed, just been better enforced).


If the drivers could be trusted to obey walking pace speed limits without being effectively forced to by the street furniture, then that would be ideal. But many can't. I'm not the twisted one. If a driver can't negotiate a chicane or speed bump at walking pace without noticing a child and braking, they shouldn't be on the road.

In reply to Robert Durran:



It is certainly a lie that it can be attributed to speed cameras when concurrent with the cameras all the wagons are now doing 56mph flat out against the limiter (50 + 10% +2 = 57).



I have an early start with a 26 tonner, so no time for stupidity.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

It is no secret that raising the limit for lorries concurrently reduces the incentive for dangerous overtaking which was a major cause of accidents. I'm not sure what your point is (I presume you are not suggesting that raising the limit for lorries alone would have resulted in this improvement). The fact is that the speed measures have been successful in reducing accidents and deaths. Do you have an improved suggestion?


No idea what you're on about.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The law does not presently provide for "walking pace speed limits" though I do agree a 10mph limit should be introduced for such uses. It should be camera-enforced.

As for speed bumps, they are often misused (more often than not, in my experience) on roads where walking pace is not necessary. This is evidenced by the limit being 30mph. If a slower speed was necessary, the first step should have been a 20mph limit, and only when that was found not to be respected should speed bumps have been added.

In reply to Dax H:


Speed humps anywhere near a bend are dangerous for motorbikes.
Your figures show that this group is the most law-abiding (or should that be the least law-breaking ?).
However when weather conditions are bad (rain, snow etc.) what's a minor inconvenience to an over the speed limit car can be lethal to a legal-speed motorbike.

In reply to fred99:




I'm no fan of the excessive or inappropriate use of speed humps but any motorcyclist that is endangered by a spwed bump near a bend isn't fit to be on the road.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

I find the most effective item is one of those signs that light up (in red) with your speed when you enter the speed limit area. (But only light when you're over the limit).

When they light up (also in red) telling you that you're doing 26 in a 30 limit that just annoys me, as it's completely unnecessary, and potentially dangerous - if I see a red sign I assume danger, and instinctively react to slow/stop.

In reply to fred99:

While as you'll see above I am against the use of speed bumps in favour of other better options, anyone who is injured by any visible feature of a road that doesn't involve conflict with other traffic has chosen to go too fast for the conditions. It's a limit, not a target. If it's only safe to pass at walking pace, or even with your feet down in the case of the motorcycle, that's what you do. It's poor design because of the inconvenience such slow progress causes, but anyone who is hurt by it needs to look at their driving/riding skill.

The best example of this is the multitude of single-track rural roads with a 60mph limit (NSL) on which 30mph is way too fast. There are many such roads.

In reply to Trangia:



Agreed. I have to shamefully admit that I was caught speeding for the first time recently, doing 37 in a 30, having missed the sign/transition. I went to a speed awareness course only last Thursday and some of the information was really, really useful. I took my test 20 year+ ago I would say that it was worth attending, despite my reservations.

There was also a couple of idiots in the class too, one who was given a severe dressing down by the trainer because he was being a smart arse. He proudly exclaimed that this was his 4th course which show that sometimes you have to take a firmer approach.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


How does that benefit anyone?

If it necessary to impose a 24/7 5mph limit on any road then it is probably also necessary to also consider measures to modify the behaviour of the people that "need" to be protected by such a low limit in order.

In reply to timjones:
Steady speed vs stop/start between bumps.


Better petrol consumption, less wear on brakes, less noise pollution for residents, steady speed less likely to be misjudged by children.

In reply to elsewhere:


5mph is, until we move to electric transmission, a very inefficient speed to move a car at.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Yes, but then 5mph seems abnormally slow driving so I'm not sure why you suggest it.

There will be a design standard but wiki says "Speed humps typically limit vehicle speeds to about 15–20 mph (25–30 km/h) at the hump and 25–30 mph (40–50 km/h) at the midpoint between humps, depending on spacing."

Compared to aggressive braking/acceleration you don't have to go at 5mph through a speed bump section to get all the benefits of better petrol consumption, less wear on brakes, less noise pollution for residents, steady speed less likely to be misjudged by children. Maybe less tyre & suspension wear too.

In reply to elsewhere:



It also says that speed bumps (rather than humps) typically limit speeds to about 5-10mph. Humps are the wider ones. 15-20mph does seem fast for many of the places where bumps or humps are appropriate (I think of them as encouraging walking pace or so) and I certainly wouldn't want to take any of them at 20mph.

In reply to Robert Durran:
I'd not considered a bump vs hump distinction.

Myabe I've seen it at a narrow bridge or underpass but I don't recall ever encountering permanent 5mph limits on public roads. 5mph sounds more like what you see at a shopping centre car park or access roads for school/business/hospital.

In reply to elsewhere:



That is why it is important that any measures used to limit speed are designed to limit it to an appropiate level rather than one that is slower than necessary.

In reply to elsewhere:



Yes, but as they are not on public roads they are also advisory (no legal standing).

In reply to elsewhere:


It depends on what you mean by speed bumps. Those in MK around most estates need to be crossed at walking pace to avoid jarring you to bits. The cushion type ones that can be straddled by most cars at around 20mph are better, but I still think they are a blunt instrument and not really ideal for anything compared with other more directed speed control options.

In reply to elsewhere:
>

I think the point was more that speed bumps (or whatever you call them) should not on an open stretch of road be limiting speed to below the speed limit.

If the speed limit is too high, it needs to be lowered as the first action. 20mph zones, for example, are a good case of a co-ordinated set of measures (including raised sections of road, table junctions etc but rarely harsh bumps) supporting that speed limit. Perhaps a 10mph zone needs to come into law as well.

In reply to Neil Williams:

They're a cheap* way of enforcing or encouraging an average speed along the stretch rather than enforcing the speed limit at fixed points every 100 metres.

*with an emphasis on cheap & placing no demand on policing


Mixed messages on whether 20mph is enforced or enforceable, hence we have cheap humps (fnarr, fnarr).

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/20mph-police-wil...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14698622.Police_call_off_checks_in_20mph...

In reply to elsewhere:

I did note earlier on that the redevelopment of a section of road in Bletchley town centre has introduced bumps, but ones that are designed to allow them to be safely and comfortably traversed *at* 30mph (but not faster than that) rather than being overly harsh unlike most of MK.

In reply to duchessofmalfi:




These are all great suggestions that I would readily welcome...... however - there is nobody there to resource it. Sadly we are lacking Police and other enforcement agencies to assist

In reply to sweetpea:


The beauty of this system is that you can still use cameras to enforce it. I've only ever seen it once on trial in Spain and I was really impressed by how well it got you to think of your speed better.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

Not sure which is going to be most effective but I'd try a multi-pronged approach:

Contact and keep contacting your councilor with your concerns, data and evidenced suggestions for relatively easy cost effective improvements (flashy radar signs, short section of 40 limit to let speed down gradually into village, 'people crossing hazard sign, rumble strips etc).

Contact the local paper, either their letters section (frequent letters from different corespondents) or talk a journalist into coming down to write a little slow news day piece to add pressure to the councilor and or reward action.

Contact your local police with your data, discuss your concerns and ask for help.

Visible deterrence, get out there in a high-viz jacket with your radar gun. Dress a mannequin in high-viz with a hair drier and move it around occasionally. Put up a fake camera on private property. Put up clear 'Please slow for village', 'Slow- Hidden access ahead' type signs on private property.

Alter the car park access to make it safer if possible.

Get the verge/hedges trimmed if visibility through the bend is an issue for crossing safely (council again unless you diy).
jk

In reply to jkarran:
You can get genuine speed camera signs online.

Fakes - speed camera stickers, wheeliebin stickers and bird boxes that look like speed cameras.

In reply to elsewhere:



I like the idea of a camera that goes 'cuckoo' when you drive past it

In reply to GrahamD:


Speed activated of course

In reply to sweetpea:
The other difficulty with approach controlled lights is that bicycles often don't activate them. There were some sort-of like that in Bletchley which, after many complaints from non-motorised road users were switched to normal mode.

They were a pedestrian crossing which defaulted to the traffic lights being on red and thus allowing a pedestrian pressing the button to get an immediate green to cross, they would turn to green when your car reached about 10-20m from them, thus causing you to slow down, but the induction loops were not activated by a bicycle or similar, and with the road being the access to the station from a fair chunk of West Bletchley it was disproportionately heavily used by cyclists, so this caused a real problem - essentially if you wanted to cycle down that road (no cycle path was provided) you had to either break the law or get off and push past the lights on every single journey unless a car was overtaking you at the time.

In reply to estivoautumnal:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/496735/Cat-fake-speed-camera-killed

Could be quite cheap to make a couple?

In reply to Neil Williams:


The ones I saw were normally 'green' and only triggered if a speeding vehicle was detected. Not sure whether they were part of a pelican crossing as well but they could be.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I've encountered lights like this on my motorbike. IIRC the lights were controlling traffic across a narrow bridge on a blind bend and, rather than alternating, for some reason defaulted to be green in the opposite direction to the one I was going. After waiting several minutes for them to change I chose to proceed very carefully, with an apology/excuse already prepared for anyone I might meet coming the other way. No-one did come the other way, which made me wonder even more about why the lights were apparently set to default to let people come through from that direction.

However, as GrahamD correctly says, the speed control "punishment stop" lights are green by default and only turn red if the radar detects a speeding vehicle. This mode of operation poses no problems to cyclists (unless, of course, they do manage to exceed the speed limit).

In reply to timjones:

The problem is that many speed humps are a little more "humpy" than they should be for the speed limit they are in.
Also when a lot of cars, and particularly lorries go over them, a dip is made in the road just after the hump, thus some form of switchback is made.
If on 2 wheels, being anything but dead straight and vertical can lead to "a bit of a wobble", which is a bigger problem if you are near the limit or are less experienced.
This applies to cyclists as well.
As for the attitude that somebody isn't fit to be on the road - in your opinion - having a supposed safety feature which turfs a rider off - in front of a car driver equally speeding who then runs this person over ? - is not a safety measure, but another danger being added to the mix.

In reply to Neil Williams:

If you live there you will know what's necessary to stay in one piece.
If you're from outside the area, doing 25-30mph in a 30mph limit, and a hump appears, how can you tell if it's only safe to go over it at maximum of 5mph. (Or whether ther's now a monster dip been made behind it which not only makes it unsafe for 2 wheels, but means cars can ground out as well.

In reply to fred99:






Surely you shouldn't be so "near the limit" around a bend that you can't slow down in order to take a speed hump safely?

In reply to fred99:



You can't, so you slow right down. Isn't that the whole idea?

In reply to timjones:

Speed bumps are ridiculous waste of energy and cause far more problems than they cause.

They cause unnecessary noise (try living near one) through vechicles bumping over them

They damage the road (for mentioned dip after each bump)

They cause additional pollution as drivers slow down and speed up

They damage vehicles (even ones going slowly) causing more environmental damage through repairs and replacement parts.

If an speeding driver hits one it can cause a loss of control - I'd rather see a speeding driver in my road than an out of control speeding driver

They cause a real risk for cyclists (and I guess Motorbikes) especially when wet

Therefore they should be the absolute last resort.

In reply to Robert Durran:


So why isn't the limit lower? Frankly I'd be happier with spikes that give you punctures if you're a fraction over than speed bumps that damage your car when you are driving perfectly safely and legally

In reply to timjones:

I suggest you ride a bike - then you might understand.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I travel within the speed limit.
This is indicated by, amongst other things, signs at the side of the road - in a built up area it would be 30mph unless otherwise indicated.
The idea that someone from the council can arbitrarily stick something in the road to alter this, without any other indication is, quite frankly, absurd.

In reply to fred99:

I'll never understand the desire to corner at a speed that exceeds the safe stopping distance!

In reply to balmybaldwin:

As already stated I'm no fan of speed bumps but they shouldn't be a major hazard to any safe road user regardless of their chosen mode of transport.

In reply to timjones:

I agree they shouldn't, but they are.

In reply to fred99:

Just being within the speed limt is not necessarily safe or appropriate.


As others have said, 20mph is apparently the lowest speed limit that can be indicated on a public road. If this is true, then I think there is a strong argument for allowing lower limits. Clearly, 20mph can be far too fast in certain places (such as a busy road outside a school) and bumps in such places encourage people to drive dead slowly. However, even if there were signed speed limits of 5mph or 10mph, I am pretty sure that they would be frequently ignored without also having bumps as an incentive to slow down. I think the onus is on those who object to bumps to come up with a practicable and effective alternative.


I do agree that they should be indicated and/or obvious (they usually are). Clearly, it defeats the purpose if people don't see them and so don't slow down.

In reply to Robert Durran: Firstly speed limits...
If I remember rightly from some speed advert years ago:
40mph - hitting a pedestrian - 10% chance of survival (the pedestrian that is)
30mph - hitting a pedestrian - 50/50
20mph - hitting a pedestrian - 10% chance of death

So I can see that 20mph limits make a lot of sense in some built-up locations.

10mph (or 15) - maybe outside schools at start/lunch/end of day (and similar locations)

5mph - you can't tell when you're going this slowly because most car speedos won't register below 10 so I don't think limits this low make practical sense.

The main thing is to make limits consistent, so that if I come across a "familiar" scenario, the limit will be the same as I've already experienced. Inconsistency leads to speed limits being ignored (e.g. similar villages on A5).

Secondly enforcement...
If people can see that speed limits are consistently and reasonably applied then that will cut down a lot of speeding. Of course there will still be some (that includes me some of the time) who need further measures, so what's effective?

Average speed cameras are I think the most effective thing to enforcing speed limits, but they're (obviously) only suitable for reasonably long stretches. Fixed cameras get "known" and the tendency is to slow down for the camera and then speed up, so the sensible place for those is where there is a specific danger point - again these are much more publicly acceptable where this is the case and they are not just seen as a cash cow.

Thirdly prevention...
Road design and furniture - the need for this should be minimised if the above was all properly implemented. Are speed humps/bumps suitable - in some locations yes, but they really need to get the design sorted out better so that they're uncomfortable but don't end up bottoming the car because of a hidden dip or poorly shaped down-slope.

Oh dear this has ended up almost being a manifesto.

Mike for Transport Minister

In reply to timjones:


You don't understand.
On a motorcycle you do not turn the handlebars to take a bend.
What you do is bank over (or lean), not a lot at low speeds, but you bank over.
You do not wait to do this until the bend, but you do it BEFORE the bend, and you are straightening up AFTER the bend.
When you are leaning away from the perpendicular and encounter a hump, you risk a crash.
Consequently any humps that are not a good distance away from any bend are a potential danger.

In reply to fred99:







You should not be riding like such a twunt that you unexpectedly hit a speed hump whilst you are leaning.

You should be able to stop safely before hitting or crossing any item of road furniture, other vehicle, pedestrian etc that you may encounter as you exit a bend.

In reply to Michael Hood:

The big thing about "accidents" is that the overwhelming majority of them are not caused by excessive speed, drink or drugs. They are caused by people not being aware of what's going on around them.
Furthermore it is pretty well impossible around most urban schools to speed when the pupils are being dropped off or picked up, because there's so much traffic about that reaching double figures (10 mph) is virtually impossible.

I pass a number of schools on my way to work each morning, along with a number of junctions/crossing points which children use who are walking to school (shock horror - some actually do !)
I make a point of stopping to let these children (and anyone else) cross.
The number of times that I've been hooted at, shouted at and so forth for my temerity in actually allowing anyone to cross is unbelievable - and a very large number of times the impatient motorist - is evidently a parent judging by the children they have as passengers.
And what advantage would they get - none, as usually about 50 metres down the road we reach the back of the next queue, without anywhere for further cars to have joined in.

In reply to timjones:

The only TWUNT is YOU - you evidently never use 2 wheels to get around.

To take the oncoming bend, or on coming out of a bend, you HAVE to lean/bank.
If there's something in front you first ensure that you're straight and vertical, then brake.

One of the problems that motorcyclists (and cyclists) have with car drivers is their propensity to brake on the bend. This is why I always treat cars on bends as if they've got the plague.

In reply to fred99:


Yes, yes, of course. But I'm sure you know perfectly well that being aware often requires slowing down and that if you do become aware of a problem then an accident is virtually always going to be more likely or more serious at higher speeds. You are just repeating a very tired and unacceptable excuse for excessive speed. If not the primary cause it is frequently the secondary cause of accidents.

In reply to Michael Hood:



But, not many accident involve hitting a pedestrian without even touching the brakes, if you are travelling within a 30mph limit (maybe 27mph really) the chances are you will slow to at least 20mph before the impact so the argument doesn't really wash.

Most 20mph limits are introduced on roads where the average speed is around 24mph or less anyhow, and as such it's not really changing the average speed of vehicles.

In reply to springfall2008:



If 24 is an average speed, the top speed will be considerably higher than that. That is why

In reply to springfall2008:


Ah, so that's alright then.


Good, so I'll drive at 90 on the motorway go balance out the granny doing 50.

FFS.......

In reply to fred99:


That is only a problem if one is too close to them.

In reply to bouldery bits:

I was going to suggest all the resident park on the road to slow the traffic down . doesn`t take many cars parked with just enough space between them to get through to slow everything down . just make sure you leave enough room for HGV s and emergency vehicles

In reply to fred99:

I thought speed bumps were to discourage drivers from using a road as a rat run rather than cutting speed.

In reply to tim000:


From experience they don't achieve that.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Which generally happens as they overtake on blind bends the f*ckwits.

In reply to fred99:



Yes.

In reply to timjones:


Correct.

However, certain inferior machines, that really shouldn't be on the road, like scooters, are disastrously unstable in those sorts of circumstances though.

(Been over speed bumps on private land at near 100mph on a motorcycle and the machine was barely affected. Speed bumps just don't work for a decent motorcycle.)

In reply to springfall2008:

Except that it does wash for the times when somebody is hit as a result of stepping/running straight out into traffic, or other situations where the person is hit at or close to the speed limit, which is when the speeds the limits are set at makes a difference. Imho.


Does not really changing mean changing by ten mph?

In reply to Timmd:



The study they did in Bristol showed the average speed of vehicles in the 30mph zones before the 20mph limit was introduced was 24mph and after the 20mph limit was introduce it was 22mph so a reduction of 2mph. The government guideline now is that you can only introduce a 20mph limit without extra traffic calming measures if the average speed is 24mph or below.

In reply to Robert Durran:



You are forgetting that regardless of the speed limit there will be a spread of speeds and yes some people do drive at 90mph on the motorway

In reply to fred99:




In that case your cornering speed needs to be low enough to allow you to both straighten and brake to a stop befoe you hit ANY obstacle that may be concealed around a bend.

This shouldn't be hard to do if you are travelling at a sensible speed for an area that is deemed to require speed humps.

If speed humps are a danger to you then you are almost certainly a danger to the people that they are there to prtotect.


Why would this be a problem, unless you are tailgating?

In reply to springfall2008:


Of course I've not forgotten that. I was just taking the piss out of your fantastically daft post.

In reply to springfall2008:

You've poked my cheekiness with a very sharp pin then.

Ta for the info.

In reply to timjones:

Because they overtake into blind bends and then brake sharply when they encounter the stuff they couldn't see. Hence the problem created by car drivers / people in metal cages

In reply to The Lemming:

There was a case a while ago where someone in a similar position to you built a bird box in his front garden and designed it to look like a speed camera. Seem to recall he got told to take it down - google it.

The skips idea is a nice one, but you need permission, lights, traffic cones and, possibly, other measures to have it on the road - that's why you see them on people's drives and the car on the road.