Traffic calming measures and the environment...

[friction_point]

G'day everyone

Hi everyone, this is my first post on this forum, but I've been browsing this site for about 2 years now. I'm a Sydneysider and I can certainly relate to this discussion.

The pain Sydney motorists go through daily is incredible, from poorly repaired and maintained roads through to downright short-sighted and narrow-minded city road planning.

Speed humps are everywhere, and by everywhere I mean 2 to 3 bumps on a short street! I find this a terrible waste of taxpayer money, instead of properly repairing ain roads and actually improving drainage around highways.

As a young motorist, I find things like Speed cameras/ red light cameras and speed bumps really annoying, and they cause more road rage than say, someone cutting in front of me.

I think the whole approach needs to be looked at with intelligence, as opposed to greediness (state revenue cash-cows). My idea of calming motorists down would be through well-maintained roads and no speed bumps continually jolting you. I think with road rage, you're going to want to 'floor it' more than when you're chilled out, and that can't be too good for the environment.

Cheers.

 

[George & Bill]

Hi everyone, this is my first post on this forum, but I've been browsing this site for about 2 years now. I'm a Sydneysider and I can certainly relate to this discussion.

The pain Sydney motorists go through daily is incredible, from poorly repaired and maintained roads through to downright short-sighted and narrow-minded city road planning.

Speed humps are everywhere, and by everywhere I mean 2 to 3 bumps on a short street! I find this a terrible waste of taxpayer money, instead of properly repairing ain roads and actually improving drainage around highways.

As a young motorist, I find things like Speed cameras/ red light cameras and speed bumps really annoying, and they cause more road rage than say, someone cutting in front of me.

I think the whole approach needs to be looked at with intelligence, as opposed to greediness (state revenue cash-cows). My idea of calming motorists down would be through well-maintained roads and no speed bumps continually jolting you. I think with road rage, you're going to want to 'floor it' more than when you're chilled out, and that can't be too good for the environment.

Cheers.

So you are saying that if motorists are chilled out and their sources of annoyance/'rage' taken away, roads will be safe?

I would argue that not only would this not be the case, but that your argument in favour of achieving the situation is full of holes.

I don't know about Sydney, but in a city like London an equal if not much greater irritation to motorists is, simply, the abundance of other motorists. The average speed for a car in London is something like 12mph. So even if you got rid of all the annoying speed bumps and the ?annoying? traffic lights, there would still be ample cause for driver stress.

And then, even if we managed to get all motorists driving along as chilled as ice (which we can't), that would not solve the problem of them going to fast, or, for that matter, having insufficient skill, or insufficient regard for the concentration driving requires. Stressed drivers are certainly more dangerous drivers, but speeding drivers, while undoubtedly used as scapegoats very often, are also, broadly, more of a threat than those observing the speed limit. And people don't speed just because they are stressed - they do it in an attempt to reach their destination faster.

I also cannot resist pointing out that you critisise speed-bumps for costing money in one breath, before condemning cameras as revenue raisers in the next. What is the municipality intent upon doing to its coffers, one must wonder - swell them or empty them? While one must acknowledge the corruption and inefficiency that muddies the waters, it is curious how money spent is 'ours', while revenue raised goes into the unaudited pocket of 'the man'.

 

[friction_point]

Well maybe it's me then..

I get pissed off at constantly slowing down to a crawl to prevent getting hurled about over a speed bump, especially when there's two sometimes even three on a short street. I find my view not too different from other motorists I've talked with so I don't think that I'm being too radical.

 

[laptop]

Impatient drivers - have you added the carbon emissions involved in cremating the child you're going to kill into your oh-so-virtuous equation?

 

[Termite Man]

Impatient drivers - have you added the carbon emissions involved in cremating the child you're going to kill into your oh-so-virtuous equation?

unless that child was going to live forever then I expect the carbon emisions from cremation would just be bought forward rahter than completly eliminated . Anyway , I like speed bumps because when the roads are quiet it means I can use them as "ramps" to do little jumps on my bike

 

[MikeMcc]

OK, so which member of the emergency services said that?

Well theres:

This one.
This one
This one.
Or this one.

 

[longdog]

I get pissed off at constantly slowing down to a crawl to prevent getting hurled about over a speed bump...

I think you are making the case for speed bumps quite well. Heaven forbid that anything should piss off a motorist.

Bloody pedestrians getting in the way

I like the idea they have in some countries where, with the exception of major routes cars are on the street on sufference. The streets are there for the pedestrian and if you hit one of them you are deep in the shit and you'd better have a fucking good explanation of how you managed to hit them.

 

[laptop]

I like the idea they have in some countries where, with the exception of major routes cars are on the street on sufference. The streets are there for the pedestrian and if you hit one of them you are deep in the shit and you'd better have a fucking good explanation of how you managed to hit them.

I've heard that in the Netherlands, if a driver hits a cyclist, it's the driver's fault in law. Period. No investigation required.

I would hope and expect this applies pedestrians too.

 

[Radar]

I've heard that in the Netherlands, if a driver hits a cyclist, it's the driver's fault in law. Period. No investigation required.

I would hope and expect this applies pedestrians too.

The version I heard from a dam cabbie was that in the case of a motorist v cyclist, the assumption of guilt is on the driver and he has to prove the accident wasn't his fault or it was the cyclists fault to be in the clear.

Sorry folk, we need to deploy the oft discussed steering wheel spikes. The only mod that will work, or should we discuss speed limiters instead

 

[laptop]

Sorry folk, we need to deploy the oft discussed steering wheel spikes.

In response to such things as airbags, I've argued that the driver should simply have to sit on the outside.

 

[maomao]

Seatbelts for drivers should be made illegal and replaced with a compulsory nine inch steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel. There'd be no accidents then.

 

[Cobbles]

The streets are there for the pedestrian .

Pavements are there for pedestrians - the bit in between the two pavements is for chariots/bullock carts/motor vehicles. Always has been, apparently.

 

[mauvais]

I think the answer is catapults.

You drive too fast, and a device beneath the road gently tosses your car into a nearby 'safe zone' not far from from the highway, such as a forest or playground.

Now, critics will say that there aren't enough green spaces in our more urban areas to permit this. I say this fits in perfectly with the idea. If you speed around somewhere grim and horrible, like London, you will simply be catapulted with a more violent force such that you still reach a zone where potential for social damage is far more limited, like the Thames, or Essex.

This has the clever side effect that speeding in such areas carries an inherently harsher penalty. Of course, city kids are far more valuable than rural oiks and should be safeguarded appropriately.

 

[Cobbles]

Seatbelts for drivers should be made illegal and replaced with a compulsory nine inch steel spike in the middle of the steering wheel. There'd be no accidents then.

But there'd be a shed load of dead bus drivers impaled as their lumbering pile lollops over speed bumps at anything other than the kind of pace achieved by a slug crawling over a red hot griddle pan.

If the posted speed limit on a road is 30 and the weather conditions permit such a speed, then why should "traffic calming" reduce the speed of vehicles to 2MPH? It's been shown that if the goal is to get people to drive at a given speed, then the "OI You Slow Down" type of flashing signs are far more effective rather than a temporary impediment that you merely speed away from with wheels spinning and engine revving.

 

[laptop]

Pavements are there for pedestrians - the bit in between the two pavements is for chariots/bullock carts/motor vehicles. Always has been, apparently.

I think you'll find that the highway is there for the benefit of all who wish to get from A to B - unless there is a specific exception, like pedestrians on motorways and you on the pavement.

 

[Wintermute]

This is clearly a case of communications management. I think there are two conflicting issues for users here; that of safety, and green credentials. Now, when I think green and safe, the first thing I think of is the Green Cross Code Man, and it's clear to me that resurrecting, or "recycling", a new, eco-friendly GCCM could be a key campaign motivator.

Surplus police, ambulance workers and regular army troops could be dressed in green lycra suits and released into congestion zones to wander among traffic, thus slowing it and reinforcing the brand ideology that going green is safe.

Fat, opulent cars and thin, speedy cars would have their windscreens covered with green paint while small, cute, round cars with pert buttocks and nice teeth would be awarded a biodegradable stick-on silver "X" and a solar power voucher.

A childrens' cartoon series featuring GCCM and his "Youth of The Code", would ensure broad spectrum penetration and could feature on-target plot messages such as GCCM defeating the evil oil barons and turning the oil into Evian to power his secret fleet of hydrogen-powered vehicles, which he then distributes to grateful rock stars and other world leaders. Or he could invade space.

Ok, I'll start on the forecasting, if TC and JL could instigate planning and liase with PD on the TTL, let's rock on and meet back here Wed for a heads-up?

 

[Buffalo Bill]

lol

 

[pembrokestephen]

Not sure I'd go as far as "immense environmental harm", but the first option agrees with my outlook more than the others.

I think they DO do environmental harm, and they also increase the complexity of the driver's task to the point where I think they could well have a detrimental effect on road safety generally.

Replacing humps and chicanes with cobbled or corrugated road surfaces would be a start, but I think there is a lot more that could be done with sensible designs and good enforcement of safer driving behaviours - speed humps and all the other paraphernalia are just blunt instruments.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Speed humps, as a general inconvenience to motorists, might help persuade people out of their cars and onto other modes of transport instead.

Why drive the car a mile down the road to the shops if it is bump-bump-bump all the way? It becomes more pleasant to walk or cycle, avoiding the bumpiness.

The trouble is that, like far too much government policy, it relies entirely on stick and not enough on carrot.

I agree that both are needed, but assaulting people - essentially what putting excessive humps in their path is doing - to discourage them from driving is not justifiable when, having deterred them from driving anywhere, their options as far as public transport are concerned are often very limited.

Not to mention that being in a bus - especially those little hoppa type buses - going over speed bumps can be a very painful and sometimes dangerous experience.

 

[Pie 1]

The best traffic calming measure I have seen is when they stop the distinction between road and pavemet and add obstacles like trees. It takes away the tunnel vision of motorists. Amsterdam city centre is a bit like this in places.

They also [in Holland] have sucessfully tried taking away every single piece of road signage warning drivers (chevrons, painted surfaces etc) in country towns & villages etc.
They tried the idea in Norfolk I believe, in a village that was lit up like a Tokyo street racing game and had a real speeding problem.
Almost over night the problem was solved as the drivers weren't being effectively guided though the village anymore.

 

[Buffalo Bill]

Speed bumps are a blunt instrument. But they are very cost-effective, and they do the job (reducing average vehicle speeds, thus reducing the severity of injuries suffered in crashes).

Personally, I hate riding my bike over them, and bitterly resent the stupidity and inconsideration of the motorists who have forced such drastic measures.

There are other methods, which have been mentioned above. As a cyclist, I prefer them, as they are less intrusive.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Speed bumps are a blunt instrument. But they are very cost-effective, and they do the job (reducing average vehicle speeds, thus reducing the severity of injuries suffered in crashes).

Hmm. I'm uncomfortable with this "they do the job" argument, as it justifies all kinds of stupid ideas that might also "do the job" but in ways that aren't helpful. ID Cards, for example, could be argued to "do the job", for some values of "the job", but one has to wonder whether the price would be worth it.

Personally, I hate riding my bike over them, and bitterly resent the stupidity and inconsideration of the motorists who have forced such drastic measures.

Quite. And this is exactly what I mean above. To prevent a minority of motorists from driving at inappropriate speeds, a road hazard is created that penalises ALL motorists (and I've yet to encounter a 30mph speed hump that permits of anyone driving at 30 over it), risks distracting drivers from the very things they should be looking out for (eg kids in the street, residents, other traffic), AND presents an environmental risk.

There are other methods, which have been mentioned above. As a cyclist, I prefer them, as they are less intrusive.

Which makes me wonder how you can support speed humps? You can be opposed to people driving at excessive speeds without feeling under any obligation to support a "blunt instrument" whose effectiveness at achieving the ultimate goal of making that bit of road safer (forcing people to drive at a lower speed, at any cost, does not automatically achieve that) is at best doubtful.

 

[Buffalo Bill]

Sorry mate,

I don't support speed-humps, necessarily. I do support measures that bring down average speeds (speed-humps are proven so to do). When average speeds come down, the results of crashes are less severe - basic physics.

It might well be the case that speed bumps distract drivers, but I haven't seen any evidence to support that assertion.

It's not 'doubtful' that speed-humps bring down average speeds - it's a fact.

As I said before, I don't like them.

 

[Buffalo Bill]

Seeing as you can't be bothered to even google it, I did it for you.

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=ifeaf&c=dfjde

 

[pembrokestephen]

Sorry mate,

I don't support speed-humps, necessarily. I do support measures that bring down average speeds (speed-humps are proven so to do). When average speeds come down, the results of crashes are less severe - basic physics.

But road safety isn't just about basic physics. It's about psychology, too. The trap you're falling into is the same trap that people paid to make decisions about road safety often fall into: they assume that any given situation can be addressed with a simple single-basis solution. It's easy to see why: it is much nicer to be able to present a "simple" guaranteed fix, and prove its effectiveness by saying - as you are - "speed causes accidents, and speed bumps reduce speed". It's not untrue, but it's far from being the whole story.

It might well be the case that speed bumps distract drivers, but I haven't seen any evidence to support that assertion.

And yet, even though you're prepared to acknowledge that speed bumps MAY have a deleterious effect on safety, you're happy to skim over that?

A similar story is emerging with speed cameras, which use the same justification you are using for speed bumps. Yet, following nearly 15 years of steadily decreasing road casualty figures, the downward trend has stopped - at about exactly the time we switched over to camera enforcement and began to downgrade actual coppers-in-cars enforcement. Yes, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and all that, but nobody's actually done any sensible work on this, because the people with the resources, time and money to do it have a vested interest in making sure that the decision they made, and spent millions on, looks like the right one. Even so, it's interesting to see the government quietly stepping back from its original gung ho insistence that speed cameras and the quangos to operate them are The One True Way.

It's not 'doubtful' that speed-humps bring down average speeds - it's a fact.

I don't think anyone here is disputing that they bring down average speeds. But there's a lot of devils in the details, there: first of all, average speeds might come down, but what speeds are people doing between the bumps? We've all see them, the people who slow down to a crawl to negotiate the bump (you have to), then roar off at 30-40 to slam on the anchors for the next one. Average speed isn't what kills people - it's instantaneous speed that does that, and I think that a combination of peak speeds only marginally slower because of bumps than what they might have been doing otherwise, plus the fact that people doing them are going to be spending a lot more time accelerating under power, and watching out for the next hump, are likely to be less able to spot hazards and stop in time, that makes them potentially more dangerous in my view.

I'm trying to question the orthodoxy that speed bumps save lives here, not necessarily make a full case for the idea that they do - I don't have those kinds of resources. You appear to be responding to my questions by simply restating the orthodoxies.

As I said before, I don't like them.

Well, you're doing a good impression of someone who does!

 

[pembrokestephen]

Seeing as you can't be bothered to even google it, I did it for you.

http://www.portlandonline.com/transportation/index.cfm?a=ifeaf&c=dfjde

Tell you what: you stick to doing Google searches to support your assertions, and I'll do the same for mine, where relevant or necessary.

I'm not going to run around trying to prove your case for you.

ETA: that link demonstrates only that average speeds are lower because of speed bumps. I see nothing about reduction of risk or reduction of collisions there.

 

[Buffalo Bill]

Lower vehicle speeds = less severe injuries. That's it.

 

[Buffalo Bill]

Ok, there are a lot of other ways to reduce speed - the best way is to convince drivers that inappropriate speed can maim and kill.

That's why driver psychology is important.

But the original question was are speed bumps bad? Overall, the answer is no. All of the evidence is that they bring down injuries because they bring down average speed. Yes, they cause damage, both to the buildings and the road, and they shorten the life of motor vehicles. But only because most drivers are to stupid to drive over them correctly.

I think that there are a lot more ways that are more effective, but to answer your point about speed cameras, I honestly don't know whether the cameras have reached the limit of their usefulness. Perhaps they have, as more and more drivers have worked out where they are, how to cheat them. But most traffic 'calming' or other measures seem to lose effectiveness over time.

Honestly, I really do hate speed bumps.

 

[roryer]

Speed humps protect residential streets from becoming high speed rat runs, the noise and air pollution and danger of cars speeding through residential areas justify this measure. They are cheaper and more effective than any other measure. The extra emissions this cause are minimal, good driving at 20mph would mean there would be no need to speed up or slow down anyway.

Of course we also need 20mph blanket speed limit in London outside of main artrials that should be physically cut off from residential zones and pedestrian and cycle traffic by a wall or fence.

GPS and speed cameras should also be installed on all streets of course. Car crushing should be manditory for any car that speeds by more than 10 mph above speed limit.

I'm not anti-car I think cars are fine for motorways, just not appropriate for places where people live. We should build high rise car parks around the M25, link them to the city with bus or train lines and get rid of all the private cars within the M25.

 

[pembrokestephen]

Lower vehicle speeds = less severe injuries. That's it.

That may be it, but it's not all of it. Otherwise, to take a reductio ad absurdum position, motorways would be carnage. And to take a similar position in the opposite direction, we might as well put a man with a red flag in front of every car and restrict them to walking pace.

The trick is to find a balance, and then enforce it in the most effective way possible. I don't believe that speed humps ARE the most effective way possible, or even A particularly effective way.

It always amazes me that we go to so much trouble to make straight, smooth roads, and then litter them with chicanes and bumps. They're indiscriminate - emergency vehicles have to crawl past/over them, and buses often struggle with them - and they only actually force people to drive slowly while they're negotiating them. They also cause a lot of damage to vehicles, inconvenience cyclists, and I note that road surfaces around them often need (expensively) replacing to deal with the great gouges out of the top surface that appear.