'Tories will scrap speed bumps'
Discussion
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1173796,00.html
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1173812,00.html
Add this to the 40% reduction of KSIs from scameras and we should be able to conclude that we should not be having accidents anymore!
(Only 3 out of 31 commenters think that the speed bump policy is good or working)
VOTE TORY
The London Ambulance Service said:
as many as 500 deaths a year are caused by humps because crews are delayed in reaching cardiac arrest victims.
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1173812,00.html
article said:
Research shows that humps reduce fatalities on the road by between 17% and 59%.
Add this to the 40% reduction of KSIs from scameras and we should be able to conclude that we should not be having accidents anymore!
(Only 3 out of 31 commenters think that the speed bump policy is good or working)
VOTE TORY Speed bumps are a bigger distraction than speed cameras, IMO. As you drive up to it you're so busy lining up exactly where to hit it, you don't notice the kiddie about to step out in front of you.
Many years ago I saw something on telly (Tomorrow's World?) about a new design of hump that was basically a heavy duty rubber bladder, with some kind of valving arrangement. If you drove over it slowly, the valves would allow the air to escape, and the hump would flatten. If you hit it at speed, the valves wouldn't let air out quick enough, and the effect was that of hitting a solid hump.
Obviously too good an idea to actually put into practice.
Many years ago I saw something on telly (Tomorrow's World?) about a new design of hump that was basically a heavy duty rubber bladder, with some kind of valving arrangement. If you drove over it slowly, the valves would allow the air to escape, and the hump would flatten. If you hit it at speed, the valves wouldn't let air out quick enough, and the effect was that of hitting a solid hump.
Obviously too good an idea to actually put into practice.
So we can expect an increase in speed cameras, chicanes, road narrowing and other non-hump ways of slowing down traffic, then. Not to mention the roadworks delays and costs for removing them all in the first place.
I do like the idea of removing speed humps, but I'd like to see a commitment to remove the rest of the anti-car rubbish at the same time.
Like where motorways have been reduced to 2 lanes at junctions to give those turning off their own lane. Does this work in reducing congestion? Not that I've seen. Yet another New Labour quick, cheap and "seen to be doing something" non-solution to a real problem.
I do like the idea of removing speed humps, but I'd like to see a commitment to remove the rest of the anti-car rubbish at the same time.
Like where motorways have been reduced to 2 lanes at junctions to give those turning off their own lane. Does this work in reducing congestion? Not that I've seen. Yet another New Labour quick, cheap and "seen to be doing something" non-solution to a real problem.
'King Deadly said:
If you hit it at speed, the valves wouldn't let air out quick enough, and the effect was that of hitting a solid hump.
Obviously too good an idea to actually put into practice.
Would not work, Emergency services still need to be able to negotiate them and I don't want the ambulance thats carrying me to have to slow down for anything thanks
Just get rid of them altogether..
Yep! I don't see any benefit, only an extra cost in laying and maintaining them. Scrap 'em! Stupid idea anyway, lumps in the road indeed! May as well go back to dirt tracks, it would at least be cheaper.
In the area, I know of a few of those: restricted roads, where one side is blocked off and you're forced to wait for oncoming traffic. Ever noticed how the remaining side breaks up into large potholes every 6 weeks because it's taking twice the traffic?
(shakes head and kicks dog) STUPID!!!!
In the area, I know of a few of those: restricted roads, where one side is blocked off and you're forced to wait for oncoming traffic. Ever noticed how the remaining side breaks up into large potholes every 6 weeks because it's taking twice the traffic?
(shakes head and kicks dog) STUPID!!!!
supraman2954 said:
[url](Only 3 out of 31 commenters think that the speed bump policy is good or working)
If it were only that easy. A couple of comments:
1) You really trust a politician?
2) It was the conservatives who introduced them first
3) What will be used to replace them?
Would we really expect to see a change to the status quo if the Tories were in? I doubt it..... cynical to the last I am afraid.
Peter Ward said:
So we can expect an increase in speed cameras, chicanes, road narrowing and other non-hump ways of slowing down traffic, then. Not to mention the roadworks delays and costs for removing them all in the first place.
It's a difficult one, because when residential roads are used as speedy rat runs by rush hour drivers, there has to be some form of traffic calming. Unfortunately we can not rely on the majority of drivers to be reasonable, so what is the solution? Speed bumps damage cars, make noise and pollution and slow down ambulances, but are chicanes and all the other alternatives really much better?
There are a couple of vicious speed bumps on my road, at the bottom of a steep downhill stretch. In rush hour some drivers use it as a shortcut and the uninformed take the bumps far too fast, bottoming out with a crash. There are often bits of car lying by the road, and several holed sumps per year. Because I'm a classic NIMBY with kids, I don't want these tossers speeding down MY road so celebrate everytime I hear a car shag itself over the speed bumps.
Taking them all out is not a solution - it is only the creation of a problem that then has to be addressed in another manner, probably equally annoying.
off_again said:
If it were only that easy. A couple of comments:
1) You really trust a politician?
2) It was the conservatives who introduced them first
3) What will be used to replace them?
Would we really expect to see a change to the status quo if the Tories were in? I doubt it..... cynical to the last I am afraid.
All IMO:
1) Who else can we trust? We gotta do something different (I certainly would vote for Paul Smith if he ran for it).
2) I agree with using speed cameras (in principle); I disagree with Labour’s policy of milking them for all they are worth.
3) Probably speed cameras, ideally moved from the current cash cow locations. I don’t mind this as no-one should be hooning though these areas of high pedestrian density.
JagLover said:
Perhaps the Tories are starting to reclaim their mantle as the party for the car.
If they were to give a 'firm' commitment to scrap many speed humps/cameras, raise the Motorway speed limit, and start building roads would it make anyone on Pistonheads decide to vote for them?
I can't forget the Evil done by Thatcher, but I think a promise to remove all speed limits and speed humps and lowering of car tax and petrol tax, plus the banning of congestion charging, plus more money for park and ride schemes, plus removing VAT off essential car parts, plus removing green belt planning rules plus more money on public rose gardens (my gran has a recent complaint here) plus the raising of the inheritance tax theshhold, plus more relaxed and less racist imigration rules, plus an appology to the minors, a 40% pay rise for Nurses, more police on the beat, and I might just be persuaded to vote. Not for them (I will never do that) but if the liberals promised all that and more I'd perhaps be arsed to go down the polling station.
jacko lah said:
I can't forget the Evil done by Thatcher, but I think a promise to remove all speed limits and speed humps and lowering of car tax and petrol tax, plus the banning of congestion charging, plus more money for park and ride schemes, plus removing VAT off essential car parts, plus removing green belt planning rules plus more money on public rose gardens (my gran has a recent complaint here) plus the raising of the inheritance tax theshhold, plus more relaxed and less racist imigration rules, plus an appology to the minors, a 40% pay rise for Nurses, more police on the beat, and I might just be persuaded to vote. Not for them (I will never do that) but if the liberals promised all that and more I'd perhaps be arsed to go down the polling station.
You don't want much do you
jacko lah said:
I can't forget the Evil done by Thatcher, ... plus an appology to the minors,
Let me apologise for her. I am sorry dear miners. I am sorry that you had to work in an industry that made no money and only still existed because I help support it out of my taxes. I am sorry that your jobs where so well paid and your working practices so restricted that you produced the most expensive coal in the world. I am sorry that you thought that you could win a strike by intimidation.
>> Edited by Mrr T on Wednesday 9th March 14:42
Mrr T said:
I can't forget the Evil done by Thatcher, ... plus an appology to the minors,
Let me apologise for her. I am sorry dear miners. I am sorry that you had to work in an industry that made no money and only still existed because I help support it out of my taxes. I am sorry that your jobs where so well paid and your working practices so restricted that you produced the most expensive coal in the world. I am sorry that you thought that you could win a strike by intimidation.
>> Edited by Mrr T on Wednesday 9th March 14:42
That is all the apology they deserve
Mrr T said:
I can't forget the Evil done by Thatcher, ... plus an appology to the minors,
Let me apologise for her. I am sorry dear miners. I am sorry that you had to work in an industry that made no money and only still existed because I help support it out of my taxes. I am sorry that your jobs where so well paid and your working practices so restricted that you produced the most expensive coal in the world. I am sorry that you thought that you could win a strike by intimidation.
>> Edited by Mrr T on Wednesday 9th March 14:42
Much of what you say is true, there is a bit more to it than that though. The restrictive practices were brought in by management in the first place, (the kind of managers who managed from the golf course). It may well have been the most expensive coal in the world but at least it was an energy source that was easily accessible. We are now at the mercy of foreign coal producers. I am generally not in favour of subsidies but I am far happier with subsidising miners than squandering millions on silly speed humps, cameras, scumeraships, public transport subsidies (WTF
) and an assortment of quangos that produce absolutely no wealth for the nation whatever. Destroying the mining industry is a bit like cutting off you foot cos you have an ingrowing toe nail. 20mph limits everywhere instead anyone?
Tim Yeo, the shadow transport secretary, said: "Superficially, road humps may seem an attractive solution. But they probably do more harm than good.
Both safety and environmental considerations are better served by cars travelling at a steady 20mph rather than constantly speeding up and slowing down."
Tim Yeo, the shadow transport secretary, said: "Superficially, road humps may seem an attractive solution. But they probably do more harm than good.
Both safety and environmental considerations are better served by cars travelling at a steady 20mph rather than constantly speeding up and slowing down."
echo said:
20mph limits everywhere instead anyone?
Tim Yeo, the shadow transport secretary, said: "Superficially, road humps may seem an attractive solution. But they probably do more harm than good.
Both safety and environmental considerations are better served by cars travelling at a steady 20mph rather than constantly speeding up and slowing down."
It is not 20MPH everywhere only on the residential streets where speed humps are placed-and the Tories are the only main political party who have floated the idea of rasing the Motorway limit to 80 MPH
nonegreen said:
Much of what you say is true, there is a bit more to it than that though. The restrictive practices were brought in by management in the first place, (the kind of managers who managed from the golf course). It may well have been the most expensive coal in the world but at least it was an energy source that was easily accessible. We are now at the mercy of foreign coal producers. I am generally not in favour of subsidies but I am far happier with subsidising miners than squandering millions on silly speed humps, cameras, scumeraships, public transport subsidies (WTF
Alot of coal we used to consume has been replaced by natural gas.
This is the main reason why the UK will reach it's Kyoto targets-because Generating electricity using gas produces less Co2.
Gas is incidentally cheaper as well-a win win situation all around.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff