20mph limits & speed humps do not work - IAM on DfT data
Discussion
Association of British Drivers PR said:
Based on the latest accident figures published by the Department for Transport, and analysed by the IAM, those areas that have introduced 20-mph zones and speed humps have worse Killed and Seriously Injured (KSI) figures than those which have not.
Yet these measures remain in widespread use and seem to be appearing more frequently, 20mph limits are championed by those heavyweight libdims. Barnet seems to have other ideas at least as far as speed humps are concerned, removing them without ill effects it would seem.Discuss.
Should spend the cash used to make speed bumps by filling in the potholes and generally repairing the roads to a better standard, perhaps with a grippier/more modern surface.
20mph round schools as a guide is fine
Speed bumps are a ridiculous solution...I don't have the words to carry on with this....too angry...
20mph round schools as a guide is fine
Speed bumps are a ridiculous solution...I don't have the words to carry on with this....too angry...
My house for next year (student) is smack bang in the middle of a 20 zone. Even in a stock focus, they're horrendous. With cars parked on both sides of the road, it becomes single track, so you have to hit the peaks of both left and right lane. I feel sorry for anybody with a nice car in these areas!
Oh, and crawling around at 20, I use 15-20% MORE fuel than on a flat 30 road!
Oh, and crawling around at 20, I use 15-20% MORE fuel than on a flat 30 road!
C.A.R. said:
I've always wondered what some of those speedbumps must be like to experience in the back of an Ambulance... Can't be ideal!
exactly...plus which of these councils thinks that adding these swerve-late braking-inducing hazards is better than making the roads high quality in the first place,....pot holes for cyclists and motorbikes must be an easy win?! poor gutter/drain reinstatement would prevent cyclists from swerving around.Round my way we have a 3 mile section of road that has intermitant speed bumps...every 70 odd metres you'll find: one in the middle of 'your' lane, a small one, right in the middle of the road, and another ordinary one in the 'oncoming' lane.
Get it wrong you hit 'your' bump badly...aim the car right and your wheels just make a small impact either side of the angled bump....or just swerve down the road with your wheels easily straddling the centre bump....carnage...
1stly - any chance of a link to the quote?
2ndly - if they didnt have higher rates, they wouldnt have been chosen for the humps / 20mph.
The op implies that rates are higher BECAUSE of the restrictions. We can only tell that if we know the rates BEFORE the restictions.
The subject of the thread is a statement. This needs to backed up with facts. I cant see any here...
2ndly - if they didnt have higher rates, they wouldnt have been chosen for the humps / 20mph.
The op implies that rates are higher BECAUSE of the restrictions. We can only tell that if we know the rates BEFORE the restictions.
The subject of the thread is a statement. This needs to backed up with facts. I cant see any here...
C.A.R
I drive a bus for the disabled, and these bumps are murder. If i have a wheelchair user in the back, i have to stop and go over at about 1mph!! otherwise he poor buggers with MS gethe full monty, even at 5mph.
I would love to take one of these psnises who designed, thought of and demanded these blooming things a ride in my bus in the back. 5mins with me and i could bet that they would be gone in a week.
And 20mph in school areas. Gret idea, but not in the school hoildays or at 2am. WTF??
Scotland have a 20mph when light is flashin concept. Is that toooo difficult for the Tree huggers/pc/h+s numpties that think they know best doen here
Just off to hot pressure wash the toilet pan
I drive a bus for the disabled, and these bumps are murder. If i have a wheelchair user in the back, i have to stop and go over at about 1mph!! otherwise he poor buggers with MS gethe full monty, even at 5mph.
I would love to take one of these psnises who designed, thought of and demanded these blooming things a ride in my bus in the back. 5mins with me and i could bet that they would be gone in a week.
And 20mph in school areas. Gret idea, but not in the school hoildays or at 2am. WTF??
Scotland have a 20mph when light is flashin concept. Is that toooo difficult for the Tree huggers/pc/h+s numpties that think they know best doen here
Just off to hot pressure wash the toilet pan
Agoogy said:
20mph round schools as a guide is fine
I'm far from convinced that they help matters, but if we must have them, then they should be restricted to the start/end of school during term time. Anything else is malicious anti-motorist unpleasantness, which of course is all too common these days. Few things are more antagonistic than having to creep through a deserted 20mph "school" zone at midnight. It's up there with waiting at a traffic light when nothing is coming the other way. It's not "improving safety" or "helping vulnerable road users" in any way, shape or form, it's solely irritating drivers. And so when people claim that there is no war on the motorist, then in my book, they either never go anywhere, are incredibly unobservant, or are simply lying (rule number one if you support the war on the motorist is apparently to "cleverly" deny with faux innocence that there is any such war, and claim that you are supporting all the things which just happen to make driving more difficult for "safety" or "environmental" reasons, even when there is clearly no such benefit, as in the above examples...forcing motorists to drive too slowly or stop unnecessarily is in fact harmful to the environment).Of course, there are now so many 20mph zones in clearly inappropriate places that even if 20mph around schools would help in principle, that effect has now been lost due to the "crying wolf" principle, which again is a depressingly familiar concept in the UK in 2012. Double yellow lines are another example of "crying wolf"; no distinction is made between unnecessary double yellows and places where it really is a bad idea to even stop 24/7 (red routes notwithstanding), with the result that even the "proper" double yellows are regularly defied, and that doesn't carry the stigma that it should and once did. Anyone with two brain cells could have predicted that effect, but one of the fundamental problems with the car-haters who set these policies is that they completely fail to see human nature for what it is (presumably due to their general lack of empathy).
Sorry for the rant, but they will continue to try to force people out of their cars, not by improving public transport, but by spiting motorists. They could make things better but instead they deliberately make them worse. And the real kicker is that they're spending our money, in these austere times, to do it. Old people's homes and libraries may be closing, but at least the anti-motorist budget seems to be intact, so that working roundabouts can be replaced with traffic lights, and all the other rubbish. It's mean-spirited and undemocratic: it's only a few nutters who actually want our authorities to deliberately restrict traffic flow. But a patronising "we know what's good for you" attitude is pretty much required if you're anti-motorist.
I'll be more than happy to stop ranting on this topic when I no longer have any cause to do so. Which will probably be when I emigrate.
GPSHead said:
Sorry for the rant, but they will continue to try to force people out of their cars, not by improving public transport, but by spiting motorists. They could make things better but instead they deliberately make them worse. And the real kicker is that they're spending our money, in these austere times, to do it. Old people's homes and libraries may be closing, but at least the anti-motorist budget seems to be intact, so that working roundabouts can be replaced with traffic lights, and all the other rubbish. It's mean-spirited and undemocratic: it's only a few nutters who actually want our authorities to deliberately restrict traffic flow. But a patronising "we know what's good for you" attitude is pretty much required if you're anti-motorist.
don't apologise for that..it's bang on the money.... sadly...All the councils have a vested interest in all these traffic calming measures. It keeps loads of planners and road menders in jobs. It will only get worse as the planners are hardly going to say, 'Ok, thats the town sorted, can you sack me now please', are they.
Better still is when they have a new housing scheme being built. I'm pretty sure that one of the stipulations to the builders is that if you want to put the houses up, you must pay us to install stupid speed bumps. So they get to keep their jobs whilst getting the private sector to pay.
It all needs a major rethink. And fast.
Better still is when they have a new housing scheme being built. I'm pretty sure that one of the stipulations to the builders is that if you want to put the houses up, you must pay us to install stupid speed bumps. So they get to keep their jobs whilst getting the private sector to pay.
It all needs a major rethink. And fast.
BertBert said:
A classic piece of pistonheadary...
statement of fact made with evidence that blatantly does not support it. Debate then follows mostly focussed on inconvenience without any facts or data.
Bert
This. statement of fact made with evidence that blatantly does not support it. Debate then follows mostly focussed on inconvenience without any facts or data.
Bert
Blame the 70year old ex-Doctor who plays golf with the Councillor who has pushed for the 20mph zones - when not outside schools, they are normally outside the houses of people with the ear of MP's/council officers.
Further, if the 20 zones had no speed bumps, then do you REALLY think Mr VAG TDi/Master lowered-euro-look Polo/Mrs blinkered bint in her Picasso would obey a 20 limit? Of course not. Then, when there's an accident outside a school, everyone points fingers at the Engineers for not putting in speed bumps. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
The main reason speed humps exist in 20mph areas is because the Police chiefs won't send officers out to enforce a 20 limit, they have to be "self enforcing" in order for the CC to sign off the TRO (speed limit document).
andygo said:
All the councils have a vested interest in all these traffic calming measures. It keeps loads of planners and road menders in jobs. It will only get worse as the planners are hardly going to say, 'Ok, thats the town sorted, can you sack me now please', are they.
Better still is when they have a new housing scheme being built. I'm pretty sure that one of the stipulations to the builders is that if you want to put the houses up, you must pay us to install stupid speed bumps. So they get to keep their jobs whilst getting the private sector to pay.
It all needs a major rethink. And fast.
Better still is when they have a new housing scheme being built. I'm pretty sure that one of the stipulations to the builders is that if you want to put the houses up, you must pay us to install stupid speed bumps. So they get to keep their jobs whilst getting the private sector to pay.
It all needs a major rethink. And fast.
Not quite.
Look at the downsizing of highways departments over the last few years. We have been losing people hand over fist. I've been at risk of redundancy for the last 4 years. I work for a private company, sub-contracted to the public sector, so I'm going to be the first in the line for a bullet. The reason I've survived this long is that I'm CHEAP. A LOT LOT cheaper than equivalent people in the public sector.
Do you think we have a choice in numbers of staff? Of course we don't. The management (project managers, accountants, political types, non-engineers) make the decisions, and then proceed to make people redundant until their spreadsheet says that the figures balance.
Large developments generally provide funding to the council under something called a "Section 106 agreement". This S106 agreement sets out what the contribution is to be used for, and is agreed between the developer and the council. It is not council dictation. They are in the public domain. Ask for a copy of one, and actually have a read of it, before accusing the Highways Dept of incompetence. If you still think they're in the wrong, you'll have a decent bit of proof to back it up. I can even email you a copy of one if you'd like. I've got dozens. Then I'm sure you'd be happy to amend your post to something slightly more accurate/well informed?
ninja-lewis said:
OP, do you have a link? Would like to forward it on to someone.
http://www.iam.org.uk/news/latest-news/1087-road-d...Closest I could find.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff