Lots of speeding, only one slight injury
Discussion
http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/latest-news/sp...
Interesting to note at what amount over the limit the speeds were actually recorded. The 35mph brigade accounts for a decreasing percentage; the 40mph lot even less.
So, does the 40 odd percent mean less than 35mph? Hmmm.
Interesting to note at what amount over the limit the speeds were actually recorded. The 35mph brigade accounts for a decreasing percentage; the 40mph lot even less.
So, does the 40 odd percent mean less than 35mph? Hmmm.
funkyrobot said:
http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/latest-news/sp...
Interesting to note at what amount over the limit the speeds were actually recorded. The 35mph brigade accounts for a decreasing percentage; the 40mph lot even less.
So, does the 40 odd percent mean less than 35mph? Hmmm.
Care to re-phrase? I'm struggling to understand what you're getting at.Interesting to note at what amount over the limit the speeds were actually recorded. The 35mph brigade accounts for a decreasing percentage; the 40mph lot even less.
So, does the 40 odd percent mean less than 35mph? Hmmm.
At less 12% over the ACPO guidance for prosecution I would call the compliance of the speed limit pretty good along there, keeping in mind it’s a 24h survey so the speeds over 30 could be off peak.
I’d be telling the resident to get lost, low accidents and good compliance to the speed limit. Nothing further to be done.
I’d be telling the resident to get lost, low accidents and good compliance to the speed limit. Nothing further to be done.
Type R Tom said:
I’d be telling the resident to get lost, low accidents and good compliance to the speed limit. Nothing further to be done.
To be entirely fair to the resident, she was complaining about people not slowing down for the speed hump. I used to live next to one that was on a main bus route. House used to shake quite a lot when heavy loads went over without braking. I remember one occasion where someone had their suspension collapse because they had not slowed down.Sounds like there should not be a speed hump there in the first place if there have been no accidents though...
R8VXF said:
Type R Tom said:
I’d be telling the resident to get lost, low accidents and good compliance to the speed limit. Nothing further to be done.
To be entirely fair to the resident, she was complaining about people not slowing down for the speed hump. I used to live next to one that was on a main bus route. House used to shake quite a lot when heavy loads went over without braking. I remember one occasion where someone had their suspension collapse because they had not slowed down.Sounds like there should not be a speed hump there in the first place if there have been no accidents though...
R8VXF said:
To be entirely fair to the resident, she was complaining about people not slowing down for the speed hump. I used to live next to one that was on a main bus route. House used to shake quite a lot when heavy loads went over without braking. I remember one occasion where someone had their suspension collapse because they had not slowed down.
Sounds like there should not be a speed hump there in the first place if there have been no accidents though...
I'm sure it's annoying but it's extremely unlikely to cause damage to property. Question is whether it's the fault of the hump for being there or the fault of the driver not slowing down enough.Sounds like there should not be a speed hump there in the first place if there have been no accidents though...
Type R Tom said:
R8VXF said:
To be entirely fair to the resident, she was complaining about people not slowing down for the speed hump. I used to live next to one that was on a main bus route. House used to shake quite a lot when heavy loads went over without braking. I remember one occasion where someone had their suspension collapse because they had not slowed down.
Sounds like there should not be a speed hump there in the first place if there have been no accidents though...
I'm sure it's annoying but it's extremely unlikely to cause damage to property. Question is whether it's the fault of the hump for being there or the fault of the driver not slowing down enough.Sounds like there should not be a speed hump there in the first place if there have been no accidents though...
Type R Tom said:
R8VXF said:
To be entirely fair to the resident, she was complaining about people not slowing down for the speed hump. I used to live next to one that was on a main bus route. House used to shake quite a lot when heavy loads went over without braking. I remember one occasion where someone had their suspension collapse because they had not slowed down.
Sounds like there should not be a speed hump there in the first place if there have been no accidents though...
I'm sure it's annoying but it's extremely unlikely to cause damage to property. Question is whether it's the fault of the hump for being there or the fault of the driver not slowing down enough.Sounds like there should not be a speed hump there in the first place if there have been no accidents though...
R8VXF said:
I can well believe it can cause damage the amount the ground used to shake where I lived, and the fault is that of the hump, as if it was not there then there would be no need to slow down to less than the signed limit to navigate a suspension killer.
Well the TRL don't agree with you. Not driving to the conditions is not the roads layout fault; you could throw that argument at anything on the road. Although clearly you don't mind vehicle breaking the speed limit going past your house, no problem with that you'd save me a load of hassle but in my experience most people don't.
In the case of the news article, you have to ask, is the relatively high compliance to the speed limit a result of traffic calming or not?
Type R Tom said:
R8VXF said:
I can well believe it can cause damage the amount the ground used to shake where I lived, and the fault is that of the hump, as if it was not there then there would be no need to slow down to less than the signed limit to navigate a suspension killer.
Well the TRL don't agree with you. Not driving to the conditions is not the roads layout fault; you could throw that argument at anything on the road. Although clearly you don't mind vehicle breaking the speed limit going past your house, no problem with that you'd save me a load of hassle but in my experience most people don't.
In the case of the news article, you have to ask, is the relatively high compliance to the speed limit a result of traffic calming or not?
R8VXF said:
Type R Tom said:
R8VXF said:
I can well believe it can cause damage the amount the ground used to shake where I lived, and the fault is that of the hump, as if it was not there then there would be no need to slow down to less than the signed limit to navigate a suspension killer.
Well the TRL don't agree with you. Not driving to the conditions is not the roads layout fault; you could throw that argument at anything on the road. Although clearly you don't mind vehicle breaking the speed limit going past your house, no problem with that you'd save me a load of hassle but in my experience most people don't.
In the case of the news article, you have to ask, is the relatively high compliance to the speed limit a result of traffic calming or not?
R8VXF said:
Highlight EXACTLY where I condone going faster than the limit. Seems you have earned a massive fail in reading comprehension today...
You haven't but traffic calming is generally put in to because it is needed to slow vehicles, you clearly feel the noise etc. caused by the humps outweighs the requirement to slow traffic, ergo you don’t mind people breaking the limit past your house.If this isn’t the case please feel free to explain your position on traffic calming vs vehicle speed compliance in residential areas.
As I said, if more people were like you we’d have less traffic calming but in my experience people want more humps outside their houses, not less!
Type R Tom said:
R8VXF said:
Highlight EXACTLY where I condone going faster than the limit. Seems you have earned a massive fail in reading comprehension today...
You haven't but traffic calming is generally put in to because it is needed to slow vehicles, you clearly feel the noise etc. caused by the humps outweighs the requirement to slow traffic, ergo you don’t mind people breaking the limit past your house.If this isn’t the case please feel free to explain your position on traffic calming vs vehicle speed compliance in residential areas.
As I said, if more people were like you we’d have less traffic calming but in my experience people want more humps outside their houses, not less!
Specifically this paragraph for my point about building damage:
damage said:
The impact of vehicles traversing a speed hump sends shock waves through the ground. Depending upon the nature of the soil, the proximity and construction of buildings, the weight of vehicles, and the frequency of traffic, these shock waves may cause structural damage to nearby properties. If you don't believe that, read the official UK regulations stating where humps can be installed - they specifically exclude anywhere within 25m of bridges, subways, or tunnels.
noise said:
Contrary to popular belief, speed humps increase noise levels. Braking may generate noise, especially with larger vehicles, traversing the hump may create noise, especially with goods vehicles and accelerating after the hump generates more noise than a vehicle travelling at a constant speed. Repeatedly traversing humps causes long-term damage to vehicle components, especially the suspension; and humps can cause damage to the bodywork of large vehicles such as buses, and to the underside of cars with low ground clearance.
If you have never lived next to one, your opinion does not count. Simples.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff