RE: Speed Humps Rival Fiji For CO2 Footprint
Discussion
cs02rm0 said:
Are these people running into anything?
Is it a bad thing that your children are frightened of fast moving cars?
You do have a good point there - there has been no decrease in accidents along our road since the speed bumps went in (from zero to zero in a given time period). But seriously it is annoying, anti-social, inconsiderate and unpleasant when people drive past your house on a housing estate at unnecessary speed, and I doubt anyone would feel otherwise. I enjoy driving, sometimes at speed, but not through a residential area.Is it a bad thing that your children are frightened of fast moving cars?
And definitely anything upsetting my children is a bad thing, and it is hardly a valuable lesson for them to fear fast-moving cars day after day. They are not stupid and can learn from one event or even instruction.
the Fantom said:
You do have a good point there - there has been no decrease in accidents along our road since the speed bumps went in (from zero to zero in a given time period). But seriously it is annoying, anti-social, inconsiderate and unpleasant when people drive past your house on a housing estate at unnecessary speed, and I doubt anyone would feel otherwise.
We have the same "problem" on the road I live on. Speed humps fix the symptom (excess speed), not the disease (stupidity). tinman0 said:
nsmith1180 said:
The figures also dont take in to account the Carbon footprint of making the speed bumps, making the additiona shocks and brake pads that you wear out faster driving over them. Disposing of the early wear components.
When someone takes that in to acount come back to me with new figures!!
Hmm, what is the average life of a shock absorber anyway? I have a nasty feeling that shock absorbers are out lasting the modern vehicle, or at least in the UK. I have only ever changed shocks on my old Golf and that was during a very expensive rebuild before the vehicle went into storage. Anyone else would have scrapped the car.When someone takes that in to acount come back to me with new figures!!
Brake pads, how long is a piece of string really. Not sure you could easily put a price on it. Most of this stuff is low speed braking which must have a minute amount of wear.
Fuel consumption increased = extra fuel bought = more revenue generated
yet another stealth tax!
added to that the extra vat paid in repair bills due to suspension failures....
A mechanic mate has seen an increase in damper spring failures over the recent years as these humps have been allowed to breed... no real stats to back this up just his impression of extra work.
yet another stealth tax!
added to that the extra vat paid in repair bills due to suspension failures....
A mechanic mate has seen an increase in damper spring failures over the recent years as these humps have been allowed to breed... no real stats to back this up just his impression of extra work.
sospan said:
Fuel consumption increased = extra fuel bought = more revenue generated
yet another stealth tax!
added to that the extra vat paid in repair bills due to suspension failures....
A mechanic mate has seen an increase in damper spring failures over the recent years as these humps have been allowed to breed... no real stats to back this up just his impression of extra work.
I think I can help on the fuel duty stuff:yet another stealth tax!
added to that the extra vat paid in repair bills due to suspension failures....
A mechanic mate has seen an increase in damper spring failures over the recent years as these humps have been allowed to breed... no real stats to back this up just his impression of extra work.
Rough figures would say at about £1 a litre, that a mile of speed humps is 14.6p of petrol, whereas a mile without is about 7.8p ( - www.clear-offset.com ). So it costs (the average car, not necessarily the V8 drivers) an extra 6.8p for every mile of speed humps we do. About 69.9% of that is tax (VAT and fuel duty - http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html). Which means the tax man gets 4.8p per mile of speed humps.
Not much, but 50 standard humps on 5km of connecting residential streets costs about £150,000. So you need 3.15m cars to travel that road, which at 1 each way every minute gives 3 years. So a mile of speed humps pays for itself in about 3 years in extra fuel duty alone.
Apologies if this was all already calculated a year ago - it was just something we had our guys work on recently.
Edited by badgerracing on Friday 10th July 20:44
Edited by badgerracing on Friday 10th July 20:44
Stubby Pete said:
general190 said:
thehardman07 said:
My local council (in a bid to waste some of our money before the end of the financial year) has recently put speed bumps in just about EVERY street in my town...... which is annoying. The ones on my commute out of town to work though are not wide enough, meaning you can place each wheel on either side and not feel a thing!
I hate these speed bumps!! they are ok if in a car with a normal ride height but if im in the skyline or celica then they will scrape all the way down the car on the underside. Just had to have the exaust re-attached on the celica because of it!! Grr! Even have to be carful in the bmw.I have to slow right down and take one side up and over to save scraping my chassis f
king things!
HTH
i really fking hate speed bumps, as i have to basically stop and crawl over them else my sump + downpipe will catch.
and will make sure that i give it full beans and see how fast i can get to before the next one, just to ps off the people who asked for the things.
where if there was no bumps i would have crusied by at around 1500-2000 revs at 20-30 mph.
king hate speed bumps, as i have to basically stop and crawl over them else my sump + downpipe will catch.and will make sure that i give it full beans and see how fast i can get to before the next one, just to p
s off the people who asked for the things.where if there was no bumps i would have crusied by at around 1500-2000 revs at 20-30 mph.
I've driven the same road at least once a day everyday for the past 9 years in a variety of cars. Since the council littered the road with 4 sets of pyramid humps I've had to replace my first ever spring that had snapped clean off two coils from the top... and it's on the newest car I've ever owned so not down to wear and tear.
They put them in then had to run back a few days later and bodge up a hole that was in front of one of them making the height twice what it was from dropping into the pot hole before the hump.
They put them in then had to run back a few days later and bodge up a hole that was in front of one of them making the height twice what it was from dropping into the pot hole before the hump.
badgerracing said:
I think I can help on the fuel duty stuff:
Rough figures would say at about £1 a litre, that a mile of speed humps is 14.6p of petrol, whereas a mile without is about 7.8p ( - www.clear-offset.com ). So it costs (the average car, not necessarily the V8 drivers) an extra 6.8p for every mile of speed humps we do. About 69.9% of that is tax (VAT and fuel duty - http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html). Which means the tax man gets 4.8p per mile of speed humps.
Not much, but 50 standard humps on 5km of connecting residential streets costs about £150,000. So you need 3.15m cars to travel that road, which at 1 each way every minute gives 3 years. So a mile of speed humps pays for itself in about 3 years in extra fuel duty alone.
Apologies if this was all already calculated a year ago - it was just something we had our guys work on recently.
7.8p for a mile you need to be doing 58mpg ... stroll on .... rough figures Rough figures would say at about £1 a litre, that a mile of speed humps is 14.6p of petrol, whereas a mile without is about 7.8p ( - www.clear-offset.com ). So it costs (the average car, not necessarily the V8 drivers) an extra 6.8p for every mile of speed humps we do. About 69.9% of that is tax (VAT and fuel duty - http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html). Which means the tax man gets 4.8p per mile of speed humps.
Not much, but 50 standard humps on 5km of connecting residential streets costs about £150,000. So you need 3.15m cars to travel that road, which at 1 each way every minute gives 3 years. So a mile of speed humps pays for itself in about 3 years in extra fuel duty alone.
Apologies if this was all already calculated a year ago - it was just something we had our guys work on recently.
you mean inflated figures101.9 (fuel cost in p per litre) / 7.8p = 13.06 miles * 4.54 (litre to gallon conversion) = 59.29mpg
101.9 (fuel cost in p per litre) / 14.6p = 6.98 miles * 4.54 (litre to gallon conversion) = 31.69mpg
At 30mph its unlikely you are driving at any sort of efficient engine speed or load so by my reckoning (which seems to be a bit more realistic that the quoted ones) you probably start at around 30mpg or less for your average car before factoring in speed bumps.
But and (pay attention now this is the important bit) unless its a hump right across the road (ALL the ones around here are pillows) 99% of traffic just goes straight over. So all the figures are tosh and nonsense anyway.
The only people who will use more fuel are those in sports cars who have to avoid scraping their bottoms.
QED
ETA: and just to show I am paying attention I read the quoted article, tests at millbrook proving ground. SO Im guessing totally flat road, probably good quality tarmac, no corners, no avoiding parked cars probably driving the car with a very light throttle to get that 58mpg. Something no one will ever achieve in the real world so you cant use these figures for any kind of real world comparison.
Good job this carbon footprint stuff is all b
ks anyway eh Edited by bigdods on Friday 10th July 22:21
matt 2LT said:
and will make sure that i give it full beans and see how fast i can get to before the next one, just to ps off the people who asked for the things.
Whilst I agree with you, this sort of thing only serves to justify to them why they asked for them in the first place. They will assume that had the bumps not been there, you would have been driving more aggressively - your speed hampered only by their successful speed bumps. You can't argue with stupidity. s off the people who asked for the things.Also they will moan more and get speed cameras installed.
There was an excellent story about some retired fella in Kent a few years ago who built a measuring frame and went round seeing if speedbumps were the legal height/length etc then reporting any that were too big to the council who then had to rectify them by law.
Seems like a waste of your retirement to me but hey, any small victory is a victory nonetheless...
Seems like a waste of your retirement to me but hey, any small victory is a victory nonetheless...
the Fantom said:
Speed bumps might be annoying, but not so annoying as people speeding past our house. We live on typical housing estate. No house is more than 750m from the main road and even at 20mph it would take no more than 90 seconds to get to the furthest house, and on average 45 seconds, after leaving the main road. So why oh why do idiots in all manner of cars have to zoom past at full throttle and frightening (at least to my children) speeds. Since the speed bumps were put in it dramatically slows the cars down, so in this case they are a necessary evil. Of course the sites need to be appropriate.
Is there any better alternative solution?
I care little for properly designed humps on genuine residential roads unless the back problem flares up. The residents are welcome to a few extra particulates from my exhaust as I move away from the ramps. However round here they put them on the main roads as well, and vary the shape and size of the ramps so a safe speed for one ramp damages suspension on another Is there any better alternative solution?
Speed humps are very rare in the USA and I've never come across one in Germany when i lived there.
Anyone else going to keep contending with me saying that all countries are just as bad as the UK-i.e equal?
BTW, alot of speed humps were removed in North London some years ago on the request of ambulance departments of hospitals.
Anyone else going to keep contending with me saying that all countries are just as bad as the UK-i.e equal?
BTW, alot of speed humps were removed in North London some years ago on the request of ambulance departments of hospitals.
there was a short article in Autocar a few years ago about a type of smart speed hump that hardened up if you went over at the wrong speed but stayed almost flat if below a certain speed. Haven't seen any of these in use probably because they cost more than some tar thrown on the road and most likely work!
we manufacture tar remover at work, every week or so i grab a 500ml can and pour it on the speed humps on the road outside my house, the humps are less than a year old and already breaking apart.
I filled the partition saying the local residents didn't want these things but the council just rail roaded it through anyways.
So now they gonna have to either repair 'em or remove 'em, strange thing was when they spent thousands putting the humps in they never bothered to fill the existing pot holes that we had been asking them to do for years.
I filled the partition saying the local residents didn't want these things but the council just rail roaded it through anyways.
So now they gonna have to either repair 'em or remove 'em, strange thing was when they spent thousands putting the humps in they never bothered to fill the existing pot holes that we had been asking them to do for years.
bigdods said:
badgerracing said:
I think I can help on the fuel duty stuff:
Rough figures would say at about £1 a litre, that a mile of speed humps is 14.6p of petrol, whereas a mile without is about 7.8p ( - www.clear-offset.com ). So it costs (the average car, not necessarily the V8 drivers) an extra 6.8p for every mile of speed humps we do. About 69.9% of that is tax (VAT and fuel duty - http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html). Which means the tax man gets 4.8p per mile of speed humps.
Not much, but 50 standard humps on 5km of connecting residential streets costs about £150,000. So you need 3.15m cars to travel that road, which at 1 each way every minute gives 3 years. So a mile of speed humps pays for itself in about 3 years in extra fuel duty alone.
Apologies if this was all already calculated a year ago - it was just something we had our guys work on recently.
7.8p for a mile you need to be doing 58mpg ... stroll on .... rough figures Rough figures would say at about £1 a litre, that a mile of speed humps is 14.6p of petrol, whereas a mile without is about 7.8p ( - www.clear-offset.com ). So it costs (the average car, not necessarily the V8 drivers) an extra 6.8p for every mile of speed humps we do. About 69.9% of that is tax (VAT and fuel duty - http://www.petrolprices.com/fuel-tax.html). Which means the tax man gets 4.8p per mile of speed humps.
Not much, but 50 standard humps on 5km of connecting residential streets costs about £150,000. So you need 3.15m cars to travel that road, which at 1 each way every minute gives 3 years. So a mile of speed humps pays for itself in about 3 years in extra fuel duty alone.
Apologies if this was all already calculated a year ago - it was just something we had our guys work on recently.
you mean inflated figures101.9 (fuel cost in p per litre) / 7.8p = 13.06 miles * 4.54 (litre to gallon conversion) = 59.29mpg
101.9 (fuel cost in p per litre) / 14.6p = 6.98 miles * 4.54 (litre to gallon conversion) = 31.69mpg
At 30mph its unlikely you are driving at any sort of efficient engine speed or load so by my reckoning (which seems to be a bit more realistic that the quoted ones) you probably start at around 30mpg or less for your average car before factoring in speed bumps.
But and (pay attention now this is the important bit) unless its a hump right across the road (ALL the ones around here are pillows) 99% of traffic just goes straight over. So all the figures are tosh and nonsense anyway.
The only people who will use more fuel are those in sports cars who have to avoid scraping their bottoms.
QED
ETA: and just to show I am paying attention I read the quoted article, tests at millbrook proving ground. SO Im guessing totally flat road, probably good quality tarmac, no corners, no avoiding parked cars probably driving the car with a very light throttle to get that 58mpg. Something no one will ever achieve in the real world so you cant use these figures for any kind of real world comparison.
Good job this carbon footprint stuff is all b
ks anyway eh Edited by bigdods on Friday 10th July 22:21
Edited by youngsyr on Saturday 11th July 19:07
nsmith1180 said:
I think we should file charges against the government for Criminal Damage. They put these speedbumps in knowing full well that they will increase wear on vehicle componants like breaks and suspension. Thats gotta be criminal damage in my book
Why? It's carefully cordinated in league with the car scrappage scheme AND the "footprint" of all the extra shock absorbers etc that have to be manufactured due to the extra load put on them.
AND the extra "footprint" caused but the filthy little trucks full of filthy big blokes having to make them!
AND how much hotter has the planet become from all those bubbling tar pots?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND the extra "footprint" caused but the filthy little trucks full of filthy big blokes having to make them!
AND how much hotter has the planet become from all those bubbling tar pots?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff