What's worse - scameras or humps?
Discussion
Now I know we all hate speed cameras here, but let's face it - you wouldn't complain if they were outside schools or hospitals or old people's homes would you. You have to admit, at a push, that they have their place.
But what really pisses me off no end (and we need to campaign about IMO) are humps, for the following reasons:
-If a road has a 30 mph limit and that road is clear, a driver should be able to do 30. Speed humps ensure that the speed yo-yos between 30 and 15.
-They harm ambulance patients and slow down/damage equipment in emergency vehicles on call.
-They damage cars, encouraging people to get taller- more ill-handling cars as a result.
-They have the potential to cause major accidents if the road conditions are slippery or if a car was to hit them at an awkward angle.
-They are yet another surface inconsistancy in our already poorly-maintained roads.
-They very people they're meant to slow down in urban areas use them as stunt ramps.
-They increase noise and fuel consumption and create congestion as once free-flowing roads become crawling bottlenecks.
-They provide yet another obstacle that takes the driver's eye away from other road users.
Now, the likes of Broke and Transport 2000BC seem to have their backs up about the speed camera protest, but IMO there's even more grounds to complain about, and campaign for the removal of speed humps, as, try as I might, I can't find one single positive benefit of their existence.
Anyone feel the same? Want to propose a plan of action?
But what really pisses me off no end (and we need to campaign about IMO) are humps, for the following reasons:
-If a road has a 30 mph limit and that road is clear, a driver should be able to do 30. Speed humps ensure that the speed yo-yos between 30 and 15.
-They harm ambulance patients and slow down/damage equipment in emergency vehicles on call.
-They damage cars, encouraging people to get taller- more ill-handling cars as a result.
-They have the potential to cause major accidents if the road conditions are slippery or if a car was to hit them at an awkward angle.
-They are yet another surface inconsistancy in our already poorly-maintained roads.
-They very people they're meant to slow down in urban areas use them as stunt ramps.
-They increase noise and fuel consumption and create congestion as once free-flowing roads become crawling bottlenecks.
-They provide yet another obstacle that takes the driver's eye away from other road users.
Now, the likes of Broke and Transport 2000BC seem to have their backs up about the speed camera protest, but IMO there's even more grounds to complain about, and campaign for the removal of speed humps, as, try as I might, I can't find one single positive benefit of their existence.
Anyone feel the same? Want to propose a plan of action?
I've never heard of anyone be awarded points due to speed humps.
I agree though that this particular motoring cancer is mostly unnecessary, merely a council flexing its Tarmacadam might and catalysing formation of the dreaded "rat run", a minor road blissfully free of these hideous appendages.
I agree though that this particular motoring cancer is mostly unnecessary, merely a council flexing its Tarmacadam might and catalysing formation of the dreaded "rat run", a minor road blissfully free of these hideous appendages.
I have a feeling they only exist in the numbers they do because local councils want to be 'seen to be doing something about road safety'. The fact that they're virtually anathema to road safety doesn't matter - people are told they make the roads safer, council makes lots of them, people assume the council is safety-conscious. It's even more lazy than scameras.
What annoys me is their proliferation in 30 zones. I could understand in 20 zones (sort of, even if I think there are too many 20 zones for a start), but in 30 zones they are literally inviting damage claims.
What annoys me is their proliferation in 30 zones. I could understand in 20 zones (sort of, even if I think there are too many 20 zones for a start), but in 30 zones they are literally inviting damage claims.
[Admission]
I have little issue with static cameras, they are big yellow boxes and if you dont see 'em thats your look out.
[/Admission]
So ignoring the scamerati (swines) I have to summise that humps are far worse than static cameras.
In Windsor they are a plague. If its not a main route (see bus route) its got humps. In the VX I have to slow to about 5mph to either not hit the splitter or crash the suspension.
As the humps are so close together its not worth accelerating so a road with a posted limit of 30mph I can travel down at 5mph much the shegrin of the local residents (well, they wanted them there) and as such they are a right pain in the arse.
It leads to a curious situation where the locals in vans and 4x4's do a steady 40 no trouble and the public menaces in sports cars (
) are consigned to a pedestrian life when all they want to do is obey the posted limit in built up areas.
If the limit is 30 then ANY car should be able to travel over the humps without fear of damage at 30mph
If this simple rule was applied I wouldnt really have any issue with humps either. Mind you its probably physically impossible so get rid of them, suits me
I have little issue with static cameras, they are big yellow boxes and if you dont see 'em thats your look out.
[/Admission]
So ignoring the scamerati (swines) I have to summise that humps are far worse than static cameras.
In Windsor they are a plague. If its not a main route (see bus route) its got humps. In the VX I have to slow to about 5mph to either not hit the splitter or crash the suspension.
As the humps are so close together its not worth accelerating so a road with a posted limit of 30mph I can travel down at 5mph much the shegrin of the local residents (well, they wanted them there) and as such they are a right pain in the arse.
It leads to a curious situation where the locals in vans and 4x4's do a steady 40 no trouble and the public menaces in sports cars (
) are consigned to a pedestrian life when all they want to do is obey the posted limit in built up areas. If the limit is 30 then ANY car should be able to travel over the humps without fear of damage at 30mph
If this simple rule was applied I wouldnt really have any issue with humps either. Mind you its probably physically impossible so get rid of them, suits me
Recently, speed humps have been placed in a village on a fairly busy commuter route through Pirbright, Surrey. I have to drive over these every day along with some others in a road close to where I live. All in all I hit 24 aggressive speed humps in a day. i.e. ones that require you to slow to 10 mph.
It's driving me mad. My mate complained to the council about them who then returned the obvious drivel about not damaging cars and keeping the speed down. It's horrendous.
It's driving me mad. My mate complained to the council about them who then returned the obvious drivel about not damaging cars and keeping the speed down. It's horrendous.
There are some round here that really annoy me. Instead of being a full width speed bump, they're just a square raised area in the centre of each lane. In a normal car you can put one wheel each side of the hump and completely ignore it... Carry on as fast as you like, you literally don't touch the speed bump at all. Take the normal route down the road at ANY speed in a sports car and at first the same thing happens, one wheel each side of the speed bump. It all gets a bit messy when the speed bump comes into contact with your sump though. So those who dare to drive low cars are forced to cross each bump in the middle of the road. That's nice and safe then.
Speed bumps also make a 4x4 the default choice for the urban terrain....
There's a village that I have to drive through in order to get to my gf's parents house, it's littered with raised squares and raised sections at junctions. They are there because a little kid ran out at a junction and got hit by a bus. The squares aren't big enough to slow down buses, and the raised sections are actually best taken at 30 as the car naturally deals with the bump better at this speed - rather than the front absorbing an impact and settling, then the back, its all in one if you see what I mean.
The result?
Suspension damage to smaller cars like mine, cars heading towards each other in the middle of the road, and no reduction in speed. A good use of tax payers money? don't make me laugh
There's a village that I have to drive through in order to get to my gf's parents house, it's littered with raised squares and raised sections at junctions. They are there because a little kid ran out at a junction and got hit by a bus. The squares aren't big enough to slow down buses, and the raised sections are actually best taken at 30 as the car naturally deals with the bump better at this speed - rather than the front absorbing an impact and settling, then the back, its all in one if you see what I mean.
The result?
Suspension damage to smaller cars like mine, cars heading towards each other in the middle of the road, and no reduction in speed. A good use of tax payers money? don't make me laugh
Neezer said:
I prefer humps because I can just ignore them. They don't affect my speed at all.
Wheras I
hate humps - the front skirt of my Porsche grounds on the bastards every time. A GATSO I can spot and deal with.
Of course - in my "stealth Vectra" I can ignore humps same as everyone else...
Humps - an attack on Sports Cars, defeated by SUVs.
If you want everyone to drive SUVs - have humps in your town.
bennyboysvuk said:
Recently, speed humps have been placed in a village on a fairly busy commuter route through Pirbright, Surrey. I have to drive over these every day along with some others in a road close to where I live. All in all I hit 24 aggressive speed humps in a day. i.e. ones that require you to slow to 10 mph.
It's driving me mad. My mate complained to the council about them who then returned the obvious drivel about not damaging cars and keeping the speed down. It's horrendous.
Request that they confirm in writing their being responsible for any resultant damage to nearby property foundations. Then see what happens...
bennyboysvuk said:
Recently, speed humps have been placed in a village on a fairly busy commuter route through Pirbright, Surrey. I have to drive over these every day along with some others in a road close to where I live. All in all I hit 24 aggressive speed humps in a day. i.e. ones that require you to slow to 10 mph.
It's driving me mad. My mate complained to the council about them who then returned the obvious drivel about not damaging cars and keeping the speed down. It's horrendous.
I recently rang SCC about the humps in Horsell that I drove over in my XKR (I have an Arden body kit on).
Someone returned to say they would check the measurments, as yet I have not had an update.
I think that everyone should get an estimate for repair of damage, bodywork, exhaust, susspention etc ( it does not matter how small it will all ad to the paperwork) and send of the the local Councils. If is going to cost them a LOT of money they might start changing their minds (if they have any)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff