# Result! On speeding drivers in our street.



## Globalti (12 May 2010)

Been campaigning for years to get something done about the problem of drivers racing through our street to beat traffic lights on the main road. 

This morning I went and had a meeting with the senior man at our local Traffic Police office. He has also been concerned with the problem for the last 10-15 years but today he promised me a whole new initiative with the Safety Partnership camera car and officers in the street at peak times. I'm not celebrating yet but if we can get it into the minds of the habitual shortcutters who race through every day that it's a bad place to cut through and speed, we will have won a good little victory.

Fingers crossed.


----------



## dellzeqq (12 May 2010)

good job! Take a bow!


----------



## chap (13 May 2010)

Develop an interest in ornithology: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/8529813.stm


----------



## Spinney (13 May 2010)

And by reporting it, the BBC have probably removed most of its effect!


----------



## Globalti (15 May 2010)

I've used guerilla tactics and they work. We had the bridge replaced over the stream under our street and the street was closed for four months of glorious peace. Just as the work was finishing the "access only" signs at each end disappeared for a few days then reappeared chained to street furniture. They worked like magic for a month before the council removed them. I was cycling with a bloke who worked at the Highways department and he told me his boss was furious!


----------



## Bad Company (19 May 2010)

Usual ant cardriver crap from some of usual suspects. Ya -a -a - a wn.


----------



## Globalti (20 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> Usual ant cardriver crap from some of usual suspects. Ya -a -a - a wn.



Presumably you don't have kids and you don't live in a narrow pre-industrial lane with inadequate or no pavements that's been used for years as a rat-run with some drivers racing through at speeds recorded by your county council at over 60mph? This lane is limited to 30 mph and access only.

Thought not.


----------



## mickle (20 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> Usual ant cardriver crap from some of usual suspects. Ya -a -a - a wn.



You Sir, are an arse.


----------



## Davidc (20 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> Usual ant cardriver crap from some of usual suspects. Ya -a -a - a wn.



Comment as Mickle above.


----------



## MartinC (20 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> Usual ant cardriver crap from some of usual suspects. Ya -a -a - a wn.



You appear to be confused. Anti bad driving isn't anti car.


----------



## 661-Pete (21 May 2010)

User said:


> As it is, it's been in the news several times - once because some drivers complained and the police asked him to take it down (to which he told them to Foxtrot Oscar) - but it still seems to be working.


If there had been birds actually nesting in it at the time, it would have been an offence to take it down (_Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981_ etc. etc.).

Anyway, roll on the deterrents! Anyone remember the cardboard police cars (and officers)?


----------



## Bad Company (21 May 2010)

Globalti said:


> Presumably you don't have kids and you don't live in a narrow pre-industrial lane with inadequate or no pavements that's been used for years as a rat-run with some drivers racing through at speeds recorded by your county council at over 60mph? This lane is limited to 30 mph and access only.
> 
> Thought not.



My kids are now grown up thank you. I live on a 'through road' in a village and yes the occasional driver using excess and inappropriate speed is an occasional problem.


----------



## Bad Company (21 May 2010)

mickle said:


> You Sir, are an arse.



Is the best you can do?


----------



## mickle (21 May 2010)

*..............................................................arse.*



Bad Company said:


> Is the best you can do?



No, but this is a family forum.


----------



## Bollo (21 May 2010)

mickle said:


> No, but this is a family forum.



What?! You're all related?!


----------



## mickle (21 May 2010)

Bollo said:


> What?! You're all related?!



Yes and now you are too!


----------



## Bollo (21 May 2010)

mickle said:


> Yes and now you are too!


I know that American chap's created new life, but this surely pushes the boundaries of genetics too far!

BOT -> Rat run speeders - a pox on them.


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> Hmmm, a thread about someone who has done something to reduce the dangerous and antisocial behaviour in his own community, and you're complaining about it? by watering down the behaviour in your own little village? It's interesting to consider what drives you.



It's very simple. I just get fed up with so many cyclists blaming so much on car drivers. Of course there are bad and inconsiderate drivers who speed thru villages and past schools etc BUT they are a small minority.

By the way I produced a lot of evidence of car tyressuspension being damaged by speed cushions. You always refuse to consider evidence from any source that does not back up your own views.


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> If you don't like reading about people improving our roads, then the solution is obvious...



Whether they are improving is very much a matter of opinion.

I just wish they would spend more of the motoring taxes in fixing the potholes rather than damaging speed cushions and daft 'traffic management' schemes.


----------



## StuartG (24 May 2010)

> Speed hump damage is anecdotal, and not a problem for those of us who can drive properly.


Actually that is incorrect.

Driving our Micra below the speed limit fully loaded causes the official tow bar accessory to strike the hump. This smashes the connector so our trailer now has no working brake lights/indicators. No point in fixing as unless you drive at a legal speed unacceptable to most fellow road users (including me as a cyclist) it will just re-occur.

Except I don't blame the humps. Just the chumps that make them necessary. Does this include BC?


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> Slowing speeding traffic only affects speeding drivers. .



Wrong. The speed cushions are set so that you need to travel well under the prevailing limit to cross them without causing even more damage.
.


> Speed hump car damage is anecdotal, spurious and unsubstantiated, and not a problem for those of us who can drive properly..



Speed hump damage is very common - ask at your local tyre depot.
.


> You know the issues behind the potholes problem. It's s separate issue.



Yes but I can see no good reason why some of the tax generated from motorists could not be spent on fixing the roads.


----------



## StuartG (24 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> Speed hump damage is very common - ask at your local tyre depot.


Can you explain how this occurs?

Do they burst or have the tyre deformed? (surely the impact of a hump@20mph is less than a minor irregularity@70mph?)


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 May 2010)

If you drive a Citroen 2CV you don't even notice speedbumps. At any speed.


----------



## StuartG (24 May 2010)

> No it isn't. Your kwikfit mate will just be fixing the cars of idiots who try to speed over the bumps.


My question on how a tyre could get damaged let alone how the tracking could get knackered was how this could be done @20mph rather than a considerably greater, illegal and patently dangerous speed.

I guess wrecking the cars of these nutters may well be an unfortunate but ultimately beneficial justification for the humps. What we do know is they save lives. Lots of lives.

Hoping Osborne puts a special tax on Jag tracking rods


----------



## benb (24 May 2010)

661-Pete said:


> ... Anyone remember the cardboard police cars (and officers)?



What, PCSOs?


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

StuartG said:


> My question on how a tyre could get damaged let alone how the tracking could get knackered was how this could be done @20mph rather than a considerably greater, illegal and patently dangerous speed.



At 20 there is less damage but what about where the limit is 30. Should I not be able to drive over the cushion at anything up to the prevailing limit without damage?


> Hoping Osborne puts a special tax on Jag tracking rods



No problem. I drive a BMW now.


----------



## StuartG (24 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> At 20 there is less damage but what about where the limit is 30. Should I not be able to drive over the cushion at anything up to the prevailing limit without damage?


No - you should drive at a safe speed which should not be greater than 30 mph. If you see a giant pothole, or a child crossing do you feel you should hold your 30 mph regardless?

Of course if you would prefer that all sleeper zones should be reduced to 20mph then I guess we would all be with you. Mind you 20 mph can still be too fast as most people actually choose to cross them at a lower speed (see the 20mph zone report).

Or are you just trying to wind folks up?


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

StuartG said:


> No - you should drive at a safe speed which should not be greater than 30 mph. If you see a giant pothole, or a child crossing do you feel you should hold your 30 mph regardless?
> 
> Of course if you would prefer that all sleeper zones should be reduced to 20mph then I guess we would all be with you. Mind you 20 mph can still be too fast as most people actually choose to cross them at a lower speed (see the 20mph zone report).
> 
> Or are you just trying to wind folks up?



I wouldn't use the words 'Safe Speed' in these parts - That really does wind folks up.

On a serious note yes I broadly agree with you. The 30 limits are just that and when kids are about we should all be driving slower than that. I still say that the cushions should enable me to cross them at anything up to the limit though.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (24 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> I still say that the cushions should enable me to cross them at anything up to the limit though.



And just what the naked arse would be the point of them, if no one had to slow down?


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

Rhythm Thief said:


> And just what the naked arse


Never heard that one before.


> would be the point of them, if no one had to slow down?



Surely the point of them should be to slow the traffic to no more than the limit?

What's wrong with the 'rumble strips'. They make it uncomfortable to drive too fast over them but cause no damage I am aware of.


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> Why? How much lower than the limit do you drive over them, and _still _damage your car?



The best way I was told is one wheel on the speed cushion with the over on the road then alternate for the next cushion. That way should minimise damage.


http://www.bromleytransport.org.uk/Humps.htm

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/speed-humps

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...hn-Speed-humps-damage-suspension-springs.html


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> How would that work? Is it possible to design them so that you can't drive over them at 31 mph, but can at 29?



Obviously there has to be a limit somewhere and it's surely logical to say that an average car should be able to cross the speed cushion at anything up to the speed limit without risk of damage.


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> Why do you keep saying "minimise" damage???
> 
> *Link 1*
> No evidence of damaging vehicles given
> ...



FFS Mr P - I just 'cut & pasted' this from Link 1:-

3. Speed humps have been known to cause accidents and injuries. For example there was the case of the motorcyclist who hit a speed hump in Wood Lane, Isleworth in 2001 at much less than 30 mph. He was ejected from the bike and suffered serious injuries from which he is now paralyzed from the waist down


----------



## nigelb (24 May 2010)

I cycle along a straight bit of road, a cut-through, with plenty of speed humps, 30 mph limit.

Cars that go over them slowly have no problems, but I must admit I take some small measure of pleasure every time I hear a car grinding, having decided that the speed limit doesn't apply to them.

I'm quite sure the humps would take the bottom end out of any flashed up lowered suspension hot hatch with basebox booming - good job too imho.

Nige


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> Right, so you're not talking about damaging cars any more, but making bikers fall off.
> 
> What were the specific circumstances of the incident?
> 
> How many motorcyclists fall off on speed bumps each year and how?



Typical Mr P debating style. Ask question after question in a vain attempt to win an argument.

You didn't read the links full did you.


----------



## nigelb (24 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> 3. Speed humps have been known to cause accidents and injuries. For example there was the case of the motorcyclist who hit a speed hump in Wood Lane, Isleworth in 2001 at much less than 30 mph. He was ejected from the bike and suffered serious injuries from which he is now paralyzed from the waist down



and how many kids killed by speeding cars in a year?


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

nigelb said:


> and how many kids killed by speeding cars in a year?



Who is defending speeding?


----------



## nigelb (24 May 2010)

Perhaps the answer is to remove all the speed ramps, pay for far more mobile speed traps, and when a speeder is caught fine him big time, and also charge him the costs incurred catching him. So, if 10 people get caught speeding on a road in a month, and it takes 2 officers, a vehicle, and special equipment to catch those 10 drivers, each driver gets his fine, gets his points, and gets to pay 10% of the cost of the Policing. I can see this easily being £1000 per event. No danger from those rogue speed humps anymore, no negative impact on emissions, all sorted :-)

Nige


----------



## nigelb (24 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> Who is defending speeding?



You seemed to be citing a single motorbike accident 9 years ago as a reason not to have speed bumps? I was just wondering how many children had been killed by speeding cars in the last 9 years.

Whatever we do is a compromise.


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> Yes. You posted them to justify your claim that speed bumps damage cars. They don't.
> 
> So you've changed your argument now. If you want to make claims then you have to expect to be asked to justify them with questioning. Moaning about being asked is not justification.



You know perfectly well that I have not changed my argument at all. The incident with motorcyclist came up while reading about damage to cars. You *know *that.


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

nigelb said:


> You seemed to be citing a single motorbike accident 9 years ago as a reason not to have speed bumps? I was just wondering how many children had been killed by speeding cars in the last 9 years.
> 
> Whatever we do is a compromise.



That was just one example.


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> Not yet it isn't. What were the circumstances?



Obviously he fell over the speed bump - probably drunk for all I know!!!

As you well know that incident was just something I stumbled upon while looking at other stuff.

More questions no doubt?????


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

nigelb said:


> You seemed to be citing a single motorbike accident 9 years ago as a reason not to have speed bumps? I was just wondering how many children had been killed by speeding cars in the last 9 years.
> 
> Whatever we do is a compromise.



Back to the damage question. Take a look at this:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/content/articles/2008/10/29/london_speed_bumps_s14_w7_feature.shtml


----------



## nigelb (24 May 2010)

Done a bit of Googling regards speed bumps and safety, hoping to find some statistics.

All I could actually find was lots of groups against speed bumps (and they all seem to have links to each other, citing each other as proof supporting their cause), and stories of people getting hurt/killed where speed bump requests had been turned down.

Don't get me wrong, I think speed bumps are terribly crude, but the fact is, 24x7, they do actually stop the nutters going too fast, even if they also inconvenience all the sensible drivers. 

Nige


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

nigelb said:


> Don't get me wrong, I think speed bumps are terribly crude, but the fact is, 24x7, they do actually stop the nutters going too fast, even if they also inconvenience all the sensible drivers.
> 
> Nige



They are most certainly crude and there is little doubt that they cause damage to cars and tyres. I have to agree tho that they do have the benefit of stopping the 'boy racers' as they most definitely do not want damage their cars.

I would favour the 'rumble strip' type.


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> Speed bumps slow everyone down.



Including emergency services.


----------



## Bad Company (24 May 2010)

> ....and he tries a new line.
> 
> Yes they do. Do you know anything about blue routes?



I could ask Mr Google or could tell me. Are there blue routes on all roads then?


----------



## mickle (24 May 2010)

My Corrado is so low it grinds over many speedlumps however slowly I trundle over them. When I had the kids and some compost bags from B et Q in the back on Saturday we had to take a different way home, it simply wouldn't have got up the street. I know, I'm a nidiot. 

Corrados is wicked.


----------



## Bad Company (25 May 2010)

mickle said:


> My Corrado is so low it grinds over many speedlumps however slowly I trundle over them. When I had the kids and some compost bags from B et Q in the back on Saturday we had to take a different way home, it simply wouldn't have got up the street. I know, I'm a nidiot.
> 
> Corrados is wicked.



Perhaps the answer is lower speed cushions? Still slow the traffic but less damaging.

No doubt Mr Paul will be along later to say that any car can get over the existing bumps without damage. Your Corrado struggles and so do many others.


----------



## Bad Company (25 May 2010)

> If you'd only read your own google results you'll see that there are issues around speed humps being installed which don't meet regulations and are too high.



I have been saying all along that car tyressuspension are being damaged by speed cushions. If the cushions are being installed too high that could explain it.

We could even be in agreement on something.


----------



## Bad Company (25 May 2010)

> The point is that you've been using this one argument in your general grab-all argument against speed bumps.



Speed bumps are an over used easy and chaep option for local authorities imo.



> All that we can see is that there are very few reports of cars being damaged (catching your exhaust doesn't constitute damage does it?) And the majority of those complaining damaged their car because they were too stupid to slow down. That's what kwikfit are seeing.



No damage to the insides of tyres can be caused by reguarly crossing speed bumps slowly and why does catching an exhaust not count as damage?


> Not forgetting that you joined this thread to moan about someone taking steps to slow drivers down and make the streets safer.



I joined this thread to try to counter the anti cardriver propoganda from some of the usual suspects.


----------



## mickle (25 May 2010)

BC old chap, my car grinds on speed bumps because it is too low not because the speed bumps are too high. My choice. And I don't have issue with it grinding since it is a worthless shoot box.
I like it low because I think it looks cool because I am a Vashion Wictim.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2010)

Badders, why have you hijacked Globati's thread, which merely brings us news of some successful campaigning to gladden our hearts? I think it's ill-mannered.


----------



## dellzeqq (25 May 2010)

speed hump damage is hilarious! Sorry, but as I whizz over the bumps, overtaking a car at every one, I can't help but be amused by people grounding their exhausts or the front bit of bodywork when just a little dab of the brake pedal would allow them to continue on their way without injury to the car.

And.....if you'd ever seen a MacLaren sports car grounded on a speed bump in what used to be the red light district in Streatham you'd agree with me....


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> speed hump damage is hilarious! Sorry, but as I whizz over the bumps, overtaking a car at every one, I can't help but be amused by people grounding their exhausts or the front bit of bodywork when just a little dab of the brake pedal would allow them to continue on their way without injury to the car.
> 
> And.....if you'd ever seen a MacLaren sports car grounded on a speed bump in what used to be the red light district in Streatham you'd agree with me....



Tee hee. I think I remember you mentioning the MacLaren before. I've been enjoying the route into town from Tarte Tatin's house since she moved - Dulwich College Road is great for really flash cars running aground.


----------



## User169 (25 May 2010)

Residents in Liverpool Street (Islington) campaigned for removal of speed bumps because of the additional noise they seemed to provoke (squealing bus brakes, metal on road).


----------



## dellzeqq (25 May 2010)

Liverpool Road, I think. And, being a straight road with little traffic it used to get more than its fair share of speeders - which is why the residents campaigned for speed bumps in the first place. And I stand to be corrected, but other than at the extreme southern end, there is no bus service in Liverpool Road

http://www.cyclingcouncillor.com/index.asp?PageID=118 

(the solicitor's office in the basement of 3xx Liverpool Road is one of a kind. The 'receptionist' is a shop window mannequin called 'Miss Jones'. She's always smartly turned out, but hasn't really got hold of the telephone thing...)


----------



## Bad Company (25 May 2010)

dellzeqq said:


> And.....if you'd ever seen a MacLaren sports car grounded on a speed bump in what used to be the red light district in Streatham you'd agree with me....



That won't be speed related. He will have very little ground clearance.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> That won't be speed related. He will have very little ground clearance.



What's with the sad face! Lighten up, Badders - it's funny!


----------



## Bad Company (25 May 2010)

theclaud said:


> What's with the sad face! Lighten up, Badders - it's funny!



You do have a rather warped sense of humour.


----------



## theclaud (25 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> You do have a rather warped sense of humour.



Says the guy who cracks inane rape jokes! It's a comedy staple, Badders - the contrast between someone's lofty self-image and the banality of their predicament. The flasher the car, the more funny it is when it comes a-cropper in a minor way on an everyday bit of street furniture.


----------



## StuartG (25 May 2010)

theclaud said:


> Dulwich College Road is great for really flash cars running aground.


Don't get me started on DCR/Fountain Drive. The scene of my most spectacular cycling accident (belting down the hill, car pulls out from Kingswood Drive ... )

So Southwark have now made it 'safe' with a 20mph limit, speed humps and a semi-segregated 'up' cycle lane. This caused my second most spectacular accident. 

This was at night running (not cycling) up hill with the pathway blocked by a salt container. The light made the drop kerb to the cycle path look like a white line on an extended pavement - hence going tumbling into the cycle lane and splitting my head open on the bollards that protect the cyclists from motorists.

Fortunately no cyclists were hurt in the incident. And to some this will be the clinching argument that all pedestrians/runners should wear helmets!

Just goes to show safety measures usually do have a downside and we can all produce anecdotes that appear to rubbish them. But overall the statistics are pretty strong that 20 mph/passive speed management does significantly cut deaths & serious injury - particularly in the young.

So BC the evidence is against you ...


----------



## Bad Company (26 May 2010)

> Yeah right. Owning an F1 isn't speed related.



That statement alone says all anybody needs to know about you.


----------



## Bad Company (26 May 2010)

User said:


> Absolute crap! No evidence to back this up at all.



Try reading the thread Reggers.


----------



## Bad Company (26 May 2010)

User said:


> Hence my response you're talking crap, Badders...



I think the saying goes 'There are none so blind . . . . .'


----------



## Bad Company (27 May 2010)

> What's this about them damaging the inside of tyres? And please don't just trawl for a few dodgy anecdotes, or damage as a result of speeding...




http://www.v8register.net/articles/Tyre damage from speed humps IQ 270809.pdf

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...Road-humps-cause-tyre-damage-Honest-John.html


----------



## benb (27 May 2010)

Bad Company said:


> http://www.v8register.net/articles/Tyre damage from speed humps IQ 270809.pdf
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...Road-humps-cause-tyre-damage-Honest-John.html



Any actual evidence or just motorists saying "I believe speed bumps caused the damage"


----------

