Safe Speed Forums

What other than on the roads?

And why is this an improvement in anybodies eyes? Sounds like you are saying that the safety measures displace the problem. [ahem!] Isn't that one of the side effects that Paul lists?

Suppose it was so simple (and, of course, it isn't); what on earth is the good of a policy that simply moves the casualties around?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Exactly so if the camera partnerships are to be believed the next question is what caused the massive increase in KSI's elsewhere, it can't be lack of cameras because cameras were not there before.

_________________
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

Upton Sinclair

TBH Paul when this topic came around to the question of speed humps I explained how they had worked in my town...and improved the safety and quality of life there...I have NEVER said they would or do work everywhere they are installed.
I really don't give a fig about anywhere else and I'm definitely not going to explain something about which I have no knowledge about, to you or anyone else. You are the one always quoting facts and figures...that's your field of 'expertise' not mine.

I have NEVER championed the speed hump as a b-all and end-all of road safety.
No all I did was to relate how they had worked IN MY AREA and everyone and his dog gets on their high horses and tries to tell me they are not working?...As far as I can see they are ..perhaps they are not in other places...but as I said that doesn't affect me.
Having said that, when I travel to somewhere else barring my home town where speed humps have been installed...it is no biggy to slow down to negotiate the things is it?
At least it never is for me...perhaps for some it is.

Maybe they need to roll out more safety cameras in these places?

Wouldn't it be cheaper and more effective just to train/educate drivers better in the first place? It's not really feasible (nor desirable) to have a cashcam every 50 yards...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

Not only drivers, all road users.

I remember in my youth having the green cross code hammered home to me by Darth Vader in a green cross code outfit. Cycling proficiency tests at school. All these things are all gone, because now we all get taught the driver is always at fault and speed kills.

Great idea. About 760,000 cameras would give one every km (per direction) on 380,000km of roads. Oh wait! The crashes are happening between the magic cameras? We'd better deploy another 760,000 to fill in the gaps...

That's funny - road deaths are up again...

And the jails are full of drivers.

And the country is going broke because all the workers have been banned.

And three police officers a day are being murdered.

But hey, it did sound like a good idea didn't it?

And btw, why not answer the question?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

So you're saying that the humps can't be safely and comfortably traversed even at the new lower limit?

It has to be one way or the other!

Do I take it from your post that there was no safety issue on your roads, but the 'stock car racing' was simply 'antisocial'? If this is the case, is not moving the location of the 'stock car racing', rather than preventing it in the first place, the very NIMBYism you claim to rail against?

I could understand how speed humps could serve a community if they could be safely and unobtrusively negotiated at the speed limit for the road, but they can't, so they add to congestion, increase wear and tear on both vehicles and road surface, and could quite feasibly make roads less safe, given that safety is more a factor of road user quality than speed.

Just a thought. If the problem in an area is a result of antisocial driving why not campaign to have an area set aside (an out of town carpark or something else that isn't used of a saturday evening) where the racers can go and do their thing?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.

In a word: liability. Such sensible things just aren't possible in the current climate.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Again you are trying to apportion words and meanings to my posting that were not intended nor even considered when I made my contribution to this thread.
I merely pointed out that there was at least one area where speed bumps had made a positive contribution to a neighbourhood and you insist on attempting to prove ...what exactly?
I can only guess at the motive behind trying to get me to say something I had no intention of including in the instances I shared...
Can't a person give examples that are against the accepted belief on this forum without having it turn into an inquisition as to why they do it or a never ending stream of 'but what if's' and 'why was' etc being fired in the posters direction?

It could be construed by the casual onlooker as though you are paranoid or can only accept one point of view...your own...and will go to any lengths to discredit anything that remotely challenges the 'common belief'....I'm sure that isn't the remit of this forum to appear so biased...
but that is the way it seems sometimes.

As I have already said (paraphrasing heavily) just because you seem to be on a downer against speed bumps doesn't mean ALL speed bumps are ill-conceived.

If it eases your furrowed brow any, I can say with hand on heart that I have safely negotiated the speed bumps in my area at the posted limit of 20mph with no ill effects to either my physical well-being or my vehicles' mechanical constitution.
I wouldn't however like to try and travel at anything more than 20mph over the bumps though.

As for adding to congestion...not here they don't..As I have already pointed out they are installed in a mainly residential area...I live in a small-ish town (population 19,981 )not a big metropolis...the only congestion we get is courtesy of the level crossing which when closed effectively cuts the town in half...Here I'll throw you a bone!

Hmm, you seem to have me muddled up with someone.

I said that it was pointless having humps that couldn't be safely negotiated at the speed limit. This is not trying to discredit you.

I asked for more information about why the humps were the required and correct treatment for your area. You got defensive.

I have sought clarification about what exactly you mean, and you accuse me of putting words in your mouth!

I have come here with no beef, ill-will or agenda as such, beyond my plainly stated one that its pointless having humps that necessitate a speed well lower than the limit at all times. You have accused me of duplicity and machination.

I would suggest you try being less paranoid and much less impolite in future!

If, as you say, you can safely and comfortably negotiate the bumps at the full limit, with no increased wear on your vehicle or the road surface, then your area has some of the good ones, many areas don't.

You also failed to answer my question about what road safety incidents precipitated the treatment of the roads in your area.

My only additional gripe with speed bumps is that they are often impassable in my rather low 1970 Triumph Spitfire.

The problem is that we have 'had it up to here' with the false dogma.

The authorities - to their eternal shame - have comprehensively failed to consider the side effects and 'system' effects of their policies. Not only that but they have propped up a very dodgy belief system with fraudulent statistics.

The authoriies insist that 'slower is safer' but their 'slow down' policies have taken us from number one in the world to number five and falling fast. Worse even than that we're now 17th fastest improving out of 20 European countries - and we should still be number one. The upshot of this is that THOUSANDS are dead who would not have died on our roads if we'd kept up the earlier pace of improvement. In fact we're right on 10,000 unexplained road deaths now.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I'm also worried about:

- delays to emergency services vehicles
- pain caused by road humps to people with certain common medical conditions (back pain etc).
- damage to vehicles leading to failures elsewhere
- illusions of safety in traffic calmed places
- accident displacement to other roads
- opportunity costs of traffic calming schemes (i.e. what didn't we buy because we purchased the humps?)
- crashes caused directly by traffic calming
- and I'm sure there's more!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I think we also need to be a little more honest about their purpose.

They are installing some in our village, IMHO they are to divert traffic by making the route tortuous.

I have no problem in this instance but its the dispersal of traffic not the reduction of traffic speed that is the primary aim.

Elf I would suggest that is what has happened with your situation. Traffic has been dispersed rather than slowed.

The thing is though...I wasn't preaching false dogma...I was stating a factual instance where speed humps had been a beneficial effect on a neighbourhood.
You are all keen to quote instances of where things don't work...and I concede these places exist...but heaven forbid someone mentioning somewhere that the system is working, and bigotry raises it's ugly head.
There are two sides to every story and just because one doesn't fit in with any particular agenda it doesn't mean it is wrong....different yes, wrong no.

Was it beneficial to your neighbourhood, but detrimental to another neighbourhood ie. where your traffic was displaced to?

[edited to correct horrible wording]

It's all connected. We're accusing DfT of failing to deal with road safety as a system. An improvement in one place - real or imaginary - is worth nothing if it's balanced by a worsening elsewhere.

It's the simplified view: it's working here that's one major cause of the deep deep trouble that we're in. And it's just SO common that the claim it's working here turns out to be rubbish as well.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I have to admit, it does have the ring of reasonableness about it!