Speed bumps

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 29 Oct 2005, 22:38

foxy wrote:What are "setts" Marya?

I think they're actually called causeway setts (pronounced cozzy setts) - or did I just make that up?

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 30 Oct 2005, 10:32

foxy wrote:(And BTW how do you do that double quoting thing you just did )

By jove I think I've got it..thanks Teach

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 30 Oct 2005, 14:19

Epykat wrote:very recently I noticed a gas van which had presumably skidded on the cobbles or swerved and gone into the wall just at the entrance to the bridge. Luckily none of this was in the school rush hour.

Maybe not your school rush hour, E, but it was ours. It happened just around leaving time for St Johns, I think, because the polis were still there at 3.25. Scary thought, given how many kids were leaving SJs at that time of day.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 30 Oct 2005, 14:31

Marya wrote:
foxy wrote:(And BTW how do you do that double quoting thing you just did )
1. I copied and pasted from Epykat's post
2. Clicked on the quote button twice
3. I cut and pasted
to the start of the section I wished to put in quotes
4. I inserted ="Epykat" after 'e' and before the final square bracket ]
i.e.
Epykat wrote: 5. Make sure you close the quote with the /quote code in square brackets.

(Of course rather than clicking the quote button and cutting and pasting you could just type the commands yourself....)

I just hit the quote button on the post in question , delete all the stuff I dont want to quote., If I want to seperate bits to quote I then copy and paste the quotation code.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 30 Oct 2005, 14:40

Want me to tidy up the quotes in your last post Porty?

PS
you need to use 'copy and paste' when quoting from two different posts which is what Foxy was asking about.

Hell's Cat · Post by **Hell's Cat** » 01 Nov 2005, 14:46

While not usually given to rants I am making an exception in this case.
Having read everyones comments and read the pros and cons of the speed bump debate, here is my tuppance worth.
Forcing traffic to reduce speed round schools is a no brainer. Children have a habit of being unpredictable and slowing traffic should reduce accidents and I have NO PROBLEM with that AT ALL.
However, I do think that the council have got a bit OTT. I have lived in one of the streets in the Durhams on and off for 47 years and know of no accidents due to speeding. Obviously I could be wrong, but I don't think it's the death trap people seem to percieve it is. I can think of much more dangerous areas of Edinburgh where this money could have been better spent.
Speeding is difficult anyway due to the narrow street and people parking on both sides and the hugh amount of learner drivers. It is almost impossible to negociate the road in excess of the speed limit if even that.
As to the comment on one of the web sites
"Will my car be damaged by driving over road humps?
Studies and research on all types of traffic calming measures have failed to find any evidence of damage to vehicles when road humps are approached at the correct speed."

That's is a down right lie!

I was taking my friends mother and father to hospital last week (so there were 3 in the car) and going over the speed bumps they have installed in Mountcastle Drive I have damaged the underside of my car. Please note I go over these bumps at a crawl (less than 3 miles an hour). Do they need to be so BIG! I though they were there to reduce speed not stop the traffic.
I hope I, nor anyone else, with a back or neck injury ever have to be taken from the Durham area to hospital because there is no way of avoiding the bumps, which would be painful and potentially life threatening. Will these "victims" be taken into account when reporting on how effective the speed bumps are in saving lives. I don't think so.
Rant over

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 01 Nov 2005, 21:13

Hell's Cat wrote:While not usually given to rants I am making an exception in this case.
Having read everyones comments and read the pros and cons of the speed bump debate, here is my tuppance worth.
Forcing traffic to reduce speed round schools is a no brainer. Children have a habit of being unpredictable and slowing traffic should reduce accidents and I have NO PROBLEM with that AT ALL.
However, I do think that the council have got a bit OTT. I have lived in one of the streets in the Durhams on and off for 47 years and know of no accidents due to speeding. Obviously I could be wrong, but I don't think it's the death trap people seem to percieve it is. I can think of much more dangerous areas of Edinburgh where this money could have been better spent.
Speeding is difficult anyway due to the narrow street and people parking on both sides and the hugh amount of learner drivers. It is almost impossible to negociate the road in excess of the speed limit if even that.
As to the comment on one of the web sites
"Will my car be damaged by driving over road humps?
Studies and research on all types of traffic calming measures have failed to find any evidence of damage to vehicles when road humps are approached at the correct speed."

That's is a down right lie! I was taking my friends mother and father to hospital last week (so there were 3 in the car) and going over the speed bumps they have installed in Mountcastle Drive I have damaged the underside of my car. Please note I go over these bumps at a crawl (less than 3 miles an hour). Do they need to be so BIG! I though they were there to reduce speed not stop the traffic.
I hope I, nor anyone else, with a back or neck injury ever have to be taken from the Durham area to hospital because there is no way of avoiding the bumps, which would be painful and potentially life threatening. Will these "victims" be taken into account when reporting on how effective the speed bumps are in saving lives. I don't think so.
Rant over

Excelent post I must say, someone on the same wave lengh as me!

The ones on Mountcastle do seem to be excessivly bigger than the rest in the area, I thought the chicanes they added were more efficiant than speedbumps, and the chicanes in Parsons green are better idea than speedbumps, other than you lose spaces with chicanes.

I had to laugh when I seen speed bumps down Bellfield lane, marlbough Street and Regent street.

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 01 Nov 2005, 21:23

Excellent rant, Hell's Cat.
My brother and I were driving down Mountcastle Drive North the other day and he vowed to avoid doing so again at all costs due to the height and positioning of the speed bumps.

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 01 Nov 2005, 21:41

So have they made the speedbumps too big delibrately or is this a fault?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 01 Nov 2005, 21:52

From 'The Evening News' Mon 24 Oct

A council spokeswoman said the speed bumps were designed to slash the number of accidents. She added: "The speed cushions are designed in accordance with legislation and at the site in question we are building the speed cushions at three inches high - the maximum level set is four inches," she said.

Just you get out there with your ruler Robin!

Or buy yourself a Chelsea tractor. Speed bumps don't seem to bother them

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 01 Nov 2005, 22:27

According to the News tonight they've actually removed one of the bumps in Mountcastle Drive because it was too high. I do think they've gone overboard in some of the minor roads especially the dead ends like John Street and James Street. I'm enjoying the others though (sorry, but I am, it's great entertainment on the way up the road

)

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 01 Nov 2005, 22:42

Marya wrote:From 'The Evening News' Mon 24 Oct
A council spokeswoman said the speed bumps were designed to slash the number of accidents. She added: "The speed cushions are designed in accordance with legislation and at the site in question we are building the speed cushions at three inches high - the maximum level set is four inches," she said.
Just you get out there with your ruler Robin!

Or buy yourself a Chelsea tractor. Speed bumps don't seem to bother them

lol, well now that you mention it a particular one round the corner from my house is the height of the kerb!

ecm · Post by **ecm** » 01 Nov 2005, 22:46

Epykat wrote: I'm enjoying the others though (sorry, but I am, it's great entertainment on the way up the road )

Ah, it's the simple pleasures in life, isn't it.

Hell's Cat · Post by **Hell's Cat** » 02 Nov 2005, 09:20

I'm not letting this one go, I'm too annoyed about it. SO-
Another thing, why have some of the roads got a bump all the way accross and others 3 mini bumps? The mini bumps are the worst design on the planet. The single bumps are effective without hugh shoogling of the car as it goes over the bump AND it slows down bikes.
NOW, the 3 bump arrangement allows bikers to continue to speed as they can avoid the bump by going in between them or astirde them as would any wide based vehicle. Are we saying then that a child hit by a motor bike or a whopping great truck doing more than the speed limit is OK?
If these are to reduce the traffic to 20 miles an hour why does it not apply to motor bikes or any vechicle with a wide wheel base. Answer me that

teddygirl · Post by **teddygirl** » 02 Nov 2005, 18:15

Agree with everything you say Hell's Cat. My guess about the 3 mini bumps type is so that buses (and maybe emergency sevices )can span them as they seem to only be on the bus routes.

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 02 Nov 2005, 18:57

The mini ones are called speed cusions and the big fellas are called road hump!

The thing that bugs me the most is there all on 20 & 30mph zones, but to drive over these humps and cusions you have to drive a lot slower than the speed limit.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 03 Nov 2005, 19:15

Robin! wrote:you have to drive a lot slower than the speed limit

Just because the speed limit says 20 or 30 or 40 or whatever, it doesn't mean you HAVE to drive at that speed!

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 03 Nov 2005, 22:48

Epykat wrote:
Robin! wrote:you have to drive a lot slower than the speed limit
Just because the speed limit says 20 or 30 or 40 or whatever, it doesn't mean you HAVE to drive at that speed!

Well no offence but I do like to get to my destination on the same day!

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 03 Nov 2005, 22:48

You could leave a bit earlier

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 03 Nov 2005, 23:27

Epykat wrote:You could leave a bit earlier

That isn't an option, specially in the mornings!

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 03 Nov 2005, 23:43

Robin! wrote:
Epykat wrote:You could leave a bit earlier
That isn't an option, specially in the mornings!

Move house?

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 04 Nov 2005, 11:13

Pal of Porty wrote:
Robin! wrote:
Epykat wrote:You could leave a bit earlier
That isn't an option, specially in the mornings!
Move house?

Yeah I'll put my house on the market and go through all that expense to avoid speedbumps!

Come folk they are annoying and council have gone OTT with them!

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 04 Nov 2005, 12:28

Robin! wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:
Robin! wrote: That isn't an option, specially in the mornings!
Move house?
Yeah I'll put my house on the market and go through all that expense to avoid speedbumps!

Come folk they are annoying and council have gone OTT with them!

A necessary evil as far as I'm concerned and I speak as a driver and a parent

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 04 Nov 2005, 16:10

Robin! wrote:Come folk they are annoying and council have gone OTT with them!

I could not agree more.

sicker · Post by **sicker** » 04 Nov 2005, 16:30

If David Begg gets his way, and it appears to me he has already done so with car travel in Edinurgh, it won't matter how far you put your foot down on the accelerator, your speed will be controlled by satellite and an in car controller.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 04 Nov 2005, 18:15

sicker wrote:your speed will be controlled by satellite and an in car controller.

Great idea! I just don't see the logic in cars that are made to do 100+ when the speed limit isn't anywhere near that

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 04 Nov 2005, 18:25

You can't see the logic because its not logical

ceejam · Post by **ceejam** » 08 Nov 2005, 12:57

There's a bit fo a vicious curcle on this one, more people are buying big 4x4s because of the speed bumps, so the councils put in bigger bumps, so the car's get bigger etc etc.

It's right PITA for me, driving a Mini, althoug the ones in Newcraighall are nice, cos if I drive down the middle fo the road I fit between them

Or I just accelerate to 30 MPH in between them in first gear, used to take great pleasure in doing that past Malcolm Rifkind's house in Duddingston at 1AM on the way home from uni!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Nov 2005, 14:19

SB on Duddingston Road. Someone told me that if you line the car up correctly on the middle bump and accelerate hard into it, you barely feel the bump at all.

Apparently it gives an enormous anarchial rush.

Hell's Cat · Post by **Hell's Cat** » 31 Jan 2006, 13:40

There has to be a better way than putting in speed bumps. Why not speed cameras? Once people realise they are there they reduce their speed.
Speed bumps cause their own painful problems. See this article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4661438.stm

Which brings me back to something I said on my previous post:
I hope that neither I nor anyone else has to be taken to hospital with a spine or neck injury from most of the bugalows in the Durhams as there is no way to avoid them to exit the scheme!

Incidently - did anyone think to watch where the school children go at lunch time before they planned where to spend pots of money on chunks of environmentally unfriendly chunks of tarmac? The kids rarley cross the road from the school, instead they pile down one side of the road to Porto High Street where they have to cross a main road, rarley via the crossing.
Question: Why are there no speed bumps on the high street and I have got to over half a dozen to get to my house via quiet back streets that hardly ever see a cat never mind 100's of school children.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 31 Jan 2006, 15:19

I've no gripe with speed bumps per se , particularly in the vicinity of a school ( or in this case three schools), but the problem with the first set was that they were far too high. Now that they're being re-done they are much better IMO.

angusi · Post by **angusi** » 08 Mar 2006, 20:15

Mimpty wrote:Could we have the 20mph signs instead of speed humps then?
Less invasive, surely, and most people are fairly law abiding.

Seemingly (The Evening News), most people like speed bumps!

Robin! · Post by **Robin!** » 08 Mar 2006, 21:14

angusi wrote:
Mimpty wrote:Could we have the 20mph signs instead of speed humps then?
Less invasive, surely, and most people are fairly law abiding.
Seemingly (The Evening News), most people like speed bumps!

That I do not believe, it will be pedal pushing/non car people who probably wrote in by the 10s and 1000s.

bearcub · Post by **bearcub** » 08 Mar 2006, 21:33

My bus journey home from work (no.42) has turned into a fairground ride along Duddingston Rd with the speed bumps.

First of all, there's the dodgems as the bus driver weaves left and right trying to fit the bumps between the front wheels.......then there's the rollercoaster ride when he misjudges and goes over one, and my head rapidly shoots towards the roof, followed by an equally rapid descent back to the seat. And all this at a speed that's lucky if it breaks 15mph.

They're far too severe, and certainly aren't made for buses.

Post by **wangi** » 08 Mar 2006, 23:33

Robin! wrote:That I do not believe, it will be pedal pushing/non car people who probably wrote in by the 10s and 1000s.

As a "pedal pusher" I'd be hard pushed to think of any reason in favour of speed bumps... And many against.