Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:34:47 GMT, Dave Kahn
wrote:

But is there a proven alternative to speed bumps, round or
flat tops, and the raised platforms our Council are fitting at
each minor road junction?

Yes. Cobbled Streets. Durable and encouraging of slower driving. Oh
and I kinda like that Yankee idea of 4-way stops!

The French largely gave up on them after 1968 as the cobbles made good
ammunition for the students to throw at the police.

The Belgian village I lived in until last year had cobbles through the
centre. Didn't slow anyone down a great deal (unlike the
single-vehicle wide railway bridge at one end of the main through
route) and was very noisy. Needed relaying most years.

Still liked them though.

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Dave Kahn wrote:


The French largely gave up on them after 1968 as the cobbles made good
ammunition for the students to throw at the police.


The drivers round these parts just learned that their suspension systems
nicely rejected the frequencies causes by cobbles at 30mph. Of course,
on a non-suspension bike, its a different story.

Our local council tried short patches of cobbles laid more haphazardly
to make them bumpier, instead of speed bumps. The cars were also quite
noisy going over them at speed.

- Richard

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 at 22:34:47, Dave Kahn wrote:

On 6 Jul 2004 06:58:56 -0700, (James) wrote:

Yes. Cobbled Streets. Durable and encouraging of slower driving. Oh
and I kinda like that Yankee idea of 4-way stops!

The French largely gave up on them after 1968 as the cobbles made good
ammunition for the students to throw at the police.

Obviously you haven't been watching this year's Tour de France with a
great many cobbled areas for the bikes to fall over on!

Actually, I think a lot of Paris streets still are cobbled - whenever
there have been riots, they have always been used to throw at police,
it's practically a tradition!
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 6 June 2004

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On 6 Jul 2004 06:58:56 -0700, (James) wrote (more or
less):

"taywood" wrote in message ...
Marc Brett wrote:
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong

But is there a proven alternative to speed bumps, round or
flat tops, and the raised platforms our Council are fitting at
each minor road junction?

Yes. Cobbled Streets. Durable and encouraging of slower driving.

Not actually durable - you'll often find structural subsidence in
cobbled streets. The surface is quite long lasting tho' - but at the
cost of having /very/ low grip, and even worse in the wet!

Oh and I kinda like that Yankee idea of 4-way stops!

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Yes. Cobbled Streets. Durable and encouraging of slower driving.

Not actually durable - you'll often find structural subsidence in
cobbled streets. The surface is quite long lasting tho' - but at the
cost of having /very/ low grip, and even worse in the wet!

Subsidence depends on how it's been set. The stones themselves will
last centuries - there are examples of Roman surfaces still around.
Sod grip. You should drive more slowly - as you already do when you
have no grip due to adverse road conditions. The purpose would have
been achieved.

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On 12 Jul 2004 16:32:51 -0700, (James) wrote (more or
less):

Yes. Cobbled Streets. Durable and encouraging of slower driving.

Not actually durable - you'll often find structural subsidence in
cobbled streets. The surface is quite long lasting tho' - but at the
cost of having /very/ low grip, and even worse in the wet!

Subsidence depends on how it's been set. The stones themselves will
last centuries - there are examples of Roman surfaces still around.

But not ones that have had 38 tonners traipsing up and down them
daily.

Sod grip. You should drive more slowly

I tend not to drive. I'm responding to this via uk.rec.cycling

- as you already do when you
have no grip due to adverse road conditions. The purpose would have
been achieved.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

[ ... ]

... If you want to discredit speed
limits, then give examples of where they're set too low or too high,
rather than criticising signing policy.

How about 40mph on the M4?

And no, I am not referring temporary limit at a set of roadworks (even
though 40 is still extracting the urine a bit, even at roadworks). I am
speaking of a permanent limit of 40mph on part of the M4.

Do you not agree that such a limit is *way too low* on a motorway?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.721 / Virus Database: 477 - Release Date: 16/07/04

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

JNugent wrote:

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

[ ... ]


... If you want to discredit speed
limits, then give examples of where they're set too low or too high,
rather than criticising signing policy.


How about 40mph on the M4?

And no, I am not referring temporary limit at a set of roadworks (even
though 40 is still extracting the urine a bit, even at roadworks). I am
speaking of a permanent limit of 40mph on part of the M4.

Do you not agree that such a limit is *way too low* on a motorway?


And exactly where is this 40mph on the M4? Perhaps where it passes
through a built up area in London, where the lanes are narrow and it
twists with frequent junctions?

I drive the M4 regularly, between central london right out to Wales.
The only place I can think that such a limit exists is where you get
close to London, and there are very good reasons for the limit at that
point.

Some more information on where your 40 mph limit on the M4 would be
useful in determining whether it is justified and thus not a valid piece
of supporting evidence; or not.

--


Velvet

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

JNugent wrote:
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

[ ... ]

... If you want to discredit speed
limits, then give examples of where they're set too low or too
high, rather than criticising signing policy.

How about 40mph on the M4?

And no, I am not referring temporary limit at a set of roadworks
(even though 40 is still extracting the urine a bit, even at
roadworks). I am speaking of a permanent limit of 40mph on part of
the M4.

Do you not agree that such a limit is *way too low* on a motorway?

You're presumably referring to the elevated section of the M4 in London,
which has 2 lanes per carriageway, no hard shoulder, and very heavy
traffic flows. This is not a typical motorway, though I felt that the
previous 50mph limit here was adequate. Anyone know what the accident
rate was on this section before the 40 limit was imposed?

--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong
 

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 at 14:40:32, JNugent
wrote:

And no, I am not referring temporary limit at a set of roadworks (even
though 40 is still extracting the urine a bit, even at roadworks). I am
speaking of a permanent limit of 40mph on part of the M4.

Do you not agree that such a limit is *way too low* on a motorway?

Not on that particular section of the M4 - it does keep traffic moving,
and has enabled them to extend the 60 mph section much farther back (it
used to be 50 mph right out to Slough, practically).
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 6 June 2004