Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#122
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#123
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#124
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#125
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#127
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#128
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#129
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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) |
#130
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
have the time to do everything you want | London Transport | |||
traffic is better, but livingstone is thinking of more traffic zone? | London Transport | |||
Everything we know about traffic-calming is wrong | London Transport | |||
Traffic Calming in Islington | London Transport | |||
top up wrong Oyster (almost) | London Transport |