07-10-2018, 09:08 PM
(07-10-2018, 06:59 PM)Canard Wrote: Speed Bumps are awful for everyone.
- Drivers will slow down for them... which wastes enormous amounts of fuel when they accelerate again after them, because nobody will drive at a continuous 30 km/h between them (ie, they just don’t psycologically work).
- Residents near them get to endure the constant noise of cars accelerating rapidly to get to the next one.
- They are jarring for cyclists.
- They are a nightmare for busses and snowploughs.
I would argue they are one of the worst ways to calm traffic.
Speed bumps are terrible. They are also different from speed humps or speed cushions, which are also different from speed tables or raised intersections/crossings.
You are right that one of the biggest problems with speed humps (I assume you mean, when you suggest drivers traverse them at 30 km/h...which is...ahh...quite damaging on a speed bump as I once found out), is that drivers move along at 50-60 km/h, brake hard to get to 20-30, then accelerate hard to get back to 50-60. Meaning, the speed hump fails to have the desired effect of slowing traffic and also cause increased wear and fuel usage.
This problem occurs, I believe, because speed humps are deployed on roads which are designed for 60km/h traffic, as "calming". If the road is already designed to limit drivers to around 30-40 km/h, then the speed hump could be used to smooth over a section of the road where other calming measures might not be as effective (i.e., a straight section that is widened to enable parking, for example). In this case, drivers are already traveling at the right speed, and the speed hump only encourages them to keep doing that.
As for cyclists, you're absolutely right, the CoK has been frustratingly stupid when implementing them on Glasgow, the literally put them in the bike lane, instead of the road. Insanity! Fortunately, that is not a necessary feature of speed humps. Here is my alternate design https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yWcYJZ...XJ14fMX00T&usp=sharing
I did see a lot of speed humps and raised crossings in the Netherlands, and while I'm not sure how they feel about them there, I rarely rode over them on a bike when I wasn't approaching an intersection already, and they seemed to be effective, I didn't hear a lot of hard braking or acceleration around them. Here's a great photo of a raised crossing in the Netherlands: https://twitter.com/MattPinder1/status/1...9351511045
They are somewhat annoying for bus passengers, and can be a problem for snowplows if built poorly, which is why they should be used only when it is really necessary and valuable...which brings us to raised crossings or raised intersections, the best place for speed humps, where they have the most benefit and the least cost (since drivers should already be slowing down). Sadly, rarely is that where they are placed.
I think we have a very negative view of speed cushions here because they're usually deployed in the wrong places, and for the wrong reasons, and as a result are usually ineffective. But I think they have their place if used in the right places to be effective and useful.
My 2 cents.