Potholed road with immaculate speed bumps

Martin

Nuxx Bar wrote:
> http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/c...3A07%3A37%3A760

If this is an attempt to show prove the existence of anti-motorist
measures then you have failed miserably.
Cyclists are more affected by potholes than motorists. A pothole that
would feel like a small bump in a car could throw a cyclist off his bike.

As someone else pointed out, the paint on the bumps is ancient, and
nearly worn away. This shows that the bumps have been there a long time.

> Daniel Karlea, 26, a plasterer, said: "It is a nightmare, everyone
> says it. I broke a wheel on my car on the bumps two months ago and I
> had to buy a new one. The road needs resurfacing badly."

So Daniel Karlea was driving too fast for the conditions, proving that
paul smith was dead wrong, and that drivers are unable to decide a
suitable speed.

Roger Merriman

David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:23 +0100 someone who may be
> NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote this:-
>
> >> Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
> >> any noise or vibration.
> >
> >it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
> >mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
> >should over the bumbs.
>
> Any noise and vibration is being caused by the motorists, not the
> bump.

maybe so but compared with the road with out lumps unless it forces
traffic else where it will be noiser etc.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 4, 4:46*pm, David Hansen <SENDdavidNOhS...@spidacom.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:23 +0100 someone who may be
> N...@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote this:-
>
> >> Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
> >> any noise or vibration.
>
> >it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
> >mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
> >should over the bumbs.
>
> Any noise and vibration is being caused by the motorists, not the
> bump.

Can you think of any road safety or noise problem which isn't "caused
by the motorists" in your opinion?

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 4, 3:31*pm, POHB <goo...@hayward.uk.net> wrote:
> On 4 Jun, 11:08, Mark <i...@getlotsofspamthankstoplus.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't share your enthusiasm about speed bumps and would fight any
> > attempt to put them outside my home. *(A local man took a JCB to a
> > speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
> > noise and vibration.)
>
> I fought (OK I corresponded with the council) to get them reinstated
> outside my house after they were removed for road resurfacing.
> Without them the rat-runners and idiot kids were driving way too fast,
> despite the 20MPH speed limit, and there were several collisions each
> week. *The sound of crunching metal and glass was very disturbing to
> my sleep.

Bloody "rat-runners", using your personal private road which has been
a legal right of way for cars since they were invented (or the road
was built). Some might argue that you should have bought a house on a
cul-de-sac if you didn't want motorists going past your house, but
that's clearly nonsense.

Anyone who doesn't want to give themselves away as a motorist-hater
would do well to avoid such vile anti-motorist terms as "rat-runner".
Alternatively, you could make sure that when driving you always stick
to A and B roads everywhere that you possibly can, no matter how much
congestion there is, to avoid being a complete and utter hypocrite
(not to mention a "rat").

And this habit that NIMBYs like you have of saying that motorists on
your road are driving "too fast", when you actually just object to
their presence full stop, is dishonest. It also distorts road safety
priorities, which results in lives being lost. Congratulations.
Blood on hands.

Nuxx Bar

On Jun 4, 10:09*pm, Martin <martin.d...@virgin.net> wrote:
> Nuxx Bar wrote:
> >http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/c...zette/news/stor...
>
> If this is an attempt to show prove the existence of anti-motorist
> measures then you have failed miserably.
> Cyclists are more affected by potholes than motorists. A pothole that
> would feel like a small bump in a car could throw a cyclist off his bike.
>
> As someone else pointed out, the paint on the bumps is ancient, and
> nearly worn away. This shows that the bumps have been there a long time.
>
> > Daniel Karlea, 26, a plasterer, said: "It is a nightmare, everyone
> > says it. I broke a wheel on my car on the bumps two months ago and I
> > had to buy a new one. The road needs resurfacing badly."
>
> So Daniel Karlea was driving too fast for the conditions, proving that
> paul smith was dead wrong, and that drivers are unable to decide a
> suitable speed.

Whacked.

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 23:15:48 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<derderderder619@hotmail.com> said in
<4542c1b8-32de-45a3-ae8b-d4444728cd0c@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>:

>Bloody "rat-runners", using your personal private road which has been
>a legal right of way for cars since they were invented (or the road
>was built).

Really? A lot of London's roads predate the private car by several
centuries.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

JNugent

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Nuxx Bar <derderderder619@hotmail.com> said:

>> Bloody "rat-runners", using your personal private road which has been
>> a legal right of way for cars since they were invented (or the road
>> was built).

> Really? A lot of London's roads predate the private car by several
> centuries.

???

The majority of London's roads *have* been a legal right of way for cars
ever since they (cars) were "invented".

The only ones which have not are those which have since been closed to
(some or all) traffic and those which were not yet in existence when the
car was "invented".

Mark

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:46:52 +0100, David Hansen
<SENDdavidNOhSPAM@spidacom.co.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:23 +0100 someone who may be
>NEWS@wodger.demon.co.uk (Roger Merriman) wrote this:-
>
>>> Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
>>> any noise or vibration.
>>
>>it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
>>mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
>>should over the bumbs.
>
>Any noise and vibration is being caused by the motorists, not the
>bump.

It's a combination of the vehicle and the bump, without either one the
noise & vibration would be less. And then there's the violent
weaving, accelleration and braking that many motorists peform when
negotiating roads with speedbumps.

The main benefit I can see with speedbumps is that they reduce the
amount of traffic on the road, assuming that there is an alternative
route without speedbumps.

The speedbumps near where I work don't seem to have any affect on the
speed of the vehicles, just bring out the worst driving in most car
drivers.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org