?Phantom? road humps

[Penguin68]

Driving through Brixton today I was reminded that around Brixton Market ?phantom? road humps have been painted on the road ? looking as if a white line had been painted round an area like our own mini humps (three in-line). I found myself moderating my driving as if the humps had been real, and wondered whether these phantom humps did generally moderate speeds etc.

If this does moderate driving behaviour it has the merit of doing so at minimal cost both in road-works and in consequential wear-and-tear on vehicles.

Whilst not suggesting that all our ED humps be replaced by phantom humps, I wonder whether some mixed economy of real and phantom humps might be introduced (assuming the Lambeth experience is positive about their moderating effects) ? thus reducing expenditure on roads whilst benefiting drivers through reduction of additional wear on tyres, reducing needs for re-tracking steering etc. As ?real? humps actually cause additional wear on roads (as well as having an implicit cost of their own) , such a plan would benefit both the public and private purse.

Of course, their effectiveness in moderating road speeds still needs to be demonstrated (if it hasn?t already been in Lambeth) ? but if the numbers of real humps on our roads can be reduced, whilst the road safety benefit of having humps is broadly maintained, this should be a win-win situation for ED.

[jim_the_chin]

Surely it would only work on drivers new to the road? More research needed as suggested.

[Penguin68]

I know the Brixton non-humps, but even then I am aware of modifying my driving when I see them. I don't think familiarity loses it for me, but is a useful reminder, like the 'rapel' speed limit reminders in France.

[EDrant]

Speed bumps increase pollution/emissions as traffic travels in a lower gear using significantly more fuel...

They also increase noise by both traversing over the bumps and by using more engine revs than normal. Not to mention, braking and acceleration...

In France, in the last 20 years or so the policy has been to replace speed bumps by other alternatives... but sadly it is not the case here.

[apbremer]

Madness ~like driving over rockeries. Sue Southwark for damage to vehicles. Speed cameras much more effective to slow the loonies and much cheaper.

[Earl Aelfheah]

We spend a fortune resurfacing the roads to ensure that they are flat and smooth and then the same again putting bumps back in. I'm pretty sure (although admittedly, I can't evidence it) that speeding is just displaced by humps. You so often see van drivers (not sure why it's always van drivers, but anyway), leaving a 'bump zone' and really putting their foot down, which I'm sure is at least in part born out of the frustration bumps invoke.

[Penguin68]

I would add, as regards the downsides of speed humps, that large vehicles (i.e. skip lorries) that go over them at anything less than fractionally over 0mph cause consequental damage (by the force they hit the road) on adjacent properties; my garden wall has been badly damaged by vibrations of passing heavy traffic. In smaller roads with humps the vibration damage must be effecting not just garden walls but the houses themselves.

BUT - since humps have been put in my road, the numbers of accidents (and injury to pedestrians) has fallen - so clearly they are of benefit - I just wonder whether phantom humps (perhaps still with some real humps would be as effective safety wise?

[Earl Aelfheah]

You would think that some engineers out there would have come up with something a bit smarter to slow vehicles than a bump. I mean it's not a very sophisticated response is it?

[kford]

There are lots of smarter ideas - simply removing the white lines from a road can reduce speed, so can using red Tarmac.

[healey]

If humps save lives I couldn't give two hoots about damage to the road, my own car or anyone else's.