Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Legality of putting Speed Ramps in Private Housing Estates

Options
13

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,402 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    vrusinov wrote: »
    What suprises me that there are bumps on straight, wide Nutley Lane with great visibility and no real dangers whatsoever.

    But 1k further there is very similar road that also goes from Rock Road to N11 - Booterstown avenue. It's mosty resedential, narrow with lots of parked cars, pedestrians who sometimes overflow from narrow walk paths to road and other things.
    Yet there is no sign of any traffic calming measures there. Many drivers are doing 60+ there (which may or may not include me).

    In fact, I prefer Booterstown avenue over Nutley Lane because bumps are so annoying.

    Booterstown Avenue also has several schools (both National schools and Andrews) which Nutley Ave does not. Also, parking is only on one side on Nutley.

    Much more reason for bumps than Nutley I would have thought.


  • Options
    #63
    ongarboy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,201 ✭✭✭ongarboy


    Not sure of legality but our management company installed metal type black and Amber ramps around our estate last week due to cars travelling too fast on the roads where lots of kids live.


  • Options
    #64
    josip
    Registered Users Posts: 13,653 ✭✭✭✭josip


    But does it not follow that traffic will speed more on the straighter, wider, road with better visibility?
    Hence they are needed more on Nutley?


  • Options
    #65
    vrusinov
    Registered Users Posts: 162 ✭✭vrusinov


    50 is perfectly fine on "straighter, wider, road with better visibility".
    Ok, most of the people will do something around 60, like in any other good road (majority of Merrion Road, N11, etc). There is no reason to install bumps on Nultey Lane in particular.


  • Options
    #66
    SeanW
    Registered Users Posts: 8,767 ✭✭✭SeanW


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    There are far more people killed and injured by speeding motor vehicles than there are injured or discommoded in ambulances slowed down slightly by traffic calming.
    You've been shown from the personal experience of one poster how forcing an ambulance over speed bumps aggravates physical injuries. It is also a known fact that with heart attacks, strokes etc, seconds are lives.

    The majority of deaths in Ireland are caused by cardiovascular events. Traffic accidents are not even in the Top 10.

    Yet you are happy to cause delay and additional physical injury to people with critical and acute ailments needing immediate care, by defending speed bumps on a main ambulance route that should be fast and smooth, where there were never any accidents or problems whatsoever.

    Now, I may risk "playing the man not the ball" but frankly I find it difficult, if not impossible to say anything positive about anyone with such extreme views. Especially when accompanied by the below:
    Much of the bleating comes from self-centred motorists who complain about anything that slows them down even a tad, yet if most drivers travelled at a legal and appropriate speed there would be no need for traffic calming.
    I think motorists have problems with speed ramps that force slowing down to 5-10kph on main routes and things of that nature. No one here is going to defend doing crazy speeds in housing estates.
    and there would be far fewer people needing to be carried to A&E by ambulance.
    See above for why this is B.S.
    The juvenile L(l)ibertarians who huff and huff ineffectually about traffic calming are often the same ones regurgitating dumb witterings from the internet about those awful oppressive speed cameras.
    I think I speak for most motorists when I say that what we have a problem with is:
    1. Speed bumps that are disproportionate - e.g. requiring almost a complete stop in some cases - uncomfortable to drive over and damage our cars without provocation.
    2. Speed limits that are disproportionately low. E.g. having the same speed limit in a town centre as a rural regional road that happens to be within a mile or two of such a town. Or arbitrary speed limits on some dual carriageways. And thusly, the enforcement of said limits.
    Your group (cyclists) are not exactly whiter than white in terms of obeying the law (on footpath riding, on obeying red lights) in case you hadn't noticed.
    Motorists' moaning is of no relevance in such consultations.
    Great. Doing stuff with no input from the "wrong" stakeholders is good now?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ongarboy wrote: »
    Not sure of legality but our management company installed metal type black and Amber ramps around our estate last week due to cars travelling too fast on the roads where lots of kids live.

    Say goodbye to your shock absorbers (at any speed) and also sleep if one is near your house and high traffic


  • Options
    #68
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    L1011 wrote: »
    Say goodbye to your shock absorbers (at any speed) and also sleep if one is near your house and high traffic

    There are two unavoidable (and moderately effective) speed ramps near our estate. They have been there for a couple of years now, and my shock absorbers are just fine.

    It is a heavily trafficked road. I'm not aware of any increased noise, and none of the residents adjacent to the ramps have complained about noise either.

    Motorists will find numerous excuses to complain about traffic calming. It all boils down to one thing: resentment at being forced to drive more slowly.


  • Options
    #69
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    It all boils down to one thing: resentment at being forced to drive more slowly.

    In your little world, maybe. In reality, it doesn't. Attempting to wave away actual valid complaints by blaming motorists as you always do doesn't wash in the real world, thankfully. Calling valid complaints "motorists moaning", "bleating" or similar as you did above doesn't give you valid reasons to ignore them either.

    If you actually engaged with debate rather than posting links of lists then dismissing responses as "hysterics" or one of the many other terms you use, you might get somewhere.

    Metal sectional speed ramps are ineffective at reducing speed as they can be passed at extremely high speeds with pretty much exactly the same jolt as at low speeds. They do, however, cause severe damage to cars who have to pass them frequently and create large amounts of noise.

    They, thankfully, wear down to nothing after a few years (and without the collapsing to a potholed mess that badly installed asphalt pretend-brick ramps do), although that can just result in management companies pissing more money down the drain replacing them. I'd be attempting to get them removed at the AGM of any management company I was a member of.


  • Options
    #70
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    L1011 wrote: »
    In your little world, maybe. In reality, it doesn't. Attempting to wave away actual valid complaints by blaming motorists as you always do doesn't wash in the real world, thankfully. Calling valid complaints "motorists moaning", "bleating" or similar as you did above doesn't give you valid reasons to ignore them either.

    If you actually engaged with debate rather than posting links of lists then dismissing responses as "hysterics" or one of the many other terms you use, you might get somewhere.

    Metal sectional speed ramps are ineffective at reducing speed as they can be passed at extremely high speeds with pretty much exactly the same jolt as at low speeds. They do, however, cause severe damage to cars who have to pass them frequently and create large amounts of noise.

    They, thankfully, wear down to nothing after a few years (and without the collapsing to a potholed mess that badly installed asphalt pretend-brick ramps do), although that can just result in management companies pissing more money down the drain replacing them. I'd be attempting to get them removed at the AGM of any management company I was a member of.

    I have no idea what "metal sectional speed ramps" are, and apparently Google doesn't either.

    I'm sure you're right though.

    In real life, speed-reducing measures are often opposed by motorists and motoring vested interests. The drummed-up hysteria against the Dublin City 30 km/h is an example.

    Residents assocs in private estates may well be able to prevent the installation of traffic calming measures, but at least the general public is not affected in such situations. However, I am aware of public roads where individuals with local political clout have succeeded in keeping speed ramps out of places where they are badly needed, eg in 'mature' estates where young families are moving in and parents are concerned for their children's safety when walking to school, crossing the road to play in parks or with friends, cycling up and down the road etc. Selfishness and individualism are the main motivations for the reactionary hatred of traffic calming, in my view.

    I know of one case where a Councillor, in response to requests from parents, went to the trouble of having traffic calming plans draw up and then presented to the residents association. He was "ran out of it" by a couple of local grandees who declared they were not going to allow traffic calming in 'their' estate. The exact same mindset applies regarding objections to the creation of children's playgrounds, and there have been numerous examples around the country of where certain groups have succeeded in having these basic facilities stopped.


  • Options
    #71
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    I have no idea what "metal sectional speed ramps" are, and apparently Google doesn't either.

    Very first result there.

    Did you actually look at the results? Or is this another case of posting a link you've not read?

    Continuing to call dissenting opinions "hysteria" really does nothing to help your cause. Actually dealing with the issues (if you can, without resorting to page after page of links and often completely irrelevant, out of context quotes) is a much better idea, if you want to try that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    You're paying for green area maintenance and yet children are playing on the roads?

    Stupid question but what's wrong with the green areas?


  • Options
    #73
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    The best traffic calming in the world? Parked Cars.

    No one gives a crap about hitting little Johnny or Flo, it'll never be me! I'm a great driver in my 15 year old BMW doing the 'speed limit' of 50 I can see the future, bend the laws of physics in relation to braking. My penis is directly related to the speed I must travel.

    Feck another car, an inanimate hunk of metal, whoa there better slow down, not hitting that! Someone think of my baby (my 15 year old BMW).

    Joking aside, park on alternate sides of the road, giving the kids enough room to see but no one enough play to get any speed up.

    That said, educating the kids helps too, not just for now but for later life too.


  • Options
    #74
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    The best traffic calming in the world? Parked Cars.

    No one gives a crap about hitting little Johnny or Flo, it'll never be me! I'm a great driver in my 15 year old BMW doing the 'speed limit' of 50 I can see the future, bend the laws of physics in relation to braking. My penis is directly related to the speed I must travel.

    Feck another car, an inanimate hunk of metal, whoa there better slow down, not hitting that! Someone think of my baby (my 15 year old BMW).

    Joking aside, park on alternate sides of the road, giving the kids enough room to see but no one enough play to get any speed up.

    Any form of horizontal deflection works quite well, without the serious issues that vertical deflections have. There'll usually be very few cars around during the day when kids are more likely to be playing, but permanent deflections don't drive to work.


  • Options
    #75
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    L1011 wrote: »
    Any form of horizontal deflection works quite well, without the serious issues that vertical deflections have. There'll usually be very few cars around during the day when kids are more likely to be playing, but permanent deflections don't drive to work.

    Perfect excuse for mum to buy a car for the School run. Given the bloody traffic I thought everyone one did the school run in a car :pac:


  • Options
    #76
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    Perfect excuse for mum to buy a car for the School run. Given the bloody traffic I thought everyone one did the school run in a car :pac:

    Quick! Get on to SIMI with the idea! :pac:


  • Options
    #77
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    L1011 wrote: »
    Very first result there.

    Did you actually look at the results? Or is this another case of posting a link you've not read?

    Link please, to "metal sectional speed ramps", which is the term you used earlier.

    bjork wrote: »
    You're paying for green area maintenance and yet children are playing on the roads?

    Stupid question but what's wrong with the green areas?

    It's completely normal, and absolutely commonplace, for children to play in the street. It's the norm in the civilised parts of Europe.

    spielstrasse.jpg

    Also, children may have to cross roads to access green areas.

    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    The best traffic calming in the world? Parked Cars.

    ...

    Joking aside, park on alternate sides of the road, giving the kids enough room to see but no one enough play to get any speed up.

    That said, educating the kids helps too, not just for now but for later life too.

    The best traffic calming in the world? No cars.

    In the Netherlands, for example, there are residential woonerfen where cars are parked in areas away from houses. Very peaceful and quiet, in my experience. Also, many Dutch city and town centres are still open to motor vehicles, but because so many people cycle (including children and the elderly), and because speeds are kept so low, it's as if there's no traffic at all. Speed limits may be as low as 20 km/h or even 'walking speed'. On some streets you can wait several minutes and no car will pass by, whereas in Ireland you often have to wait several minutes for a chance to cross the road.

    Education has its place, but it's not a substitute for providing a safe environment. In Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands (and several other EU countries afaik) children are taught from an early age how to cycle according to the rules of the road.

    What are children being taught in Ireland? How to kowtow to drivers, how cycling and walking are deadly dangerous, and how to huddle in hi-vis for fear of their lives.

    .


  • Options
    #78
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Link please, to "metal sectional speed ramps", which is the term you used earlier.

    Its a description. Not a brand name.

    The very first result on the Google search you did was for them.

    If you don't know what they are I'd be amazed, if you're playing dumb to try prove a point that's utterly pathetic.


  • Options
    #79
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    L1011 wrote: »
    Its a description. Not a brand name.

    The very first result on the Google search you did was for them.

    If you don't know what they are I'd be amazed, if you're playing dumb to try prove a point that's utterly pathetic.

    Link please, to the objects you described earlier as "metal sectional speed ramps".


  • Options
    #80
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    https://www.google.nl/search?q=metal+sectional+speed+ramps&num=50&newwindow=1&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ACJJVbaPA8Xd7gaa5oHICA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=635


    Metal sectional speed ramps


  • Options
    #81
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Link please, to the objects you described earlier as "metal sectional speed ramps".

    I'm not your search engine. You have already made a Google search, linked it here in some pathetic attempt at one upmanship while ignoring that the very first result (the Pitmann one) was the product in question

    You can perform the search yourself.

    It is not considered normal to go insisting on a link to something that is clearly described and which you've made blindingly clear you can find out for yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    L1011 wrote: »
    I'm not your search engine. You have already made a Google search, linked it here in some pathetic attempt at one upmanship while ignoring that the very first result (the Pitmann one) was the product in question

    You can perform the search yourself.

    It is not considered normal to go insisting on a link to something that is clearly described and which you've made blindingly clear you can find out for yourself.

    No link then. Same old same old.


  • Options
    #83
    Iwannahurl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,156 ✭✭✭Iwannahurl


    bjork wrote: »
    https://www.google.nl/search?q=metal+sectional+speed+ramps&num=50&newwindow=1&es_sm=93&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ACJJVbaPA8Xd7gaa5oHICA&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=635


    Metal sectional speed ramps

    Gee. Speed bumps/ramps made of metal which can be laid/lifted in sections. Who'd a thunk it?
    L1011 wrote: »
    Metal sectional speed ramps are ineffective at reducing speed as they can be passed at extremely high speeds with pretty much exactly the same jolt as at low speeds. They do, however, cause severe damage to cars who have to pass them frequently and create large amounts of noise.

    They, thankfully, wear down to nothing after a few years (and without the collapsing to a potholed mess that badly installed asphalt pretend-brick ramps do), although that can just result in management companies pissing more money down the drain replacing them. I'd be attempting to get them removed at the AGM of any management company I was a member of.

    And this affects us how?


  • Options
    #84
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,814 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Gee. Speed bumps/ramps made of metal which can be laid/lifted in sections. Who'd a thunk it?


    And this affects us how?

    I have absolutely zero idea what you are stating/asking with this post.


  • Options
    #85
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwannahurl wrote: »
    Link please, to the objects you described earlier as "metal sectional speed ramps".

    It's clear what's being referred to. Let's get back on track.

    As always, nobody should respond to moderation on-thread.

    Moderator.


  • Options
    #86
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    bjork wrote: »
    You're paying for green area maintenance and yet children are playing on the roads?

    Stupid question but what's wrong with the green areas?
    They get wet and messy when it rains. Which happens a lot in Ireland.

    They may be across the road from where Children live

    They may be unsuitable to cycle on. See previous 2 points.

    You can't play kerbs on grass.

    Hayfever suffers suffer more playing on grass.

    d1ckheads running resident associations may consider children playing in green areas lower the tone.


  • Options
    #87
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    They get wet and messy when it rains. Which happens a lot in Ireland.

    They may be across the road from where Children live

    They may be unsuitable to cycle on. See previous 2 points.

    You can't play kerbs on grass.

    Hayfever suffers suffer more playing on grass.

    d1ckheads running resident associations may consider children playing in green areas lower the tone.
    A child might get dirty - What would we do?

    They may be across the road? Meaning what? A child has to cross the road? the parent might have to come out and supervise? therefore playing on the road is a better option?

    Children cycling around in the middle of the road is unsuitable.

    Most greens have kerbs. You are afraid of them getting dirty or having to cross the road, but playing a ball game in the middle of the road is perfectly fine? Are there no kerbs at the end of a cul de sac with no passing traffic they could use for the game?

    Tell the residents association that's what they are for and that's what you are paying for.

    I don't think a few speed ramps are the answer


  • Options
    #88
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    bjork wrote: »
    A child might get dirty - What would we do?
    Or like when I was a child, the children might decide getting wet feet, and a ball not bouncing well in slop is not as good as playing on a road, where you have dry feet and a consistent bounce. Hars on leather balls though.
    bjork wrote: »
    They may be across the road? Meaning what? A child has to cross the road? the parent might have to come out and supervise? therefore playing on the road is a better option?
    Children are out playing. to get from their homes to the green they've to cross the road. ergo children will be playing on the road.

    bjork wrote: »
    Children cycling around in the middle of the road is unsuitable.
    Children cycling on the road is perfectly suitable. Very few motorists have been injured by children cycling on roads. Paschal Donohoe in his wisdom has kept it illegal for children to cycle on paths.
    bjork wrote: »
    Most greens have kerbs. You are afraid of them getting dirty or having to cross the road, but playing a ball game in the middle of the road is perfectly fine? Are there no kerbs at the end of a cul de sac with no passing traffic they could use for the game?
    And how would a child play kerbs standing on the green?
    I see you accept there are some roads that you think are fine for use, negating all your previous points.

    bjork wrote: »
    I don't think a few speed ramps are the answer
    You're dead right, motorists having personal responsibility to ensure the safety of children playing in residential areas is needed.


  • Options
    #89
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Or like when I was a child, the children might decide getting wet feet, and a ball not bouncing well in slop is not as good as playing on a road, where you have dry feet and a consistent bounce. Hars on leather balls though.


    Children are out playing. to get from their homes to the green they've to cross the road. ergo children will be playing on the road.


    Children cycling on the road is perfectly suitable. Very few motorists have been injured by children cycling on roads. Paschal Donohoe in his wisdom has kept it illegal for children to cycle on paths.

    And how would a child play kerbs standing on the green?
    I see you accept there are some roads that you think are fine for use, negating all your previous points.



    You're dead right, motorists having personal responsibility to ensure the safety of children playing in residential areas is needed.
    Excuses, Excuses

    Motorists have responsibility, so have parents.

    Some roads have no through traffic

    crossing the road is not playing on the road

    yes, few motorist have been injured by children on bicycles??

    Cycling on the roads in suitable when the child is following the rules of the road



    What good would speed ramps do? Why buy houses if the only place to play is the road? It's not a suitable area for children.


  • Options
    #90
    Carawaystick
    Registered Users Posts: 8,779 ✭✭✭Carawaystick


    bjork wrote: »

    yes, few motorist have been injured by children on bicycles??

    Source?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Carawaystick wrote: »
    Source?


    Source: You ^^
    Carawaystick wrote: »
    ......
    Children cycling on the road is perfectly suitable. Very few motorists have been injured by children cycling on roads. Paschal Donohoe in his wisdom has kept it illegal for children to cycle on paths. ............


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement