Residents' Associations - Traffic Calming

Alan H

This is my first post on boards.ie so I hope I'm not posting in the wrong place.

This is probably a long shot but here it goes...
I'm currently working on a thesis with regard to traffic calming in residential areas. As part of my research, I'm hoping to get in contact with a residents' association that is currently concerned with traffic levels/speed in their local area. Ideally, I would like to find a residents' association that is concerned with rat-runs and the need to reduce both traffic and speeds.

So I was just wondering is there anyone on this forum that is part of a residents' association or aware of one with such concerns. I would be very grateful for any information. Thanking you,

Alan

अधिनायक

Alan H wrote:

Ideally, I would like to find a residents' association that is concerned with rat-runs and the need to reduce both traffic and speeds.

A better aim than reducing speeds and traffic would be to improve local health and reduce accidents. It is not clear that traffic calming measures have these effects. Vehicle emssions around speed bumps are high due to the constant acceleration and deceleration. Noise increases. Motorcycle and bike accidents are common (had one myself). Emergency service vehicles are delayed. The cost benefit may be negative.

You can get rid of rat runs in a housing estate by designing out any through roads. I guess there's a deep human desire to blame our problems on outside forces. "Those darn rat runners endangering our kids." The truth is that people choose a lifestyle that allows them to drive to their front doors rather than park at the end of the street. The necessary consequence of this choice is that the road outside your house will be pose a fatal risk to you and your children. What do you get in return? A fat arse.

GreeBo

err what?
Traffic calming i.e ramps, prevent idiots from driving at 60kph in estates.
They are well needed in my estate and apparantly are on the way in, after years of asking the council.

HelterSkelter

GreeBo wrote:

err what?
Traffic calming i.e ramps, prevent idiots from driving at 60kph in estates.
They are well needed in my estate and apparantly are on the way in, after years of asking the council.

In my experience they don't slow traffic down. You can easily take one of those ramps at 60kmh. You also get idiots slowing at the ramps, speeding back up until the get to the next one, etc etc.

Seth Brundle

Im not sure what ramps are near you HelterSkelter but the ones in my estate are very mild (~10cm high and 3m wide) and if you drive over them at 40kmh you will certainly feel it never mind 60kmh.
There is also no definitive design for speed bumps in Ireland, instead local authorities follow loose guidelines. This is why you will see a vast array of objects ranging from brick ramps to mounds about 10cm high and 0.5m wide which will really hurt if you are moving above 5kmh.

FillSpectre

I think the biggest problem is is not the local concils but the companies they hire to build the ramps. Proper ramps are meant to do lots of neat things like allow buses and emergency vehicals not be effected.

I am seriously thinking that the council should start putting in moveable bollards so locals can have access and people doing rat runs are stopped. THere is a creche near me and the whole belief of woman drivers being safer seems to not exist as a result. 3 different woman have been paying morte attention to their kids while using my road as a rat run have nearly hit me. THey are simply paying more attention to their kids while on a "quite" road.

THey have the moveable bollards in temple bar so we know they are possible elsewhere

mackerski

Ramps are a counterproductive measure in any instance I've ever seen them used. They are typically constructed to a severity requiring them to be negotiated a a speed well below the prevailing speed limit (usually 50). To my mind, if the local authority believes that a lower speed than 50 is merited, their first port of call should be a 30-zone. Cheaper, and it doesn't damage all cars (even compliant ones) the way ramps do. Back up the limit with an enforcement campaign, thereby making back the cost of the speed limit signs.

Oh, and don't do any of this on major through routes like the Tolka Valley Road. What's that all about?

Dermot

dowlingm

It's amazing how Toronto spends piles on humps when the roads are in a desperate state in some places, all because of the parish pump politics. The emergency services hate them.

RedPlanet

I support the use of speed bumps and wish local councils would build more of them, in just about every residential road that has a straight stretch longer than 100m.
The reason they are necessary is that motorists have failed to police themselves regarding observing the speed limit.
The only other options are to put loads of gards on the roads to police these same motorists, or implement radar/camera technology to fine motorists after the fact; but that requires money and political will.
Speed bumps are cheap and effective.

It's a pity they also effect emergency services but hey, blame the speeding motorists, they make it necessary.

mackerski

RedPlanet wrote:

Speed bumps are cheap and effective.

No, they're expensive and work on the principle of punishing the whole class.

Dermot

RedPlanet

mackerski wrote:

No, they're expensive and work on the principle of punishing the whole class.

Dermot

They are not nearly as expensive as putting gards out to monitor drivers speed, nor the costs of camera technology.

mackerski

RedPlanet wrote:

They are not nearly as expensive as putting gards out to monitor drivers speed, nor the costs of camera technology.

One mobile camera in the back of a station wagon can police how many residential streets? Works in other countries...

I assume, though, that we can all agree that it's foolish to erect 5km/h ramps in a 50km/h zone? Or are 30km/h signs also more expensive than ramps?

Dermot

Alun

mackerski wrote:

Ramps are a counterproductive measure in any instance I've ever seen them used. They are typically constructed to a severity requiring them to be negotiated a a speed well below the prevailing speed limit (usually 50). To my mind, if the local authority believes that a lower speed than 50 is merited, their first port of call should be a 30-zone. Cheaper, and it doesn't damage all cars (even compliant ones) the way ramps do. Back up the limit with an enforcement campaign, thereby making back the cost of the speed limit signs.

You've hit the nail on the head there. The problem with ramps is often that until you've driven over them, especially at night, you've no idea whether they're of the kind that allow you to drive over them at, or close to, the legal limit or (at the other extreme) one that will break your suspension and rip off your exhaust if you drive over them at anything more than a walking pace. It's fine when you live in an area and get to know all the ramps there, you know which ones are the ones that "bite", but in a strange area it's pretty much a lottery.

RedPlanet

Alun wrote:

You've hit the nail on the head there. The problem with ramps is often that until you've driven over them, especially at night, you've no idea whether they're of the kind that allow you to drive over them at, or close to, the legal limit or (at the other extreme) one that will break your suspension and rip off your exhaust if you drive over them at anything more than a walking pace. It's fine when you live in an area and get to know all the ramps there, you know which ones are the ones that "bite", but in a strange area it's pretty much a lottery.

And you know what that means?
Well, it means you should approach them with caution and slow down.
Which is ok, because while there may be a posted legal speed limit of 50kph, that is the maximum speed allowed, not necessarily the recommended speed or... god given right!

Alun

RedPlanet wrote:

And you know what that means?
Well, it means you should approach them with caution and slow down.
Which is ok, because while there may be a posted legal speed limit of 50kph, that is the maximum speed allowed, not necessarily the recommended speed or... god given right!

Enjoy that little rant, did you? That's nice ... I hope it made you feel better Have a nice day

mackerski

RedPlanet wrote:

And you know what that means?
Well, it means you should approach them with caution and slow down.
Which is ok, because while there may be a posted legal speed limit of 50kph, that is the maximum speed allowed, not necessarily the recommended speed or... god given right!

I find your attitude very strange. A posted speed limit of 50 means, at the very least, that the LA considers it valid for vehicles to drive at speeds greater than 30km/h in at least some circumstances. It is therefore inconsistent for them to build structures that will damage vehicles driven in accordance with this.

If you're suggesting that road-safety is enhanced by LA-endorsed lucky-bag traffic hazards, then I have to wonder what you're smoking. I'd prefer drivers to be focussing on naturally-occurring hazards...

Dermot

HelterSkelter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3288795.stm

Road humps hamper police response

The Metropolitan Police has warned its response to emergency calls is being hampered by road humps.

A traffic division report accused councils of implementing traffic calming in roads which have no history of accidents.

In the last three months 34 police vehicles were possibly damaged due to traffic calming features, it added.

The report called for a new strategy to make sure traffic calming features are standard across London.

The disclosure comes after the head of London Ambulance Service called for a review of speed bumps, saying they put patient's lives in danger by slowing emergency response times.


"The evidence is clear - road humps are a menace which are endangering Londoners" - Conservative London Assembly Member Brian Coleman

It has been estimated that there are between 20,000 and 30,000 speed bumps in London, with thousands more ramps, barriers and chicanes.

The traffic division report said that road humps encourage drivers to speed up in the gaps between them.

It adds: "Traffic calming does affect attendance times, based on the principle that any highway obstruction will impede the progression of the emergency services during a response call."

It also said there was "little evidence" London boroughs have acknowledged the importance of identifying and agreeing upon strategic routes for emergency services.

Reducing fatalities

The study has been submitted to the London Assembly's transport committee, which is due to meet next week.

Transport for London has said in the past that road humps were a key factor in reducing fatalities on the roads.

But Brian Coleman, Conservative London Assembly Member, said: "We already know from the London Ambulance Service that so-called 'traffic calming' causes over 500 deaths a year in London alone, and now the police have confirmed it affects their response times too.

"The evidence is clear - road humps are a menace which are endangering Londoners. "

HelterSkelter

Accoring to the London Ambulance service, speed ramps kill more people than they save...


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/3091358

999 patients 'killed by speed bumps'
By Joe Murphy, Whitehall Editor, Evening Standard
27 January 2003

Speed bumps are killing hundreds of Londoners each year by delaying 999 crews, the head of the ambulance service has told the Evening Standard.

Measures such as road humps and traffic-light rephasing - which are supposed to improve road safety - are actually costing many more lives than they save. Up to 800 victims of cardiac arrest die in London for every minute of delay caused - compared with a total of 300 who die in traffic accidents each year.

The warning was made by Sigurd Reinton, chairman of the London Ambulance Service (LAS). He said: "For every life saved through traffic calming, more are lost because of ambulance delays."

His charge calls into question the spread of devices deliberately designed to slow down the capital's cars and lorries. It also challenges Mayor Ken Livingstone's campaign to close off rat runs and widen pedestrian zones at the expense of lanes for vehicles. Mr Reinton, a former director of management consultancy McKinsey, was brought in to raise standards at LAS three years ago and is credited with doubling the emergency response rate.

However, he said life- saving improvements were being held back by the increasing number of anti-car measures. "Every time an ambulance approaches a speed hump it has to slow down to walking pace, or even slower if it is carrying a critically ill patient," he said.

"A lot of smaller roads have been shut off to stop cars using them as rat runs, but it means ambulances have to join queues on other routes.

"The widening of pedestrian areas in many parts of central London has meant there is now only one lane for traffic where there used to be two. That makes it harder for ambulances to overtake and often it is impossible for cars to move to one side." London has an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 speed bumps. There are also thousands of chicanes, ramps and barriers designed to prevent speeding.

However, the capital also suffers from some of the lowest survival rates for people who suffer cardiac arrest.

Only two per cent of those suffering the worst form of heart attack are revived in time, compared with 10 per cent in some other areas. Each minute of delay in an ambulance team reaching a victim reduces their chances of surviving by 10 per cent.

A total of 8,000 people suffer cardiac arrest in the city each year. Another 35,000 need treatment for chest pain.

Liam Fox, Conservative health spokesman and a qualified doctor, said: "The obsession of Ken Livingstone and Transport for London with road calming measures is actually killing Londoners. There needs to be a proper balance between road safety and the effectiveness of the ambulance service. London ambulance crews are doing their utmost - but they are being hampered by the transport authorities."

Pigeon Reaper

I've heard that in Germany if an accident occurs in a 50kph zone the car is automatically at fault. The theory is that in a residential zone cars must yield to pedestrians, cyclists, animals etc. and the speed should be slow enough to stop and avoid any accidents. This works in Germany due to better quality roads, less illegal parking which allows greater visibility and much greater enforcement.

shltter

Pigeon Reaper wrote:

I've heard that in Germany if an accident occurs in a 50kph zone the car is automatically at fault. The theory is that in a residential zone cars must yield to pedestrians, cyclists, animals etc. and the speed should be slow enough to stop and avoid any accidents. This works in Germany due to better quality roads, less illegal parking which allows greater visibility and much greater enforcement.

"Enforcement" what is that ???

DublinWriter

If you want to see ramp-mania, then drive down from the old Baldoyle village in the direction of Donaghmede.

I've counted 9 ramps on a 3/4 mile stretch of main road that could hardly be classified as a rat-run.

Rumour has it that the only reason they were put up was because Fingal County Council had a budget surplus one year. At the same time also erected about a dozen 'empty' poles on the pavement along the same stretch, probably meant for sinage, but still just remain empty to this day.

In my 30+ years knowledge of the area, not one serious accident *ever* occurred on this stretch of road.

Ramps hinder emergency vehicles, full stop.

GreeBo

So what do we suggest to use to stop boy racers driving their mothers cars at 50kph around my estate?
Wheel spins, handbrake turns, the lot.
All of this along side a green area where kids play and run across the road to get to.

I think ramps are the only option here (though Id like to try the shot gun approach)

mackerski

GreeBo wrote:

So what do we suggest to use to stop boy racers driving their mothers cars at 50kph around my estate?
Wheel spins, handbrake turns, the lot.
All of this along side a green area where kids play and run across the road to get to.

Why not close the road to cars? That would work, would it now? What's that you say? Unfair to law abiding drivers? Do you know, I think you might be onto something there...

Dermot

RedPlanet

mackerski wrote:

Why not close the road to cars? That would work, would it now? What's that you say? Unfair to law abiding drivers? Do you know, I think you might be onto something there...

Dermot

That wouldn't work because people will need:
a) heating oil to be delivered to keep their houses warm in the winter months.
b) bin collection
c) vehicles so they can move house
d) vehicles for those unable to walk.

Whereas a simple speed bump does what? Makes the driver slow down.
Which is exactly the point.

Interestingly it's those that live in residential areas that seem to welcome these speed bumps and even request them from the council; whereas it's those motorists whom like to drive at or above the maxium allowed limit that have a problem with the speed bumps.

HelterSkelter

mackerski wrote:

Why not close the road to cars? That would work, would it now? What's that you say? Unfair to law abiding drivers? Do you know, I think you might be onto something there...

Dermot

That's not going to help emergency services either.

mackerski

RedPlanet wrote:

That wouldn't work because people will need:
a) heating oil to be delivered to keep their houses warm in the winter months.
b) bin collection
c) vehicles so they can move house
d) vehicles for those unable to walk.

Bummer. And all because we're powerless in the face of lawbreakers.

RedPlanet wrote:

Whereas a simple speed bump does what? Makes the driver slow down.
Which is exactly the point.

The point is that some time during the 80s, this country worked out how to build roads with smooth, level surfaces and not too many holes. About two years later, they decided that that was a daft idea after all and started building brick walls across them that are inherently harmful to all cars and are a disproportionate response to the problem they purport to address. Some people shoplift too - should we all be rostered for two days a year in jail in case we are among them? Sure beats police work...

RedPlanet wrote:

Interestingly it's those that live in residential areas that seem to welcome these speed bumps and even request them from the council; whereas it's those motorists whom like to drive at or above the maxium allowed limit that have a problem with the speed bumps.

I live in a residential area. I'd do my nut if they spent money damaging my access roads.

Dermot

RedPlanet

mackerski wrote:

Some people shoplift too - should we all be rostered for two days a year in jail in case we are among them? Sure beats police work...

Not comparing like with like.
For one, not all of us drive cars.
For two, shoplifting doesn't kill people, but motorists do.
For three, slowing down to drive over a speedbump isn't infringing on your human rights in any way.

HelterSkelter

GreeBo wrote:

So what do we suggest to use to stop boy racers driving their mothers cars at 50kph around my estate?
Wheel spins, handbrake turns, the lot.
All of this along side a green area where kids play and run across the road to get to.

I think ramps are the only option here (though Id like to try the shot gun approach)

Speed cameras

HelterSkelter

RedPlanet wrote:

Not comparing like with like.
For one, not all of us drive cars.
For two, shoplifting doesn't kill people, but motorists do.
For three, slowing down to drive over a speedbump isn't infringing on your human rights in any way.

Speed ramps kill more people than they save.Where do you stand on that point?

RedPlanet

HelterSkelter wrote:

Speed ramps kill more people than they save.Where do you stand on that point?

I doubt that it's true.
It sounds like hypothetical nonsense from a motorist-centric perspective.

HelterSkelter

RedPlanet wrote:

I doubt that it's true.
It sounds like hypothetical nonsense from a motorist-centric perspective.

Read the article I posted above. It is the opinion of the chief of the London Ambulance Service. Do you doubt this because it doesn't suit your opinion?

Speed bumps are killing hundreds of Londoners each year by delaying 999 crews, the head of the ambulance service has told the Evening Standard.

Measures such as road humps and traffic-light rephasing - which are supposed to improve road safety - are actually costing many more lives than they save. Up to 800 victims of cardiac arrest die in London for every minute of delay caused - compared with a total of 300 who die in traffic accidents each year.

The warning was made by Sigurd Reinton, chairman of the London Ambulance Service (LAS). He said: "For every life saved through traffic calming, more are lost because of ambulance delays."