Time for a review of Irish Speedbump Heights?

Signpost

Having watched this - http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0523/media-2963651.html# are we finally due a review of Irish Speedbump Heights?

Eric Cartman

Speedramp height should be revised to 0 , speed ramps are pointless and just damage cars , they should all be removed

Anan1

What would you replace them with?

Guy:Incognito

Much as I dislike having speedbumps everywhere, it's a very big stretch associating a huge big heavey reinforced car going up and out of a driveway and gettign stuck to speedbumps.

challengemaster

Anan1 wrote: »

What would you replace them with?

Nothing, they're just an annoyance.

flash1080

Anan1 wrote: »

What would you replace them with?

Potholes.

Nforce

Signpost wrote: »

Having watched this - http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2011/0523/media-2963651.html# are we finally due a review of Irish Speedbump Heights?

Nothing to do with speedbumps...looks more like the suspension collapsed.

Anan1

challengemaster wrote: »

Nothing, they're just an annoyance.

If you lived in an estate with speeding cars and had young children would you feel the same way?

who the fug

Sorry chaps but the problem is a US car on US soil driven by a yank, so nothing to do with Ireland

coylemj

The car was so long that at the top of the ramp the underside got jammed on the concrete angle, nothing to do with speed bumps whatsoever.

Eric Cartman

Anan1 wrote: »

If you lived in an estate with speeding cars and had young children would you feel the same way?

there were no speedramps when i was a kid and Im still alive

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there were no speedramps when i was a kid and Im still alive

As a kid I used to hang out the sunroof at 40mph and i'm still here too. Your point being?

LIGHTNING wrote: »

The odd speed bump isnt going to stop that behaviour.

Are you seriously trying to argue that ramps don't slow cars down?

seamus

So the car gets stuck because an embassy's driveway is too steep and this has exactly what to do with speed bumps?

Though I can guarantee you that driveway will be "repaired" in the next 24 hours.

challengemaster

Anan1 wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to argue that ramps don't slow cars down?

They do, periodically. If I want I can floor it straight after each speed bump til the next one, then some hard braking, rinse and repeat. In fact, it's much more likely I'll do this than continuing at a slower speed to make up for the fact that the speed bumps are slowing me down.

Speed bumps stop cars from getting to high speeds, they don't stop them from accelerating quickly

Anan1

seamus wrote: »

So the car gets stuck because an embassy's driveway is too steep and this has exactly what to do with speed bumps?

Zero. Zip. It was an (IMO poor) joke.

seamus wrote: »

Though I can guarantee you that driveway will be "repaired" in the next 24 hours.

Be that as it may, can't see how heads won't roll for that one - it was an entirely predictable accident.

coylemj

Anan1 wrote: »

Be that as it may, can't see how heads won't roll for that one - it was an entirely predictable accident.

+1 I'm familiar with that ramp as I used to pass it every day going to work, it's very steep and there's no way a long limo could get over the top of it without scraping it as it did. Definitely should have been forseen.

If Enda had to go to Farmleigh to meet O'Bama, why didn't the embassy staff go to the Ambassador's residence in the Phoenix Park to meet him instead of having to haul him across town and seriously fcuk up the traffic in D4?

Anan1

challengemaster wrote: »

They do, periodically. If I want I can floor it straight after each speed bump til the next one, then some hard braking, rinse and repeat. In fact, it's much more likely I'll do this than continuing at a slower speed to make up for the fact that the speed bumps are slowing me down.

Speed bumps stop cars from getting to high speeds, they don't stop them from accelerating quickly

Depends on what you're driving and how they're spaced. Don't make the (standard around here) mistake of thinking that because you don't like something it must be without merit. I'm no fan of speed ramps myself but, properly implemented, they do work. Much like clamping, they're part of the price we all pay for letting the incompetent & ignorant drive cars.

who the fug

Anan1 wrote: »

Zero. Zip. It was an (IMO poor) joke.
Be that as it may, can't see how heads won't roll for that one - it was an entirely predictable accident.

I think some supervisor in the US secret service is now packing his bags for Anchorage or points further north

Guy:Incognito

who the fug wrote: »

Sorry chaps but the problem is a US car on US soil driven by a yank, so nothing to do with Ireland

Only half of it is on US soil.

Eric Cartman

Anan1 wrote: »

As a kid I used to hang out the sunroof at 40mph and i'm still here too. Your point being?

that most of our parents taught us to stay off the road or watch out for cars, boy racers and bad driving arent a new invention , safe cross code and education of drivers and kids in schools are a better option, unless you can invent speed ramps that dont hit when your going at or below the speed limit and also retract at night when kids arent a problem , ill agree to those

at the moment the mindset is speed up , jam on while focussing your attention on the ramp , go over the ramp , speed up , repeat

id much rather people focused on the road and not on the bit of concrete 5 meters infront of them they have to jam on for

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that most of our parents taught us to stay off the road or watch out for cars, boy racers and bad driving arent a new invention , safe cross code and education of drivers and kids in schools are a better option

Better for you, or better for the kids?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

unless you can invent speed ramps that dont hit when your going at or below the speed limit and also retract at night when kids arent a problem , ill agree to those

Would you like (and be prepared to pay for) speed cameras instead of ramps so?

Eric Cartman

Anan1 wrote: »

Better for you, or better for the kids?

Would you like (and be prepared to pay for) speed cameras instead of ramps so?

no, just leave the road open as a road , the big problem is that most speed ramps in the likes of carparks, housing estates and roads in areas like walkinstown you cant go over at more than 20-30km/h which during the day with kids is i suppose acceptable, but at night when the kids arent out there is no conceivable reason I shouldnt be allowed do 60km/h

coylemj

Eric Cartman wrote: »

that most of our parents taught us to stay off the road or watch out for cars, boy racers and bad driving arent a new invention , safe cross code and education of drivers and kids in schools are a better option, unless you can invent speed ramps that dont hit when your going at or below the speed limit and also retract at night when kids arent a problem , ill agree to those

at the moment the mindset is speed up , jam on while focussing your attention on the ramp , go over the ramp , speed up , repeat

id much rather people focused on the road and not on the bit of concrete 5 meters infront of them they have to jam on for

Parental and Government education on road safety has been going on for years. All it takes is one pr1ck a day driving at speed through a residential area and the locals will demand speed bumps.

The ironic thing about boy racers (which highlights how utterly thick they are) is that their noisy exhausts draws attention to themselves so even when the road is empty the residents can hear them driving like lunatics.

vetstu

Eric Cartman wrote: »

no, just leave the road open as a road , the big problem is that most speed ramps in the likes of carparks, housing estates and roads in areas like walkinstown you cant go over at more than 20-30km/h which during the day with kids is i suppose acceptable, but at night when the kids arent out there is no conceivable reason I shouldnt be allowed do 60km/h

You want electric retractable ramps that fold into the road at night so.
The problem with your statement is that there are retards about who will fly down whether there are children about or not, day and night.

Eric Cartman

vetstu wrote: »

You want electric retractable ramps that fold into the road at night so.
The problem with your statement is that there are retards about who will fly down whether there are children about or not, day and night.

those retards are going to fly along between ramps anyway , why punish the majority to try solve a problem the minority create

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

those retards are going to fly along between ramps anyway , why punish the majority to try solve a problem the minority create

Because it's safer for the kids than not having ramps?

Eric Cartman

Anan1 wrote: »

Because it's safer for the kids than not having ramps?

the retards are going to fly along anyway , if you dont educate the kids to get out of the way , regardless of ramps theyre going to be hit , the retard driver will do the same no matter what , removing the ramps wouldnt mean everyone will suddenly speed, the retards are going to run over a child no matter what , the best thing you can do is just educate children to watch and listen for cars instead of spending money inconveniencing everyone,

or the alternative you might deal better with , maybee if somebody could design a ramp you could somehow still go over with a lowered car at 52-53km/h without any damage or annoyance to the driver then id be fine with ramps

Bodhan

On speed bumps.
They really don't work anymore, I was driving a Peugeot 508 recently and I didn't have to slow down for any speed bumps. The suspension set up on new cars can cope with all but the biggest bumps, the little ones in estates are useless.

Nforce

I don't have any issue with properly constructed speed ramps. My problem lies with the huge haphazard mounds of tarmac that local authorities f*ck in the middle of the road that masquerades as a speed bump. Sump killers.

Voodoomelon

Whatever about the limo, the 750i barely made it over either! Surely that wasn't the first time large saloons have scraped their arses on the ground there, ridiculous.

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

the retards are going to fly along anyway , if you dont educate the kids to get out of the way , regardless of ramps theyre going to be hit , the retard driver will do the same no matter what , removing the ramps wouldnt mean everyone will suddenly speed, the retards are going to run over a child no matter what , the best thing you can do is just educate children to watch and listen for cars instead of spending money inconveniencing everyone,

Are you trying to argue that ramps don't slow cars down? Because they do. The argument about cars speeding up between ramps can easily be dealt with by reducing the spacing between ramps, so that doesn't fly either.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

or the alternative you might deal better with , maybee if somebody could design a ramp you could somehow still go over with a lowered car at 52-53km/h without any damage or annoyance to the driver then id be fine with ramps

You're never going to get that right, it's too car-dependent. For example, my Forester will do some ramps at 50km/h where a lowered Civic will have to slow to below 20. Speed cameras could do what you ask, though.

Stark

Anan1 wrote: »

What would you replace them with?

Preferably something that allows ambulances to get through quickly without destroying all the expensive equipment inside.

Midnight_EG

I have to do 2km/hr over speed bumps...but handy because it means I'm not killing it by hooping over them!

Eric Cartman

Anan1 wrote: »

You're never going to get that right, it's too car-dependent. For example, my Forester will do some ramps at 50km/h where a lowered Civic will have to slow to below 20. Speed cameras could do what you ask, though.

indeed, my truck can take most housing estate type ramps at 60 - 70 easily , speed cameras arent the solution either

speed ramps do slow people down , reducing the distance between ramps just makes them more annoying to everybody ,

Anan1

Stark wrote: »

Preferably something that allows ambulances to get through quickly without destroying all the expensive equipment inside.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

indeed, my truck can take most housing estate type ramps at 60 - 70 easily , speed cameras arent the solution either

speed ramps do slow people down , reducing the distance between ramps just makes them more annoying to everybody ,

It looks to me like our choice is: a.) ramps, b.) cameras, or c.) dead kids. None is ideal, and cameras, although the most expensive solution, strike me as the lesser evil.

Eric Cartman

Anan1 wrote: »

It looks to me like our choice is: a.) ramps, b.) cameras, or c.) dead kids. None is ideal, and cameras, although the most expensive solution, strike me as the lesser evil.

my point is if theres an idiot driving regardless of a or b youll always end up with c anyway, so whats the point in either

Sheeps

challengemaster wrote: »

They do, periodically. If I want I can floor it straight after each speed bump til the next one, then some hard braking, rinse and repeat. In fact, it's much more likely I'll do this than continuing at a slower speed to make up for the fact that the speed bumps are slowing me down.

Speed bumps stop cars from getting to high speeds, they don't stop them from accelerating quickly

thats what i do

dell1211

who the fug wrote: »

Sorry chaps but the problem is a US car on US soil driven by a yank, so nothing to do with Ireland

thats a myth. its irish soil


anyway how can anyone associate what happened today with a speedbump

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

my point is if theres an idiot driving regardless of a or b youll always end up with c anyway, so whats the point in either

Because you won't. Decent ramps, closely-spaced, will slow traffic down to safe speeds, although we all know at what cost. Visible cameras will slow down most cars, although again you'd need lots of them. They have the advantages that they're easier on suspension, they level the field, and they won't impede emergency vehicles, but the disadvantage that they won't slow joyriders. They're also very expensive. Basically, your solution is better for you but worse for vulnerable pedestrians.

no1beemerfan

My take on speedbumps is that they are rediculous is their current form. There is a need for them in places but say its in a 30kph zone shouldn't that mean you can do the whole stretch at 30kph.

At the moment if your on a 30kph stretch you have to slow down to 2kph to take the fecking speedbump which imo shouldn't be the case. The speedbump should be designed to let cars stay at the speed limit of the road its on.

padma

no1beemerfan wrote: »

My take on speedbumps is that they are rediculous is their current form. There is a need for them in places but say its in a 30kph zone shouldn't that mean you can do the whole stretch at 30kph.

At the moment if your on a 30kph stretch you have to slow down to 2kph to take the fecking speedbump which imo shouldn't be the case. The speedbump should be designed to let cars stay at the speed limit of the road its on.

Agree with this

The true fact is about 90% of speedbumps are not built to reduce speed but seem to be built to reduce the speed of your car 70% below the speed limit of the area you are in.

It is ridiculous and annoying to professional drivers who work on the road for a living as it takes more petrol with the slowing and stopping and speeding up again (hence is not green)

Then the countless work needed doing to keep your suspension and wishbones in order is another waste of money (which could be spread out in to local businesses rather than one business sector ie mechanics)

Also the wear and tear of taxi's as seen last week on primetime could be avoided with better roads (rather than potholes and brick-like speedbumps in the middle of the road) which would reduce the amount of cars on their last legs because of underbody damage.

ShadowHearth

Eric Cartman wrote: »

my point is if theres an idiot driving regardless of a or b youll always end up with c anyway, so whats the point in either

Agree. No matter what you will do, there will allways be an idiot who wont care.

So it just annoying for people.

I seem a few of those horrible Tarmac speed bumps in Dublin. U just was so happy I wasn't in any of my cars, becomes they would not survive them!

pajero12

Any Car or Truck could do 60-70 easily(provided its not too low)..It'd be dogged rough on it though!

mickdw

Just watched a close up view of the car on the ramp there on tv3 news and it looks very much like the car just collapsed onto the ramp. Perhaps it caught the ground and damaged an hydrualic line or something but it certainly just sat down and seemed to have a bit of clearance until it did fall down

Anan1

no1beemerfan wrote: »

My take on speedbumps is that they are rediculous is their current form. There is a need for them in places but say its in a 30kph zone shouldn't that mean you can do the whole stretch at 30kph.

At the moment if your on a 30kph stretch you have to slow down to 2kph to take the fecking speedbump which imo shouldn't be the case. The speedbump should be designed to let cars stay at the speed limit of the road its on.

But we all know that that's impossible. It doesn't take a genius to point out the disadvantages of ramps, but nobody seems able to come up with a viable alternative. 'Let them speed, they'll kill kids anyway' doesn't really cut it, and nobody wants cameras either.

Anan1

mickdw wrote: »

Just watched a close up view of the car on the ramp there on tv3 news and it looks very much like the car just collapsed onto the ramp. Perhaps it caught the ground and damaged an hydrualic line or something but it certainly just sat down and seemed to have a bit of clearance until it did fall down

The front did look abnormally low, although you'd think all systems would be protected by the underbody armour. If it wasn't for the BMW in front having had problems too, i'd be wondering whether the issue wasn't caused by mechanical failure.

no1beemerfan

Anan1 wrote: »

But we all know that that's impossible. It doesn't take a genius to point out the disadvantages of ramps, but nobody seems able to come up with a viable alternative. 'Let them speed, they'll kill kids anyway' doesn't really cut it, and nobody wants cameras either.

I knew I remembered reading something years ago about a new type of speedbump but was too tired to google it last night!

Its a shame it never took off.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1322541/Sleeping-policemen-going-soft.html

seamus

no1beemerfan wrote: »

I knew I remembered reading something years ago about a new type of speedbump but was too tired to google it last night!

Its a shame it never took off.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1322541/Sleeping-policemen-going-soft.html

They're still around:
http://www.dunloptranscalm.com

They just seem to be too expensive. €5,000 or so, versus a €100 strip of tarmac. Though by the time you've added in beauracracy and public servants, I'm sure a normal speedbump costs more than €5,000.

My primary concern would be the fact that they're air-filled rubber bladders. If scumbags are willing to firebomb speed camera vans, then they won't think twice about taking a hunting knife or a broken bottle out to damage a speed bump.

Anan1

Presumably you could have a sensor-controlled metal ramp, but again there's the cost issue. So does anyone have a viable alternative to ramps? I can't understand the opposition to cameras, myself - is it just a generalized case of 'we hate speed cameras'?

phill106

Eric Cartman wrote: »

there were no speedramps when i was a kid and Im still alive

All the more reason to remove speedbumps, look what happens!

thirtythirty

Anan1 wrote: »

But we all know that that's impossible. It doesn't take a genius to point out the disadvantages of ramps, but nobody seems able to come up with a viable alternative. 'Let them speed, they'll kill kids anyway' doesn't really cut it, and nobody wants cameras either.

Squishers.

You know when the road narrows down with barriers or posts? I'd prefer that.