Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Jun 26, 2019 15:14

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Gives you the HUMP?
PostPosted: Fri Oct 07, 2005 22:59 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
There has been some speculative reporting in the local press today, regarding a passenger on a bus suffering a back injury because of a speed hump.
The general consensus appears to be the bus was NOT speeding, however, the man DID have a known problem with his back.
Quote:
Hump 'broke man's back'
Published on 07/10/2005

A BUS passenger may never walk again after being tossed from his seat while his bus went over speed humps in Dalton.

Neil Price, 53, from Kendal, damaged his spine following the incident and now faces paralysis.

The jolt threw Mr Price up to 10 inches in the air and he was found slumped on the floor by the driver.

He is in hospital with two broken vertebrae, a damaged spine and with no feeling from the chest down.

Doctors have warned him it could be several weeks before they know if he can walk again.

Today he confirmed to the Evening Mail he had a bad back before the accident

However, I have had a bad back which causes occasional problems since I displaced a vertebrae in 1984, so am I at risk, and could I sue those responsible for their placement, given that they must be aware of the potential?
My present vehicle actually lessens the affect on me of some humps if I drive over them FASTER.
Ian H might be surprised to find this includes the first 4 humps from the top of Vicarage Drive in Kendal - which last year were found to be illegal in height, and were modified by ramping up the tarmac on either side.
The fifth hump down differs from the first four, and to a lesser extent, so do the next ones, until the plateau in front of a school(?) entrance. These DO require that I slow down - to well below the 20 mph limit for the zone.
If stopped, could I claim "self defence"?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 11:38 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 22:53
Posts: 565
Location: Kendal
I usually do about 32mph down Vicarage Drive, Ernest - On two wheels! - off the saddle for the humps using a bit of quadricipital suspension.

A couple of quick but safe overtakes after the school! :twisted:

But they are not comfortable bumps, and I'm aware one of my neighbours is continuing his campaign against them.

I also agree that they can actually be managed at significantly higher speed, possibly more comfortably than the range of 'acceptable' speeds round the limit.

But while in the car I'll stick to 15mph! :(

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 08, 2005 23:32 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I'd be interested to know the size / weight of the bus. Most of the bigger ones have air suspension and shouldn't "hop" over speed bumps too violently at all. The samller (say less than 7.5 tonne gross vehicle weight) buses might not be on air springs and I suppose one of these could give you a bit of a bump - especially if it was running lightly loaded.

I used to love speed bumps when I had my old Citroen DS. It was a heavy car with a very low unsprung mass and unbelieveably low "spring" rates. The result was that if you could drive over humps at the "right" speed, they were almost imperceptible. It used to be good fun watching my passengers tense their buttocks, grab the edge of the seat and brace themselves...


...and then just look behind us in utter disbelief!

I agree with what he says though - if you hit a bump too slow, the car body rises and you "feel" the bump. If you hit it too fast, the damper goes much more "solid" and the car body still rises. If you get just the right speed, the wheel will be up, over the bump and down before the mass of the body "realises" what's happening. This will minimise what the occupant feels.

Of course these days, hump designers have got wise to this and make them much broader and flatter-topped so that pretty much no matter what speed you drive over them at, the car's body will have to rise before the wheel drops down again. No wonder everybody is buying big 4x4s which treat the environment and pedestrians with equal disdain! I'm afraid that's a decision that the planners will have to live with.

Anyone for a "Hummer"?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 13:16 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
Back in April Bolton press reported that speed humps in Bolton were to be removed as they were all 6" higher than they should be! :? :? :?

They do not really slow traffic down - as you see sharp acceleration from 15 mph to 30 mph between the humps und some slow in time und others wreck suspension :roll:

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 13:48 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 14:55
Posts: 134
Location: Hérault, France
In a version of this story that I read, there was a quote from some council spokesperson along the lines of "the humps comply with all safety regulations".

I'm sure that will cheer up Mr. Price no end, knowing that his back was broken in complete safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 16:16 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 23:09
Posts: 6735
Location: Stockport, Cheshire
Is there a web reference for this article? I can't easily find one.

Personally I hate humps even more than cameras - they strike me as intrinsically dangerous and indicative of a particularly narrow, mean-minded attitude. What a shame we don't have a Paul Smith of the Hump :(

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 16:30 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
I doubt thy'd have been 6" higher than they ought to have been - you'd need a Landrover just to get over them! Theyare all supposed to be 3" (75mm) high these days although the original bit of legislation allowing them:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1996/Uksi_19961483_en_1.htm

allowed 4" (100mm). It's possible there are a few 10mm bumps stil left but most should be 75 by now. Can't find the link to the amending legislation just now.

As an aside, I heard that someone was developing a "hydraulic" bump that squashed itself flat if you hit it at the right speed (or with a heavy enough vehicle like a fire engine / ambulance) but became rigid if you hit it too fast. This seems like a good idea to me! Does anyone know if its true?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 16:39 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 14:55
Posts: 134
Location: Hérault, France
PeterE wrote:
Is there a web reference for this article? I can't easily find one.(


There's a few references on Google News. Unfortunately, they all appear to be the same rather short UPI wire article.

http://news.google.com/news?as_q=neil%2 ... m=10&hl=en

I've no idea where I read an extended version. It was a couple of days ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 17:19 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
PeterE wrote:
Is there a web reference for this article? I can't easily find one.


Try this

Cheers
Peter

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 19:22 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 00:24
Posts: 2400
Location: Kendal, Cumbria
Original Westmorland Gazette article here

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 21:05 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
The worrying thing is the attitude of the County Council spokesperson.
Quote:
A spokesman said: "The humps were built to comply with the safety guidelines of the time. We don't appear to have had any particular complaints about their height.

"Generally, these speed humps are safe if you go over them at the appropriate speed. If it looks as though this hump itself played any significant role in this incident then we will look at it."

Now I never complain about humps, except to object to the plans to put them on the estate where I live. It's POINTLESS, as they NEVER take any notice.

"Generally they are safe" is like saying water is harmless - you can bath in it, drink it, and sail on it. However from time to time, people DROWN in it! :oops:

At the end of the day, speed humps are pointless - those who will speed where they are used, STILL speed between humps - possibly at greater speed to "make up for lost time" and those who drive company cars, don't worry about the wear and tear on their suspension.

Over 10 years, and on two different vehicles, I have had three coiled suspension springs fracture - one catastrophically, which speared the side wall of the front tyre! Not on my car, but my wife's!
For ages, I thought we were just unlucky, until the local garage where we took them for repair said they had fixed several vehicles with identical problems.
:idea: :idea: :idea: :!: :x

My own approach is to test the reaction of the car to humps I pass regularly to reduce the effect to passengers, and set my speed WHEREVER I drive according to the conditions.
A 20 mph zone AND humps is an admission that one or both dont work.
A regular police presence at school run times, or rush hour, would acheive far more.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 10:56 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
Just a comment and a request for further information...

If a hump is placed on a road with, say, a 30 limit; should you be able to drive an "ordinary" car over it at the legal limit, ie 30mph? Ditto 20mph...

If it's poorly marked, and thus effectively invisible at night, would a driver have grounds for action in damages against the council or road authority if, by driving over said hump at a legal speed, he'd smashed the bottom out of his car?

Just wondering... The "People's Republic of Walsall" has been putting socking great humps in roads that have been reduced in limit from 40 to 30 - and all the ones I've driven over have been negotiable at not much more than walking pace.

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 13:18 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4813
Location: Essex
A slight aside, but one of the persuasions to me to get a big car was the need to negotiate these things. In a small car they are unbearable. I wonder how many other folk have "upped" their next motor car size choice as a result of these infernal devices?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 13:26 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
I damaged my exhaust on a speed hump in April (110mm high, maximum recommended height 75mm; maximum legal height 100mm).

I have been trying to claim compensation ever since. The council and their insurers won't pay as they claim a 'safety audit' was carried out before installation and after.

I have finally managed to see a copy of the two audits. They are concerned with such 'safety' matters as how the humps will affect water drainage, how they will affect access to people's driveways, and the like. They didn't consider damage to vehicles at any point.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 16:14 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
pogo wrote:
Just a comment and a request for further information...

If a hump is placed on a road with, say, a 30 limit; should you be able to drive an "ordinary" car over it at the legal limit, ie 30mph? Ditto 20mph...

If it's poorly marked, and thus effectively invisible at night, would a driver have grounds for action in damages against the council or road authority if, by driving over said hump at a legal speed, he'd smashed the bottom out of his car?

Just wondering... The "People's Republic of Walsall" has been putting socking great humps in roads that have been reduced in limit from 40 to 30 - and all the ones I've driven over have been negotiable at not much more than walking pace.



No, its not anything remotely that scientific! Besides, what's a "normal" car? Lotus and TVR both make "normal" cars IMO!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 16:16 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Roger wrote:
A slight aside, but one of the persuasions to me to get a big car was the need to negotiate these things. In a small car they are unbearable. I wonder how many other folk have "upped" their next motor car size choice as a result of these infernal devices?


Absolutely. I think we can directly blame these for a great deal of the massive increase in 4x4s amongst the urban population. I currently have a big MPV that's nearly wide enough in the track to straddle them.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 16:17 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Zamzara wrote:
I damaged my exhaust on a speed hump in April (110mm high, maximum recommended height 75mm; maximum legal height 100mm).

I have been trying to claim compensation ever since. The council and their insurers won't pay as they claim a 'safety audit' was carried out before installation and after.

I have finally managed to see a copy of the two audits. They are concerned with such 'safety' matters as how the humps will affect water drainage, how they will affect access to people's driveways, and the like. They didn't consider damage to vehicles at any point.


I'm 99% certain that the maximum "legal" height has been reduced to 75mm. I'll try to look up the legislation for you if you like.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 16:31 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Mole wrote:
Zamzara wrote:
I damaged my exhaust on a speed hump in April (110mm high, maximum recommended height 75mm; maximum legal height 100mm).

I have been trying to claim compensation ever since. The council and their insurers won't pay as they claim a 'safety audit' was carried out before installation and after.

I have finally managed to see a copy of the two audits. They are concerned with such 'safety' matters as how the humps will affect water drainage, how they will affect access to people's driveways, and the like. They didn't consider damage to vehicles at any point.


I'm 99% certain that the maximum "legal" height has been reduced to 75mm. I'll try to look up the legislation for you if you like.


Found this on google.

Quote:
A) The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 stipulate that road humps should be between 25mm and 100mm high and no vertical face should exceed 6mm.
If the hump is within these parameters it is unlikely a claim would succeed against the local authority.
Most humps are now constructed to a maximum height of 75mm due to the number of grounding incidents and complaints made about the higher ones.
This subject causes almost as much controversy as speed (safety) cameras.


Don't know how accurate it is, but looks about right. :)

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Oct 11, 2005 15:58 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
YEs, I've had a quick search and can't find anything later than 1999 - in which case it looks like the 100mm still stands. I still have, at the back of my mind though, something that tells me they have been reduced to 75mm (certainly I haven't found a bigger one yet) but I guess these might be guidelines rather than law.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.264s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]