Potholed road with immaculate speed bumps

On Tue, 3 Jun 2008 19:46:02 -0700 (PDT), Nuxx Bar
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"

Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
implemented. One wonders what kind of idiot would drive at speed
down a road parked up like that anyway, but obviously they did. As
you say, it shames Islington, or at least its drivers.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

Just zis Guy said:

Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"

Quoted message said:

Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
implemented.

Well, either that, or there was a decision to implement the speed bumps
in that street, or in an area which happened to include that street,
irrespective of the quality of the road surface (for one or more of a
possible variety of reasons).

TBH, I dunno what the residents are complaining about - the speed bumps
near my house are one of the best things that ever happened here. But
they're not really complaining about the speed bumps - perhaps the poor
road surface lends a down-at-heel feel to that Islington (Upper
Holloway?) environment.

Quoted message said:

One wonders what kind of idiot would drive at speed
down a road parked up like that anyway, but obviously they did.

That isn't "obvious" at all. You are assuming that the bumps were
required because of observed/measured excessive speed. Who knows? You
might be right, but you cannot say sp based on what was in the report.
It's just as possible that there was a bit of money left over in the
speed bump budget which had to be used up before the end of the
municipal year - or perhaps a local LibDem councillor or one of his/her
relatives lives down that street.

Quoted message said:

As you say, it shames Islington, or at least its drivers.

Maybe. Maybe not.

Nuxx Bar said:

Liberal Democrat member for environment, Councillor Greg Foxsmith,
said: "We carry out safety inspections on all roads twice a year. We
can assure residents around Bredgar Road that the pot holes do not
present a danger. With 14,400 streets, we have to prioritise work.
Bredgar Road is not currently one of these priority roads.

Strange that fitting speedbumps is a higher priority than basic safety
repairs.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
("😉_("😉 their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

JNugent said:

Just zis Guy said:

Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"

Quoted message said:

Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
implemented.

Well, either that, or there was a decision to implement the speed bumps
in that street, or in an area which happened to include that street,
irrespective of the quality of the road surface (for one or more of a
possible variety of reasons).

TBH, I dunno what the residents are complaining about - the speed bumps
near my house are one of the best things that ever happened here. But
they're not really complaining about the speed bumps - perhaps the poor
road surface lends a down-at-heel feel to that Islington (Upper
Holloway?) environment.

I don't share your enthusiasm about speed bumps and would fight any
attempt to put them outside my home. (A local man took a JCB to a
speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
noise and vibration.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One wonders what kind of idiot would drive at speed
down a road parked up like that anyway, but obviously they did.

That isn't "obvious" at all. You are assuming that the bumps were
required because of observed/measured excessive speed. Who knows? You
might be right, but you cannot say sp based on what was in the report.
It's just as possible that there was a bit of money left over in the
speed bump budget which had to be used up before the end of the
municipal year - or perhaps a local LibDem councillor or one of his/her
relatives lives down that street.

Probably true.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
("😉_("😉 their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

Quoted message said:

THIS is the picture that "shames Islington" - a potholed road that
would embarrass a Third World country studded with pristine,
mountainous speed bumps.

http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/images/0245120-SusanandBikeRoadToLivingstonia-400.jpg

a 'good' road in Malawi. Hmm... no journalistic embellishment there then
eh...

T

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:08:35 +0100 someone who may be Mark
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

(A local man took a JCB to a
speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
noise and vibration.)

Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
any noise or vibration.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

David Hansen said:

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:08:35 +0100 someone who may be Mark
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

(A local man took a JCB to a
speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
noise and vibration.)

Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
any noise or vibration.

How are the busses and lorries going to avoid them then?

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
("😉_("😉 their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

David Hansen said:

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:08:35 +0100 someone who may be Mark
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

(A local man took a JCB to a
speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
noise and vibration.)

Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
any noise or vibration.

it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
should over the bumbs.

they removed them from one of the main roads in crickhowel as the school
kids couldn't cross the road. and the locals found the noise and smell
was intorible.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

JNugent said:

Just zis Guy said:

Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"

Quoted message said:

Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
implemented.

Well, either that, or there was a decision to implement the speed bumps
in that street, or in an area which happened to include that street,
irrespective of the quality of the road surface (for one or more of a
possible variety of reasons).

most likely yes, they have seperate budgets etc as far as i can see.

Quoted message said:

TBH, I dunno what the residents are complaining about - the speed bumps
near my house are one of the best things that ever happened here. But
they're not really complaining about the speed bumps - perhaps the poor
road surface lends a down-at-heel feel to that Islington (Upper
Holloway?) environment.

i don't like speed bumbs and much prefure just a slower surface i grew
up along a old railway line which ment that my mother didn't have to
worry about fast cars etc. when i was a child. even at 20 mph you'd kick
up stones at 30 well the car wouldn't last long.

i find it much nicer to walk/bike/drive on a rought road than speed
bumbs.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

One wonders what kind of idiot would drive at speed
down a road parked up like that anyway, but obviously they did.

That isn't "obvious" at all. You are assuming that the bumps were
required because of observed/measured excessive speed. Who knows? You
might be right, but you cannot say sp based on what was in the report.
It's just as possible that there was a bit of money left over in the
speed bump budget which had to be used up before the end of the
municipal year - or perhaps a local LibDem councillor or one of his/her
relatives lives down that street.

Quoted message said:

As you say, it shames Islington, or at least its drivers.

Maybe. Maybe not.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

JNugent said:

Just zis Guy said:

Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"

Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
implemented.

Well, either that, or there was a decision to implement the speed bumps in
that street, or in an area which happened to include that street,
irrespective of the quality of the road surface (for one or more of a
possible variety of reasons).

TBH, I dunno what the residents are complaining about - the speed bumps near
my house are one of the best things that ever happened here. But they're not
really complaining about the speed bumps - perhaps the poor road surface
lends a down-at-heel feel to that Islington (Upper Holloway?) environment.

Archway, i'd call that area.

There are some really terrible roads round there. The eastern end of
Tollington Way, where it joins Holloway Road, is somewhere i used to cycle
almost daily, to and from the gym, and it's like a scale map of the
highlands of Scotland.

tom

--
20 Minutes into the Future

JNugent said:

Just zis Guy said:

Nuxx Bar <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

THIS is the picture that "shames Islington"

Indeed - surface quality that poor and the twunts *still* wouldn't
slow down to within the limit, so traffic calming had to be
implemented.

Well, either that, or there was a decision to implement the speed bumps
in that street, or in an area which happened to include that street,
irrespective of the quality of the road surface (for one or more of a
possible variety of reasons).

The speed bump clearly visible in the photo looks like it has been
there for years. Possibly it was there before there was a pothole at
all.

James

Mark said:

I don't share your enthusiasm about speed bumps and would fight any
attempt to put them outside my home.  (A local man took a JCB to a
speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
noise and vibration.)

I fought (OK I corresponded with the council) to get them reinstated
outside my house after they were removed for road resurfacing.
Without them the rat-runners and idiot kids were driving way too fast,
despite the 20MPH speed limit, and there were several collisions each
week. The sound of crunching metal and glass was very disturbing to
my sleep.

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 07:08:21 -0700 (PDT), "[email hidden]"
<[email hidden]> said in
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

The speed bump clearly visible in the photo looks like it has been
there for years. Possibly it was there before there was a pothole at
all.

There you go again, spoiling a good story with sense and facts.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:23 +0100 someone who may be
[email hidden] (Roger Merriman) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
any noise or vibration.

it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
should over the bumbs.

Any noise and vibration is being caused by the motorists, not the
bump.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Nuxx Bar said:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/content/islington/gazette/news/story.aspx?brand=ISLGOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsislg&itemid=WeED28%20May%202008%2015%3A07%3A37%3A760

If this is an attempt to show prove the existence of anti-motorist
measures then you have failed miserably.
Cyclists are more affected by potholes than motorists. A pothole that
would feel like a small bump in a car could throw a cyclist off his bike.

As someone else pointed out, the paint on the bumps is ancient, and
nearly worn away. This shows that the bumps have been there a long time.

Quoted message said:

Daniel Karlea, 26, a plasterer, said: "It is a nightmare, everyone
says it. I broke a wheel on my car on the bumps two months ago and I
had to buy a new one. The road needs resurfacing badly."

So Daniel Karlea was driving too fast for the conditions, proving that
paul smith was dead wrong, and that drivers are unable to decide a
suitable speed.

David Hansen said:

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:23 +0100 someone who may be
[email hidden] (Roger Merriman) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
any noise or vibration.

it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
should over the bumbs.

Any noise and vibration is being caused by the motorists, not the
bump.

maybe so but compared with the road with out lumps unless it forces
traffic else where it will be noiser etc.

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

On Jun 4, 4:46 pm, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 13:56:23 +0100 someone who may be
[email hidden] (Roger Merriman) wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Speed bumps are essentially passive devices and thus do not cause
any noise or vibration.

Quoted message said:

it tends to make traffic zoom between each bump. and that does tend to
mean more engine noise and thumps if people are going faster than they
should over the bumbs.

Any noise and vibration is being caused by the motorists, not the
bump.

Can you think of any road safety or noise problem which isn't "caused
by the motorists" in your opinion?

POHB said:

Mark said:

I don't share your enthusiasm about speed bumps and would fight any
attempt to put them outside my home.  (A local man took a JCB to a
speedbump outside his home because he could not sleep due to the extra
noise and vibration.)

I fought (OK I corresponded with the council) to get them reinstated
outside my house after they were removed for road resurfacing.
Without them the rat-runners and idiot kids were driving way too fast,
despite the 20MPH speed limit, and there were several collisions each
week.  The sound of crunching metal and glass was very disturbing to
my sleep.

Bloody "rat-runners", using your personal private road which has been
a legal right of way for cars since they were invented (or the road
was built). Some might argue that you should have bought a house on a
cul-de-sac if you didn't want motorists going past your house, but
that's clearly nonsense.

Anyone who doesn't want to give themselves away as a motorist-hater
would do well to avoid such vile anti-motorist terms as "rat-runner".
Alternatively, you could make sure that when driving you always stick
to A and B roads everywhere that you possibly can, no matter how much
congestion there is, to avoid being a complete and utter hypocrite
(not to mention a "rat"😉.

And this habit that NIMBYs like you have of saying that motorists on
your road are driving "too fast", when you actually just object to
their presence full stop, is dishonest. It also distorts road safety
priorities, which results in lives being lost. Congratulations.
Blood on hands.

Martin said:

Nuxx Bar said:

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/content/islington/gazette/news/stor...

If this is an attempt to show prove the existence of anti-motorist
measures then you have failed miserably.
Cyclists are more affected by potholes than motorists. A pothole that
would feel like a small bump in a car could throw a cyclist off his bike.

As someone else pointed out, the paint on the bumps is ancient, and
nearly worn away. This shows that the bumps have been there a long time.

Quoted message said:

Daniel Karlea, 26, a plasterer, said: "It is a nightmare, everyone
says it. I broke a wheel on my car on the bumps two months ago and I
had to buy a new one. The road needs resurfacing badly."

So Daniel Karlea was driving too fast for the conditions, proving that
paul smith was dead wrong, and that drivers are unable to decide a
suitable speed.

Whacked.