The “socialist speed bumps” is deliciously ridiculous of course, and it’s easy to imagine these complaints coming from rich people who want to race their super low Ferraris through the street, but from the article, the complaint sounds a lot more reasonable; these bumps apparently exceed the council’s own allowed height. And some have indeed been fixed already.
That said, I’m not a huge fan of speed bumps (though I don’t mind them much either), because I think they might encourage these people to buy luxury SUVs instead. I’d rather see extra curves added tot the street. They may do less for the sports cars, but more for the SUVs. A mix is probably best.
But I suspect it’s cheaper to just add a speed bump; requires less thought , less redesign.
I think they might encourage these people to buy luxury SUVS instead.
Yes, they absolutely encourage motorists to get inherently less safe vehicles. They also impede emergency vehicle access, are a hazard to road users and increase wear on vehicles. Taking action against people with sports cars is an insane starting point in a reality where SUVs and trucks exist.
Speed humps are objectively a bad solution, you can achieve the same desired outcome (slow traffic down) by reducing lane width. Adding bike lanes or planter boxes are both cheaper solutions without the same downsides.
im pretty sure speedbumps with non newtonian fluids exist that do nothing if you’re following the speed limit but do the speedbump thing if you’re not, idk why those aren’t widely adopted.
Fluid fill speed humps cost more and wear faster due to fatigue of moving components. Road maintenance is already a ponzi scheme, I can appreciate why local government doesn’t want to exacerbate that.
The best solution is the most simple one: Narrow the lanes and plant canopied trees (for psychological reasons beyond my understanding, having a ceiling or obstruction above drivers slows them down as well).
The “socialist speed bumps” is deliciously ridiculous of course, and it’s easy to imagine these complaints coming from rich people who want to race their super low Ferraris through the street, but from the article, the complaint sounds a lot more reasonable; these bumps apparently exceed the council’s own allowed height. And some have indeed been fixed already.
That said, I’m not a huge fan of speed bumps (though I don’t mind them much either), because I think they might encourage these people to buy luxury SUVs instead. I’d rather see extra curves added tot the street. They may do less for the sports cars, but more for the SUVs. A mix is probably best.
But I suspect it’s cheaper to just add a speed bump; requires less thought , less redesign.
Yes, they absolutely encourage motorists to get inherently less safe vehicles. They also impede emergency vehicle access, are a hazard to road users and increase wear on vehicles. Taking action against people with sports cars is an insane starting point in a reality where SUVs and trucks exist.
Speed humps are objectively a bad solution, you can achieve the same desired outcome (slow traffic down) by reducing lane width. Adding bike lanes or planter boxes are both cheaper solutions without the same downsides.
im pretty sure speedbumps with non newtonian fluids exist that do nothing if you’re following the speed limit but do the speedbump thing if you’re not, idk why those aren’t widely adopted.
Fluid fill speed humps cost more and wear faster due to fatigue of moving components. Road maintenance is already a ponzi scheme, I can appreciate why local government doesn’t want to exacerbate that.
The best solution is the most simple one: Narrow the lanes and plant canopied trees (for psychological reasons beyond my understanding, having a ceiling or obstruction above drivers slows them down as well).