|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 07:37 am: |
Whilst I am not a fan of speed bumps I was pleased that some would be put on Honor Oak Road to slow drivers down near the school but what a joke. The ones that have been put in are useless.
Whilst waiting for the bus I observed many people driving down the road and not one slowed for the bumps except for the unfinished ones. They are just simply too narrow. So whilst looking nice and ensuring the council has spent its surplus money they do nothing. A complete waste of money.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 08:41 am: |
The chair of the Forest Hill Society transport committee has written to the council complaining about the 'speed pimples' on the road. My own tests suggest that traveling at 30mph over these pimples has no noticeable affect on my car, unlike similar styles of humps on Kemble Road, Wood Vale, Perry Vale, Brockley Grove - which would have a noticeable affect should you drive over 30 mph at least a little less comfortable.
We have also expressed concern about the kerb build outs which are difficult to see at night.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 12:21 pm: |
Yes I agree a complete and utter waste of money. The person responsible should at the very least loose their job.
Either have humps or no humps.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 12:43 pm: |
Rather vindicates my suggestion to Paul Holdsworth that we wait until the work is carried out before writing to the council to express our appreciation!
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 01:38 pm: |
I agree. I am all for road calming ( especially in Devonshire Rd )but cannot see this as anything else than a complete waste of our money.
By the way have people noticed Devonshire has been very jammed last few nights.
Traffic between 5 and 7 ish back to Tyson Road. It can take 15 mins to drive the stretch from Benson to SC
Why are so many people using a shortcut cut that isnt a short cut. Stick to the main roads
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 02:04 pm: |
Yes, noticed that Brian. Its funny how suddenly busy again. Since xmas it hasnt been too busy at all, but last few weeks have been horrendous.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 02:19 pm: |
Think this may have something to do with the roadworks going on everywhere to soak of end of year budgets, ie on Honor Oak Park and Honor Oak Rd- people are looking for quick exits which of course do not exist. Friday night was particularly horrendous. A foray to IKEA on Friday revealed that the same ineffective measures are going on in other boroughs.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 02:23 pm: |
It might be a result of the temporary traffic lights on Honor Oak Park that seem to be there just to hold up traffic all the way back to Honor Oak. No wonder drivers are looking for any way out of this traffic jam (only to find themselves in another).
The other problem on the South Circular is that with cones going round the corner under the railway, when somebody decides to turn into Devonshire Road they hold up all the traffic, causing more traffic jams on Waldram Park and Perry Vale.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 03:00 pm: |
Yes, the cones under the railway bridge causing the congestion - what's all that about?
A tiny bit of re-positioning of the cones would enable traffic to pass any stationary vehicles waiting to turn right.
It's really not rocket science.
And what are they doing there? - seems to be taking a long time for not very much activity.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 03:08 pm: |
...and the speed bumps on Dartmouth Road are as bad as the rest (read 'no use at all').
While it is great to see some improvement to this road, it has been a real missed opportunity. The narrowing bollards make the street look a bit more cared for but it could have been so much better.
Look at the Walworth Road where the pavement is being widened at the expense of the road width - indeed why not put pedestrians first?
Some fairly recent studies showed that road surface and width (at the extreme, a narrow cobbled street) had the greatest impact in reducing traffic speed.
A nice smooth tarmac road surface does NOT limit the speed of traffic - and the speed 'cushions' merely give the speeding driver something to aim for
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 03:40 pm: |
I don't think narrowing Honor Oak Road would help matters it is quite narrow enough with sections of pavement that are not entirely safe, being less than 1 metre wide. The best solution I have seen for roads like this is proper speed bumps and flashing warning messages for cars going above 30 mph or real speed cameras.
TfL's solution is another innovative option - by stopping more than a couple of cars turning into London Road they hope to fill the road with so much traffic that nothing moves faster than walking pace.
Having lived on a cobbled road in Edinburgh I cannot recommend it for the noise it generates. As for cycling - ouch...ouch...ouch...ouch...ouch
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 03:54 pm: |
I think they are repairing the railway bridge. My suspicion is that it might fall down otherwise.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 04:03 pm: |
Some people like cycling on cobbled streets Michael. Whoops too much info.
Back to the subject in hand, thought there were intelligent speed bumps that only operated at certain speeds. Mind you that was probably on Tomorrow's World 30 years ago when they assumed that we would all be living on the moon by now.
The speed tables seem to be a better option - but from this thread others disagree.
What a shame this could not have been sorted out.
And a question on the other subject, for those of us who live on the posh estate - how do we get onto the South Circular when all access roads are so congested. Now BD hates those who rat run, as much as the rest of us. But occasionally he needs to use the motor rather than his trusty steed (push bike)
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 04:08 pm: |
Sorry am I off topic? - I was talking about speed bumps on Dartmouth Road in Forest Hill.
I mentioned cobbles as an extreme - although provision for cyclists would not be too tricky. The fact is that an altered road surface and narrowing is more effective in slowing traffic than speed cushions - I have no idea why they persist everywhere with these useless road 'decorations'.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 04:21 pm: |
Altered road surfaces favour those who drive 4x4s. I don't think this is the answer.
I did find a solution to cycling on cobbles, one common to most cyclists in London, onto the nice flat pavement whenever cobbles are seen. Better to be the pain in the posterior rather than receiving one.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 05:32 pm: |
For the record, I believe that the work happening under the rail bridge is the start of the construction work for the new apartments they announced some time ago. I can't remember if they got planning permission, but I know we discussed it here before.
These will extend the current terrace into the waste land alongside the railway line IIRC.
(found it: ../9/853.html"#f7f7f7">
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 05:49 pm: |
No, but I'd rather see a bit of congestion for a period if it meant the improvement of one of FH's grottier bits. One more down, a few to go...
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 08:01 pm: |
Fhssecretary said: "Rather vindicates my suggestion to Paul Holdsworth that we wait until the work is carried out before writing to the council to express our appreciation!"
What can I say? Living at the other end of the country means I haven't (yet) seen the work, so I can't really comment.
I still think the intention was right, even if the execution is (allegedly) flawed. Can two cars going in opposite directions straddle a speed bump each, or do you have to move out towards the oncoming traffic to straddle a bump? What do parents at Fairlawn School think? Can you give me an update, Bigjulie?
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 08:33 pm: |
Bumps are so small that you don't need to straddle them - the ones in Wood Vale and Underhill are slightly more challenging, neither are a patch on the mountains they built on Netherby, Canonby, Westwood Park etc. Don't know if you are familiar with this area Paul but happy to show you around. No doubt in Cumbria you all drive enormous four wheel drived vehicles that eat up speed bumps! Perhaps we should twin with our respective towns and do some exchanges.
Some parents at Fairlawns probably still haven't got over the anti-unsociable parking campaign (almost said drive) that has hit them in recent times - RESPECT!
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 09:33 pm: |
I agree with the general grumpy sentiments here - I saw a BMW X5 doing at least 50 mph on Honor Oak Road this morning. The humps are useless - except they tramline the traffic into defined paths. The refuge at the bottom of Westwood is/will be useful at least.
|Posted on Tuesday, 20 March, 2007 - 11:01 pm: |
I think we should get this into perspective. While the humps do seem minimal the whole thing is definitely not a waste of time. As a parent travelling to Fairlawn I have noticed the raised table for the school crossing is a considerable obstacle for cars (it was only built yesterday - there seems to be lots of conclusions being reached here while the work is only half done). Also the kerb build out opposite Cabrini school (as you turn into Honor Oak Road from Honor Oak Park) has made this a proper left turn, ie cars have to slow down rather than stay in 4th gear to steam round the old wide bend. These are positive things.
Fhss - please don't feel vindicated, the fact that something is being done to this road is still important. Paul Holdsworth mentioned that often there is an extra budget hidden away for "tweaking" these works because of the unknowns. Maybe we should actually wait until the job is finished to more accurately see what the problems are.
The temporary traffic lights by the Honor Oak Park shops are for a gas main replacement (not council budgets being used up) and they are causing knock on traffic problems as drivers try other routes. Considering there has been gas smells in that area for some time I am quite pleased to see these works going on!
By the way, where has all the dog poo gone?
oops wrong thread
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 - 12:13 am: |
The roads outside all schools should be 20 mph zones during day time imho.
To re-enforce the idea that they are no longer on normal 30 mph road, perhaps the road should be coloured green 50m either side with a change of road texture too.
More generally put some raised brickwork crossings across the road - they seem to work in that the drivers are unsettled by driving on a pavement surface and give way. (But agreed that long term, encouraging cars on pavement-like structures could back fire rather badly).
You could make every junction on the road a mini round about, effectively giving more right of way to the traffic in the side roads.
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 - 08:24 am: |
Raised bump does indeed work but is only one.
Build outs at Honor Oak end of road not really much use as cars could park safely here before although appreciated.
Paul - Small dimples in the road can be driven over in both directions at same time at high speed.
Bigjulie - although all works not finished the small bumps are not useful and therefore a waste of money - to replace them again now would be a considerable cost as to do them properly would need to remove the ones put in.
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 - 10:23 am: |
There is far more available knowledge for councils to work from.
'Homezones' are widely used in the Netherlands and do appear in the UK. They are not without their problems but they do serve to diminish the dominance of vehicles over pedestrians and other street users. But such schemes are very rarely seen.
In my view, when planning these things, there should always be an assumption that cars do not automatically need to be given the highest priority.
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 - 02:36 pm: |
Mistakes by the council:
1. Not researching what measures actually work.
2. Not consulting with the customers (us)
3. Not listening to feedback
4. Not conducting an investigation into why they got it so wrong.
As a customer, I do not consider this project complete, and it may as well not been started at all. The objectives were very clear at the start. It needs to be finished, then the inquest of why it went so over budget can begin, and steps taken to ensure it does not happen again.
|Posted on Wednesday, 21 March, 2007 - 02:59 pm: |
After reading this thread last night I had a close look at Honor Oak Road today. I walked the full length of the road this morning and it was interesting to see what happened.
(In answer to your question Paul, two cars can straddle a speed bump each, going in opposite directions).
Some cars drove at 30mph and were able to line themselves up and continue without decreasing their speed. But I noticed more cars slow right down.
My second journey of the day was by car. At 30mph there was a definite jolt on the speed bumps - I wouldn't want to drive any faster over them.
I agree with Perryman that 20mph outside schools is a good idea but at the moment the limit is 30mph and maybe the purpose of this particular design of bump is just to try to enforce that.
There must be some science to this design, it would be good to know what the theory is.
Meanwhile I will keep my eyes open...
|Posted on Thursday, 22 March, 2007 - 07:38 pm: |
It seems to me, from this distance, that the jury's still out.
I still feel that a polite request for more info from the engineers concerned, especially if you start by thanking them for trying to improve things for pedestrians, would help us all understand better the constraints they work within, and what they are trying to achieve (e.g. are they trying to restrict x% of cars from doing double the speed limit late at night, or restrict y% of cars from breaking the limit at any time?)
It's worth knowing that engineers cannot install very aggressive speed bumps on bus routes, or the buses get stuck on them.
It's also worth noting that, if you can moderate the driving behaviour of only a modest number of drivers on a busy road, that can be very calming - overtaking a car doing 25mph on Honor Oak Road ain't easy!
|Posted on Thursday, 22 March, 2007 - 11:33 pm: |
A couple of years ago on the local news there was an article about a nice village that wanted a speed trap. The authorities leant the villagers a speed gun and they did their own survey, on the basis of this a speed camera went up.
I am only a casual observer, and have carried out no scientific survey. But watching the traffic at around 7 pm tonight it was doing an estimated 35 - 40mph going East close to Westwood Park entry. All well and good that some of the narrowing and speed tables are working, particularly by the school. And the refuge is much appreciated! As pointed out a car parked close to the refuge slows the traffic down (waiting for something to collide with it...).
I'd love to get hold of a speed gun and do a limited survey. Do they hire them out at HSS?
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 06:09 am: |
You may require a police escort , this is not a rural village
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 08:12 am: |
Despite these wonderful measures on HOR the (heavy) traffic continues to speed up and down the local rat runs where there are no such measures. Cllr Philip Peake has advised me of proposals to make some of these roads south of Honor Oak Road into 20mph zones. I await to hear further from him on this point.
A speed gun would be a good idea- perhaps the police or local councillors could assist? Presumably one could be installed on a building out of site so reducing risk of assault. I attempted to take some photos on my mobile phone the other week of the traffic jams and someone took offence and got out of their car screaming so heaven knows what would happen if we stand there with speed guns.
Frankly, the police should do it and then stop people as necessary. If this becomes a regular event it may have a traffic calming effect of its own as people get wise to being monitored. Thats all thats needed to change human behaviour.
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 09:09 am: |
My understanding is that police will not enforce 20 mph zones. It would, therefore, appear to be pointless making these roads into a 20 mph zone.
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 09:52 am: |
"Hand-held speed detecting devices
If a highway authority or police constabulary are not taking your concerns about speed as seriously as you may wish, it can be very helpful to collect your own data to prove that speed is a problem.
Members of the public are legally allowed to use hand-held speed detecting devices for the purposes of collecting data. In theory, if you have two witnesses (or two speed guns) to verify the data recorded, this can be used to prosecute a motorist for speeding. However, the reality is that this has never been tested and no motorist has been prosecuted for speeding by members of the public."
The above was found on the following website which has some useful suggestions, such as scarecrow policeman. It also has information on speed guns.
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 01:53 pm: |
Given the cost and data protection issues re speed guns these days, the idea of a blockade seems fairly cheap and cheerful as a comparison. It need only be done on selected roads during the rush hour for no more than 1 hour each time to be effective. Any takers for doing something like this? It could be done before people have to go to work in the mornings, perhaps when traffic ( and people) are at their fiercest. I suggest a police presence might be handy to ensure nothing gets out of hand, as it could well do so.....
|Posted on Monday, 26 March, 2007 - 02:07 pm: |
Sounds like Mahatma G come to SE 23. Not sure we need spinning wheels as well.
I am not sure the police would agree as if they are there sure they would try to keep traffic moving on Queen's Highway.
Interesting idea but we should think very carefully first
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 08:40 am: |
The good folks on Westwood Park got fed up with speeding traffic, and after a particularly nasty accident blocked the road by parking entirely on the road (not half on the footway) - within weeks they got the traffic calming they'd been asking for for years.
Direct action can focus minds wonderfully...
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 09:08 am: |
Paul is right about the blocking of the road. However, the residents of Tewkesbury Lodge declined the offer of measures which would have prevented any through traffic on the estate on grounds of driver convenience. A few residents of the estate also opposed the traffic calming in David Road, as it meant that more time was needed for the drive to the station. I've no doubt that, when the traffic calming proposals for the area between Honor Oak Rd and Devonshire Rd are eventually formulated, some will oppose those measures on driver convenience grounds too.
Traffic congestion, like hell, is other people.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 11:03 am: |
Did I hear you correctly driving to the station from H O Road area.
This is part of the problem able bodied people living in SE 23 should be walking to the station.
Cars should only be used for journeys over 1 mile at the very least
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 01:26 pm: |
You did hear me right, and I agree with you.
However, I had one Tewkesbury Lodge resident on the phone to me for a hour describing the inconvenience he would be caused by the David Road scheme which would add 10 minutes to the drive to Forest Hill station.
The expression he used a lot as though it strongly reinforced his case was 'this is the age of the motor car' whatever that means. If someone said something like 'this is the age of street robbery', we might or might not agree, but we'd worry about him if he drew the conclusion that mugging should therefore be legalised!
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 01:45 pm: |
Its a long walk uphill after a days work, thats all I would say, however people do choose to live higher up. This is reason we plumped for Ewelme rather than further up the hill. Shame to say we did discuss the possibility of driving down and parking in Ewelme if ever we could again afford to buy a house in Westwood Park or Horniman Rise area. It was a brief discussion so please don't get cross, as we are not doing this!
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 01:50 pm: |
Would Lewisham have any cash set aside for a cable car or funicular to the summit?
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 04:06 pm: |
Hello David and Roz
I am flabergasted about some of our fellow SE23 neighbours.
I have to drive for work ( not for much longer ) but every evening and virtually all weekends the car does not move.
I would never consider personally a car for under 2 miles and in fact once a week walk over 2 miles to Penge/ Beckenham borders.
To be honest when I do not need a car for work I will not have one at all. Living in SE 23 is quite possible and more relaxing car free
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 04:20 pm: |
Brian - I do mostly agree with you but then I don't live at the top of Canonbie Road. I suspect my perspective might be a little different if I did, especially after a long day at work and a squished commute home.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 04:43 pm: |
OK I accept that I only live in Devonshire. Surely only limited parking at station and must cost a lot. Would be cheaper to walk down and get cab back. Or would it.??
Perhaps a cable car would help.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 04:50 pm: |
Station car park costs £4.00 a day. Perhaps a weekly ticket is cheaper than buying 5 day tickets.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 04:57 pm: |
I don't think we need a cable car. Escalators up Manor Mount and Westwood Park would be perfectly acceptable for most pedestrian requirements. TfL should regard escalators as an important part of an integrated transport network.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 05:55 pm: |
How about a proper underground system? The escalators could then come out at the very top of the hill.
Seriously, a bus ride up the hill would only cost £1 using an oyster card.
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 08:44 pm: |
Living car-free in Forest Hill is easy. We did it for over ten years, walked to work in Sydenham every day, stayed incredibly fit, didn't join a gym, shopped in our lunch hour at independent retailers, never had to endure the torture of "The Weekly Shop", borrowed or hired a car when we really needed one, travelled in style (i.e. by train) on longer journeys, never argued about who's turn it was to drink at parties, got smashed at parties - and saved an absolute fortune.
OK, so we had/have no children, but I know people (with cars) who walk their very young (pre-school) children all over FH, no problem.
I'm just amazed that more people don't dispense with car ownership. You can be guaranteed that, if you do, none of your friends will follow suit, and they'll be delighted to give you lifts because
a) they pity you
b) it makes them feel better about having a car themselves
At least, that's what we always told ourselves...
|Posted on Tuesday, 27 March, 2007 - 09:14 pm: |
I dispensed with my car in 1993 after it was stolen twice in as many months and eventually had the engine blown up in the subequent police car and helicopter chase around the Honor Oak Estate. (it was a 14 year old ford fiesta and the thief tried to do 80mph in it)
I managed without a car until 2003- a whole ten years - however we decided to get one then mainly to get out of London whenever we could and to get around once we had got to our destination. Its now used for one weekly shop, my partner drives to work daily, and outings every weekend and definitely every Bank Holiday usually to Dorset, Suffolk, or Yorkshire,to see friends and family. We did take taxis locally but found them very unreliable and that we could sometimes spend up to £20 per week on fares. Getting pet cats to the vet was also a hassle as many drivers refused to take them. We also hired cars for long weekends and weeks away but this began to cost almost £1000 per year. Our current car is small and low cost to run so we are getting a lot of use out of it for relatively little outgoings. We could manage without one if we needed to but at the minute life is better with one than without. Besides, we actually like the experience of driving when the conditions are good. Which is however not around London in the rush hour.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 07:47 am: |
I've never had a car. The only time I considered buying a car was when I was trying to get home from Docklands before it became Canary Wharf.
I don't know the running costs of a car but there's the initial cost £5,000(?), tax & insurance, petrol, tyres MOT etc wouldn't they add up to more than the cost of taxis?
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 09:13 am: |
I spent £42.50 on a new battery yesterday.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 01:19 pm: |
Another non-car owner here who walks up the hill from Forest Hill Station - yes, the first week or so you do it, it's a killer. But then it just becomes a matter of course and I don't think about .
The only time I miss a car is if I want to buy something locally which is heavy or unwieldy. I'm seriously considering joining the Streetcar scheme to let me hire a car short-term - but each time I go past, there's never one in the space.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 01:47 pm: |
I think you book it in advance.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 02:41 pm: |
I know... but if it's never, ever in the space I'm wondering how far in advance I'd have to book it - or whether the service is over-subscribed in the area. I know they do monitor the level of users to put additional cars in place but since I've never met anyone who's ever used a streetcar, I'm still pondering how useful it would be. Not least since I'm not great at planning so I'd probably want to use it on relatively short notice - not ideal if people book it out for entire weekends several months ahead.
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 02:49 pm: |
Excuse my total ignorance
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 03:03 pm: |
|Posted on Wednesday, 28 March, 2007 - 03:05 pm: |
It's in the Perry Vale car park (If it is there.)
|Posted on Thursday, 29 March, 2007 - 04:44 pm: |
Thanks for the info.
Surprised it has not been vandalised there.
Will try to take a look
|Posted on Sunday, 20 May, 2007 - 10:45 pm: |
Well rather an effective measure if you ask me. Baggy Dave was heading out towards the Thames Path this morning on his trusty two wheeled steed, going via Crofton Park and Ladywell. Brockley Grove (behind Crofton Park) has some traffic calming measures similar to those recently installed in the Forest Hill heights area. Some questions have been asked about drivers not seeing where the road has been narrowed. Someone certainly didn't see this on Brockley Grove, as they had taken out the steel bollard/poles. The flash coupe seem to have been totally written-off. As BD doesn't have a trendy mobile phone camera, he didn't get a picture, and by the early afternoon the authorities had removed it. There were no indications of any heavy police interest ie I assume (and hope) that whoever was inside was not badly hurt, and no doubt these are designed to have some give. No doubt FHS and others will be discussing with LBL making the markings clear to drivers.
|Posted on Monday, 21 May, 2007 - 09:02 am: |
The streetcar scheme is absolutely brilliant. I was a member for a few years until a car was given to me, but it is well worth it.
The cars are no heavily oer subscribed and are so easy to use its unbelievable. As long as you can be a bit flexible - there are other cars in Honor Oak Park, East Dulwich and I think in Catford, you can always get one in my experience.
|Posted on Monday, 21 May, 2007 - 10:24 am: |
I wonder what speed the flash coupe was doing?
|Posted on Monday, 21 May, 2007 - 01:49 pm: |
I too am warming to these speed pimples.
Aligning the traffic over these bumps (and traffic alignment is all they do)
is clearly having an effect on road wear and tear.
Concentrating the load onto two narrow tracks
is already producing leaks and after a hot summer,
we should get some nice rutting.
After a frost or two, next year should see the surface breaking up
and some significant road bumps which was all that was required in the first place.
|Posted on Monday, 21 May, 2007 - 11:56 pm: |
So Perryman, let's get rid of the pavement completely and spread the (ever increasing) car weight loads out to save water. Great idea. Get in a car pedestrians.
|Posted on Tuesday, 22 May, 2007 - 12:08 am: |
Aren't car tracks the same as Roman chariot tracks or have I lost the plot, I think it was crispy in a parallel universe that lost me. He out weirded me, that is cool.
Happy talkin', talkin Happy talk
Talk about things you'd like to do
You've got to have a dream
If you don't have a dream
How you gonna have a dream come true
|Posted on Tuesday, 22 May, 2007 - 02:07 am: |
I think I have been consistent in this thread about how I'd like the traffic slowed here and how ineffective I see these pimples. I was now pointing out that cheap as these pimples were to install, there are clearly other knock-on effects on a road that has so much traffic - a concentration of wear on a small area of road.
The road was not designed to take the load in this way (nor the pipes underneath) - and rutting (and leaks) will result, which not only affects our cycling friends but will need to be fixed at more expense. Normal, road wide bumps spread the load more evenly. (And, er, actually slow the traffic.)
I'm sure the road planners have considered tarmacing the pavements here, but they are so narrow near Fairlawn school that it would not be worth the effort. And any wide pavements around here certainly are considered fair game by car owners to drive on. So we are already in car hell.
As for the Roman stepping stone crossings comparison which I assume the Captain is referring to:
1. The Roman roads did not have bitumen surfaces that are slightly plastic in nature. And those guys really could build roads after all. This would not have been a problem for them.
2. The stepping stones were to allow pedestrians avoid all the excrement in the road, rather than a traffic calming measure. We do not have that problem in Forest Hill as the excrement is all on the pavements. :-)
|Posted on Tuesday, 22 May, 2007 - 09:58 am: |
Actually, you do design highway "pavements" (which is not the same as the footpath, in the jargon)to have a certain life without rutting with a certain pattern of traffic. However, as we well know, Lewisham is unlikely to undertake repairs when the road does start to break up.
You are correct that the Romans did not use bituminous materials to pave their roads, but I think you would find there stone-paved surfaces a bit of a rough ride - although this would certainly be a deterrent to speeding. Perhaps the answer is to use concrete for the run up and run off to the pimples.