Hacker News Reader

Comment by luser001 | Hacker News Reader

I actually support "vicious" speedbumps. People regularly drive 40 mph on my road which has official speed limit of 25 mph.

Instead of spending money policing main streets, I support draconian camera-driven enforcement on side streets.

Make unmarked google-maps-like cars with high quality cameras and software. Park it on streets and watch for traffic. Send tickets remotely to speeders (equivalent to running a red light). Split revenue with the city.

Hmm, maybe I should run this by my city council. :)

View on HN

I STRONGLY oppose speed bumps. They do not slow down traffic; they just make people drive erratically. People race in between the bumps and then brake hard and go over the bumps at a ridiculously low speed. All the while, the drivers are paying more attention to the bumps than to any pedestrians or pets or cars that might be about. Enforcement may help; intelligent road design may help; speed bumps are not the answer.

I was once told by a traffic engineer that a more effective way to slow traffic through neighborhoods (traffic calming) is narrower lanes, such as via wide bike lanes or a median strip. I have personally observed this to be true in a subdivision I drive through (narrow lanes) vs my own (wide street with speed humps).

Speed bumps are great up until you need an ambulance or fire truck to get to you quickly.

If you have lower back issues, each speed bump is painful, no matter how slow you cross it. Also, barriers can make a neighbourhood arms race - street A gets speed bumps; traffic diverts to B & C, who get roundabouts; traffic diverts to D & E, which get pinch points; traffic diverts again, streets F, G, H & I become one-way; wash, rinse, repeat.

Here (UK) we have speed bumps that are narrow - cars hit the bump, buses ambulances and trucks hit the bump ... though cars in the US are pretty big, so not sure this would work.

The speed bumps that I've encountered in the U.S. typically take up as much of the street as possible. The UK example is interesting, but I think you are right about the cars here in the U.S.

You can ramp normal speed bumps pretty easily. Hit them at 35-40 and bah-bump you're over them.

So its only the 'vicious' ones that have any effect at all.

I can do 25mph on my road bike on a flat road for 10 minutes, and i'm not that good of a cyclist. 25 mph is way too slow for city speed limits and nobody drives it as a result. The minimum standard should be 30mph. In Canada the standard city speed limit is 50km/h, which converts to about 31mph. I find in Canada that people tend to follow the 50km/h speed limit far more readily. Nobody really follows the 25mph limit in the USA.

Since people like even numbers, the standard speed limit in america should be 30mph, not 25mph.

I actually support "vicious" speedbumps. People regularly drive 40 mph on my road which has official speed limit of 25 mph.

Translation: I actually support giant SUVs doing 40 mph on my road. It's those goddamn Miatas that I want to slow down to 25.

I will only support this when we are all required to use self-driven cars that can go twice the normal speed limit safely :)

Not going to happen imho: how will a self-driving car change the fact that stopping distance increases with speed?

Consideration for (unexpected) pedestrians (children etc) and cyclists seems to the primary motivation for low speed limits on residential side streets. I think that makes sense.

Better brakes. A porsche boxster will stop a lot sooner than your same weight honda civic.

> I actually support "vicious" speedbumps. People regularly drive 40 mph on my road which has official speed limit of 25 mph.

A speeding camera is a better solution than a speedbump. You turn the problem into a revenue stream. And then you'll create a negative incentive for locals to reduce the speed limit even further.

I take it that you don't live in a place that has winter (speed bumps == ice humps) or have back pain.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com