20 MPH for Wightman

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on November 20, 2009 at 15:38

It seems to me that the dimensions of these Farthinder devices should offer no hindrance or discomfort to any future Wightman Bus passengers.

Permalink Reply by james walsh on November 20, 2009 at 15:59

You would not want to have a spinal injury going along in the back of an ambulance over "speed bumps"

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on November 20, 2009 at 16:41

And no vehicles > 7.5t except for access only?

Permalink Reply by John D on November 20, 2009 at 18:04

I didn't notice, but I don't think 7.5 tons was mentioned.

Permalink Reply by John D on November 20, 2009 at 18:36

What is interesting is that there was no mention of this at the Transport Forum only 10 days ago, although the subject of 20 mph limits was discussed at length.

Left hand / right hand syndrome? Or have they moved incredibly quickly ?

Is there any point going to these Forums ?

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on November 21, 2009 at 7:45

What do the people living on Wightman feel about the speed tables? I've got a friend who lives on Blackboy Lane where they are installed and the vibrations in his flat when a heavy vehicles goes over the one outside of his house are pretty fierce.

Permalink Reply by John D on November 21, 2009 at 8:34

I'm not happy about it, particularly when the Council Traffic Management officer at the Transport Forum said that they were not liked, for that reason, and the preference was for other traffic-calming measures such as chokes and chicanes.

But, they say that a 20mph limit has to have speed limiting devices of some kind so that the limit is self-policing. I think I may lodge an objection, citing possible damage to our building, so that I can sue the Council if any occurs.

Permalink Reply by matt on November 21, 2009 at 11:45

It's essential that the council gets the design of these tables right. They must slow traffic but present little problem to the emergency services and no vibration to surrounding buildings.

This (US) Institute of Transportation Engineers take on the matter of speed tables gets my vote, particularly the 6 ft ramps. John, insist on seeing the table design and specifications.

Haringey has been using these larger tables more recently (e.g. junction of Ravenstone & Alexandra Rds N22) but their ramps are still too steep. See :

View Larger Map [NB. When image loads you'll see the wall of a house. Click right on direction arrows to get the road.]

Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on November 21, 2009 at 15:36

I know Paul (WightmanPaul) will have a much better grasp of this - but to add my pennyworth:

John is right about the preference for chokes or chicanes, but I'm sure Wightman Road throughout its length is much too narrow for either - even for ordinary traffic. (Let's forget W1 Bus for a moment!)

The Public Notice of course gives no details on length or gradient of ramps, or whether they envisage straight, parabolic, sinusoidal ramps - so it's difficult to know what length of each installation would be table-top so as to accommodate full wheel length of even larger vehicles, or what level of vibration would result from the ramps.

The raised junction at Warham is to be a max of 9 metres in length (just over 29' to compare with Matt's US/Canadian figures). The eight flat-topped humps from Turnpike to Endymion will be 8' (26') in the direction of traffic. Max height of each will be 100mm (4"). (Hope I've got that right - difficulty of reading lamp post notices above my eye level)
I notice the ramp gradient of Canadian raised intersections is described as a gentle 1 in 40 - wich seems to me very gentle indeed.

The location of the five intermediate humps is given in relation to odd or even house numbers. I take it these humps will extend from kerb to existing traffic islands (?modified). The three Pelican crossings will presumably have kerb-kerb flat-top humps.

Though emergency vehicles may lose about 2/3 seconds at each of the three crossings and Warham junction, they will as at present slalom around the remaining five humps.

I'm sure, whatever our stance on Wightman traffic, a visit to River Park House in the coming 19 days should be more enlightening.

Permalink Reply by WightmanPaul on November 21, 2009 at 21:50

I am very much in favour of inclusion of Wightman Road in the Ladder 20 mph zone. The benefits I hope to see are improvements in safety for road users - we have had a number of accidents including powered 2 wheelers where spinal injuries are likely to occur - and pedestrians, an improvement in the environment at the heavy traffic times by virtue of 'through' users being deterred and at night a reduction of speed by the irresponsible idiots who drive at dangerous speeds. A consequential benefit will be the reduction in damage to parked vehicles and therefore a reduction in the defensive parking habits which narrow the pavement. Presently the road conditions along Wightman Road - which, like the pavements, have been permitted to degrade markedly over the past two decades, in part as a consequence of measures to improve other areas - constitute a substantial degradation of the quality of life for the Residents.

The proposals, as I understand them, are for three raised platforms where the current controlled crossings are. A kurb to kurb flat topped platform near the top of Mattison - a pelican was beyond the budget set aside. The retention of the current islands and the addition of a number of sinusoidal flat topped humps plus illuminating signs and improvements to road markings. These measures are a necessary prerequisite for inclusion in the 20 mph zone as Regulations specify that a 20 mph limit can only be introduced if the area is effectively self enforcing [according to speed survey measurements] or physical traffic calming has been introduced. Since our 85 percentile of speed is too high for the former, the latter are needed. The engineers at the Council have looked at buildouts, chicanes and narrowings and say none of those techniques is usable due to the narrow road width. Consequently, those of us who wish to see vehicle speeds reduced are left with few options. I take the points made in respect of vibration. The research indicates that round humps are worse than those which we are offered. My house is currently shaken by vehicles passing over badly repaired slots left by Thames Water. A reduction in road speed will reduce those vibrations and the consequent damage.

I believe we should back this scheme as the first phase of improvement. Then we should look to build on it with a controlled crossing near Mattison for access to South Harringay School. In the medium term I would like to see a scheme similar to that behind Philip Lane. I would like to see a 'Ladder, Crime and Environment Community Improvement Zone' which could not be used for access to other areas.

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on November 21, 2009 at 22:22

Would you like to borrow a seismograph?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eEpqrYMIlE

Permalink Reply by Malcolm on November 23, 2009 at 11:34

As someone with a speed bump outside my house I sincerely hope any new ones you get are better designed and don't cause your entire house to shake everytime a vehicle goes past.

Sadly the speedbumps on the ladder roads don't seem to do a great deal to slow (some) drivers down, while causing ongoing damage to properties.

Not sure what you mean by a "Ladder, Crime and Environment Community Improvement Zone which could not be used for access to other areas". Apart from the perfect buzzword compliance of that term are you suggesting that people on Wightman road shouldn't be able to access other areas?

Or that horrible people from outside the area shouldn't be able to drive their cars up OUR roads?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page