Suburbs and Speed Humps

[Jstaleness]

I thought I'd post this as my daughter who is newly licensed within the past few years or so mentioned something.

We were doing our usual driving through areas of Cole Harbour and she said. I don't understand these Speed Humps. They mark the street as 50km zones, but these bumps force most cars to do about 35 or 40 to not launch into space or give the kids in the back a headache.

Is she right? I think so. I'd rather see changes to the limits and make them 40km/h across the board. It seems to work in the areas I have experience in Toronto and eastern Ontario regions.

It's annoying for one, and two, very few are near crosswalks. (I am OK with humps here) Some are just meters before stop signs which makes no sense to me, as I have never accelerated up to a STOP sign.
Ridgecrest in Dartmouth/Cole Harbour is shorter than Bedford Row and has like 4 of them. Overkill.

Is she wrong here? If it's legal to drive 50 then why are we constantly overusing our brakes and then accelerating again just for another hump. Seems inefficient, and if you want to look at it this way, not exactly environmentally friendly.

I'm curious on others thoughts.

[TheCuriousMind]

Originally Posted by Jstaleness

I thought I'd post this as my daughter who is newly licensed within the past few years or so mentioned something.

We were doing our usual driving through areas of Cole Harbour and she said. I don't understand these Speed Humps. They mark the street as 50km zones, but these bumps force most cars to do about 35 or 40 to not launch into space or give the kids in the back a headache.

Is she right? I think so. I'd rather see changes to the limits and make them 40km/h across the board. It seems to work in the areas I have experience in Toronto and eastern Ontario regions.

It's annoying for one, and two, very few are near crosswalks. (I am OK with humps here) Some are just meters before stop signs which makes no sense to me, as I have never accelerated up to a STOP sign.
Ridgecrest in Dartmouth/Cole Harbour is shorter than Bedford Row and has like 4 of them. Overkill.

Is she wrong here? If it's legal to drive 50 then why are we constantly overusing our brakes and then accelerating again just for another hump. Seems inefficient, and if you want to look at it this way, not exactly environmentally friendly.

I'm curious on others thoughts.

I alluded to this in my recent post in the transit page, but in my understanding (source: I am a bridge engineer, so I don't do roadway design but work directly with those that do), it's based on the notion of lowering "safe speed" to reduce potential for deadly accidents. Whereas the 50 speed limit is, essentially, a suggestion given today's limited police patrols, the speed humps actually force you to drive slower. 50 is, furthermore, the maximum speed, so slowing to 30 isn't wrong persay, albeit annoying.

IMHO speed bumps are appropriate on local / residential roads to deter through traffic / faster driving where kids may be shooting hoops etc, but not appropriate on any collectors or boulevards designed for through traffic.

Speed bumps are ultimately, from an engineering perspective, a design input in road design that optimizes for least possible death, rather than least possible commute time. May well be a worthwile tradeoff!

[gehrhardt]

If I am in my car, I slow down quite a bit for the speed humps in Cole Harbour. If I'm in my truck, I don't. It soaks them up quite well.

Astral Drive is one place where the speed bumps are pretty high, forcing you to slow down or be in for an unpleasant surprise. Of course that road is in such bad shape now, most people are driving slower anyway.

[Patrick Matthews]

Some require you to slow down to 20 to maintain normal car cabin experiences. This isnt right.
The purpose is lost.

I also do not understand the rationale behind putting them on roads that in all other areas, would have an 80km/h limit on them. Large ditches, gravel shoulders, and homes well back on roads such as Wilson Lake drive are closer to those found in rural NS than those found in tight subdivisions with schools and people amuck.

I dont get the purpose anymore.

[Keith P.]

There are "speed tables" in my neighborhood, installed a year or two ago. They are just an inconvenience and a nuisance since they are more like a frost heave and do not force most vehicles to slow their already slow speed since most people do not speed as it is. Strangely, the only ones I see stopping to a crawl are some SUVs that are sold as being able to go over anything, oddly enough. At a cost of over $10K apiece they are a huge money sink for HRM. They were put in as part of the HRM Planning dept "safer streets" mania that presumes all drivers are bloodthirsty killers looking to mow down hapless citizens. In reality I live on a street that has not had a fender-bender occur in years, perhaps decades, and the concept of "safer streets" is one that makes no sense locally as we have never had anyone come even remotely close to having an incident with a vehicle in all my time here. Nobody has been struck by a vehicle or even a rogue cyclist, and traffic is virtually non-existent. Speeding is not a problem. But these things are a solution in search of a problem. Like the OP said, some are mere feet from stop signs and intersections. It is utterly nonsensical.

Not only do we need to throw the bums on Council out en masse, but we need a purge of the pencil-necked geeks at HRM Planning who are responsible for these things popping up like mushrooms, and an end to HRM's war on motorists.