"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Tough Guy no. 1265
wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 18:04:37 +0100, Indy Jess John
wrote:

On 27/09/2015 17:30, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 17:11:58 +0100, Indy Jess
wrote:

On 27/09/2015 16:11, Tough Guy no. 1265 wrote:
On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:03:05 +0100,
wrote:

Speed bumps? What a stupid name. They cause you to slow down.

Maybe they'e meant to bump you only if you're speeding. Which they
don't, as the faster you go the less you get jolted. I have to
laugh at people going over them at 5mph, and I can see the occupants
of the car being shoved about. If you go about twice the sped
limit, the suspension may get a jolt, but the occupants of the car
do not.

The best speed varies from car to car, and it depends on the distance
between the front and back wheels and the design of the suspension.
Typically the best speed will be found (by trial and error) to be
between 37 and 47mph.

I've always found that it's a multiple or factor of the speed limit,
with higher numbers getting smoother for the occupants. For example a
20mph bump should be taken at 5, 10, 20, or 40. 15 is worse than 20.

There is a standard Road Traffic Act specification for a speed bump.
Mostly the speed limit of the road in which it is installed doesn't get
taken into account for the profile of the bump.

Really? I assumed there'd be specs for each limit.

When I complained to my council (with a video showing how ridiculously my
car jumped about at 20mph) to the council, I was actually told I
shouldn't be going 20mph in a 20 zone. I was told 10mph was a more
appropriate speed. I said "change the speed limit signs to 10 then" and
she said "we're not allowed." The mind boggles.

contrary to popular belief the "speed limit" is not a target figure.


Tell that to the safety camera teams who have targets to meet.

--
Adam