On Feb 22, 4:18*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:

... well, not quite, but lovely old LB Barnet have resurfaced Lichfield Road
... I drove down it in something of a daydream and, like the lighthouse
keeper who leapt out of his bed when the foghorn failed to sound, shouting
"What the f*** was that?", I was suddenly shaken back to consciousness by
the non-existent speed bumps. It was just like that special new transport
thrill I got when first travelling on the JLE or Orient Way. Over all too
soon... after 500 metres I crossed the border into LB Ca/\md/\en.

Though given there's nothing otherwise special about it - it's not a
broad road or anything, it's a fairly typical London side street [1] -
one does rather hope that drivers don't treat it as a Motorway.

Not having really followed such things, to what extent has LB Barnet
actively gone around removing speed bumps? (Street view suggests
Lichfield Rd didn't have speed bumps in summer '08 at least, but there
appears to be one or maybe speed tables.)

Would be interesting to see a statistical comparison and associated
attempt at an objective and holistic analysis of similar types of
streets in London with and without speed bumps - obviously accident
rates, and also other factors such as pollution levels (plus/inc. al
the extra wear and tear on vehicles), but going wider than that too -
things such as the number of cyclists and pedestrians using the roads
(e.g. does the presence or absence of speed bumps encourage/encourage
people using the roads who aren't in a vehicle), total traffic levels
(inc. any shift to public transport on parallel corridors - though
actually attempting to measure that might be nigh on impossible, and
proposing a causal relationship between the two is perhaps tenuous at
best) etc.

Though I'm sure such a thing could easily be criticised for wavering
from a strictly objective path and including subjective biases. Thing
is, my basic take is that such things need to be looked at in the
round - the problem as ever with trying to do that is it can then all
start to get a bit vague and unquantifiable.

My gut instinct is that speed bumps do work to 'tame' urban roads
somewhat, but I'm well aware 'gut instinct' isn't a great way of
deciding policy (but then I'm not a policy maker). But I am open to
all points of view - e.g. the extra pollution (on both a local and
global scale) from vehicles navigating speed bumps is a concern.


-----
[1] For want of a better term - i.e. it's not a main road, but is
widely used for through traffic.