Message Boards  

  Resources  

  Bicycling Stories  

  Classifieds  

  Links  

  Pedal Power  



Navigation:


FORUMS > Bike Talk < refresh >
Topic Title: Speed Tables
Created On Tuesday April 29, 2008 10:49 AM
Topic View:



Steven Stivers
Junior Member

Posts: 6
Joined: Apr 2008

Tuesday April 29, 2008 10:49 AM

Hello, I wanted to get your opinions and/or expert advice on speed tables that were installed in Kitsap County. These "tables" (I will call them bumps from this point forward) were installed on both collector/arterial roads leading into the town of Hansville. Everyone who lives north and west of the bumps is forced to transit the bumps - they were not installed to divert traffic as is the normal use for bumps. The bumps were supposedly installed to improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and (unleashed) pets by reducing a perceived speeding problem through two very affluent neighborhoods. The speed limits through these areas is posted at 30 mph and 25 mph. The engineering study and collected statistics determined that the posted speed limits should be 40 mph and 30 mph, respectively. Typical traffic before the bumps were installed traveled through at about 40 mph. There is a lot more information at www.beep4bumps.com.

I think that these bumps make it more dangerous for cyclists, not safer. Do any of you have experience with something similar to either support or disprove my belief? Here are specific reasons I feel it is more dangerous to commute on roads with bumps:

1. The bumps are a distraction to drivers. Instead of looking for cyclists or pedestrians that might be on the roadway, they concentrate on negotiating the bumps that they know are there. We know that distracted drivers are one of our biggest threats, and we don't need more distractions to further stack the odds against us.

2. The bumps physically restrict the ability to see cyclists and pedestrians because headlight and taillight beams point in improper directions when negotiating the bumps. Additionally, the bumps artificially cause a cyclist to appear 4" (or more, depending on road elevation changes) shorter.

3. The bumps force tailgating in the vicinity of each bump. Therefore, drivers who are not the first to each bump have an obstructed view due to the car(s) in front of them.

4. The bumps cause speed variations such that passing vehicles take more time and distance to pass a cyclist, which increases the time in which the car and cyclist are alongside and at risk for collision.

I can tell you for a fact that drivers pass me more closely on the bump section than they do along any other part of my commute. I'm not going to say that the bumps specifically make it "dangerous" to ride on that road, but they do make it more dangerous than it was before there were bumps. Personally, I'd rather have cars pass me safely at 40 mph than to have them brush or hit me at 25 mph.

What do you think? Does Cascade have an official or general policy regarding speed bumps?

-------------------------
Steve

Edited: Tuesday April 29, 2008 at 1:15 PM by Steven Stivers
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



Will Skubi
Senior Member

Posts: 466
Joined: Aug 2007

Tuesday April 29, 2008 2:09 PM

25-30 years ago, I used to take the ferry to Winslow after work, cycle up to Hansville to enjoy Point no Point, and go back via Everett during long summer evenings.

My last trips in recent years have been marred by much heavier and higher speed traffic than I remember from those earlier years.


I haven't experienced the bumps you describe. But if they slow down traffic, they might have some benefit.


Are these bumps difficult or unpleasent for cyclists to negotiate?
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



Steven Stivers
Junior Member

Posts: 6
Joined: Apr 2008

Tuesday April 29, 2008 2:51 PM

No, the bumps do not affect bicycle handling.

"Slowing down traffic might have some benefit" is not the observed result of the bumps as I described in my previous points.

-------------------------
Steve

Edited: Tuesday April 29, 2008 at 3:08 PM by Steven Stivers
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



Elias Ross
Active Member

Posts: 78
Joined: Jun 2007

Tuesday April 29, 2008 3:09 PM

Looking at the Wiki page for Speed Table it seems that they can be safely passed over by drivers at speeds around 25-30 miles per hour. They are much different than speed bumps.

Specific to your complaints... 1. I would think a distracted driver would suddenly be watching the road when they're awaken by the bump and that'd be a good thing. 2. The headlights would only shift direction very briefly and I don't understand how a 4" of height perception would affect anything. Most cyclists appear taller than cars. 3. I agree congestion is often bad for cyclists. 4. You would want cars to pass sooner? I would think most cyclist's fears are about getting hit at a high rate of speed.

As a cyclist, I don't see how a long bump would really slow me down much.

Drivers want to drive faster since on average they have longer and longer commutes. Of course they want to drive faster. More and more people are living out in this housing projects out in formally rural areas and ironically the people in these communities don't feel the traffic they create is safe.
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



Steven Stivers
Junior Member

Posts: 6
Joined: Apr 2008

Tuesday April 29, 2008 3:54 PM

Elias:

1. The speed bumps are not a means to overcome distraction, they are themselves a direct distraction. They cause drivers to be complacent to obstacles that might be on the roadway (cyclists) because they are overly concerned with obstacles they know to be on the roadway.

Imagine a road that is so overridden with obstacles (pot holes, crevasses, cracks, washouts, etc) that you must concentrate on negotiating things 10-20 feet in front of you to avoid damaging your car. Do you agree that it would be more difficult to notice cyclists before you were much closer to them than if you were on a smooth road? This is an extreme example, but the theory still applies to the bumps.

2. and 3. No further comments from me.

4. There is a major difference between cyclists' fears and the actual threats. A typical fear of cyclists is being rear-ended by fast traffic. However, in reality, this rarely happens compared to incidents like the left- and right-hook, and when it does, it's typically by a drunk or otherwise distracted driver.

I stated that I'd rather be passed safely at 40 mph than be passed unsafely at 25 mph. To clarify this, on the non-bump section of this road the speed limit is 35 mph. It is actually more hilly and curvy than the bump section of road (implying that the speed limit should be lower, but it is not). On the non-bump section of road, drivers pass me at about 40 mph and they typically move left enough to give me 10' or more of lateral space. However, on the bump section, where visibility is much better because it's straight and flat, I am typically passed at less than 5' and often within 3'. How can this be explained other than the fact that the bumps make me effectively invisible and/or influence imprudent overtaking scenarios?

-------------------------
Steve

Edited: Tuesday April 29, 2008 at 3:58 PM by Steven Stivers
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



Elias Ross
Active Member

Posts: 78
Joined: Jun 2007

Wednesday April 30, 2008 6:29 PM

Steven, I think one thing you should clarify is your relationship with the website "www.beep4bumps.com" and its content, which seems strongly against the speed bumps and traffic calming in Kitsap. And so I wonder if you're here to gather support for its position that speed bumps should be eliminated. Let's be clear what your agenda is.

Generally speaking, I would think Cascade would be in favor of motorist traffic calming and safety measures that reduced the frequency accidents.

From one of the web sites "beep4bumps" links to, I noticed this information.

http://www.anaheim.net/article.asp?id=605
Quote


SPEED LIMIT MISCONCEPTIONS

When traffic problems occur concerned citizens frequently ask why we don’t lower the speed limit. There are widely held misconceptions that speed limit signs will slow the speed of traffic, reduce accidents and increase safety. Most drivers drive at a speed which they consider to be appropriate, regardless of the posted speed limit. "Before and after" studies have shown that there are no significant changes in average vehicle speeds following the posting of new or revised speed limits. Furthermore, research has found no direct relationship between speed limits and accident frequency.



In other words, drivers don't care about speed limits and therefore to reduce accidents roads need to be engineered differently.

And here's from another link I found:

Institute of Transportation Engineers - http://www.ite.org/traffic/table.htm
Quote


Potential Impacts:

* no effect on access
* speeds are reduced, but usually to a higher crossing speed than at speed humps (typically between 25 and 27 miles per hour)
* traffic volumes have been reduced on average by 12 percent depending on alternative routes available
* collisions have been reduced on average by 45 percent on treated streets (not adjusted for traffic diversion)
* reported to increase pedestrian visibility and likelihood that driver yields to pedestrian



I don't know of 45 percent less motor accidents necessarily implies 45 percent less motorist/cyclist accidents but I'd be surprised to see the frequency of motorist/cyclist accidents increase.
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



leo stone
Senior Member

Posts: 2437
Joined: Dec 2003

Wednesday April 30, 2008 11:33 PM

Steven, forgive me, but you seem a little slanted against speed tables.

I'm another Kitsaper, I live between Manette and Illahee in the Enatei area.
My experience with bumps or tables is quite different from yours. Of course, this is just based on what I've seen over the last few years, nothing scientific.
East 30th street, just north of my street, is posted 25mph. Motor traffic used to hit 35-50 mph in that three block street. It's residential with kids. Used to see wrecks at the intersection of East 30th and Trenton at least every two weeks.
About four years ago speed bumps (three sets) were installed by the county. Now speeds are 15-25 mph. Children ride their bikes in the street. People walk up to the Red Apple store. No more wrecks. It's quiet, people can live there enjoyably. I can ride over the bumps on my bike at 25mph, no problem, just unweight the bike as I go over.

Speed tables in Bremerton were my daughter lives with her two sons. The same result. They can ride bikes with their friends. People walk safely.

Tracyton Blvd is marked 25-30mph. Used to see 40-60 mph on this road. Damn dangerous to cycle on. After the speed tables were installed, same result. And West Sound Club uses it for part of the Tour de Kitsap route. I see kids and adults walking on the roads side now. I can ride those at the speed of traffic, in fact cars need to slow much more than cycles do over them.

My experience with Kitsaps narrow roads is safety is to a large part determined by the speed difference between cycles and cars, all other factors being equal. Slower cars, more reaction time for drivers. And at night, more time to be seen. I don't think they distract motorists at all. Quite the opposite. Drivers have to pay attention

At a meeting last year about the replacement for the Manette Bridge, I suggested to the State that speed tables be installed at both ends and the middle of the bridge just to keep the speeds down.I ride the old Mannette Bridge to work. It's very narrow but what makes it safe to cycle on is that motorists slow down because of the narrowness. Their speed matches mine and I can safely take the centre of the lane. Indeed on the Wheaton Way bridge, marked 35mph southbound motor traffic hits 50+mph. I ride north on that bridge on my commute home and see at least one to two rear-enders a week.

From what I've seen, the traffic calming from tables or bumps does change a residential area. From a dangerous speedway to a livable community. Again, just my observations, I'm not a traffic engineer, just a old guy on a bike.

gears to you...leo

ps, after reading the speedbumps website, I'm a little bemused. Think I'll follow it . Because if I see"views by a cyclist " in it, I'll write a few letters to the Sun newspaper about the views from another cyclist as well. I'll bring it up with my club, West Sound Cycling Club (we're the local club, if you didn't know) and also see what our Bicycle Alliance rep has to say as well. Think the clubs position will be that traffic calming tables are a good idea.




-------------------------
No turn left unstoned

Edited: Thursday May 01, 2008 at 12:02 AM by leo stone
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



Elias Ross
Active Member

Posts: 78
Joined: Jun 2007

Thursday May 01, 2008 2:36 AM

And take a look at this recently published report by the "Transportation Research Board", titled "Volume 18: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Bicycles":

Download here: http://www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=8960

Page I-6:
Quote


Emphasis Area Objectives and Strategies
...
C. Reduce motor vehicle speeds C1. Implement traffic calming techniques (P)



Where (P) is indicated as "Proven".

Page V-74:
Quote


The goals of traffic calming are to reduce motor vehicle speeds, traffic volume, or both.
Reducing motor vehicle speeds has the potential to reduce both the frequency and severity
of bicycle/motor vehicle crashes, and reductions in vehicular volumes ultimately decrease
bicycle exposure to motor vehicle traffic.

Several of the companion guides provide detailed information on traffic calming
techniques intended to reduce motor vehicle speeds. The reader is referred to these guides
for more detailed information on implementing traffic calming techniques. In particular,
the reader is directed to the following objectives and strategies in the respective guides:

• NCHRP Report 500, Volume 10: A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Pedestrians

Objective 9.1 C—Reduce Vehicle Speed
▪ Strategy 9.1 C1—Implement road narrowing measures
▪ Strategy 9.1 C2—Install traffic calming—road sections
▪ Strategy 9.1 C3—Install traffic calming—intersections
• NCHRP Report 500, Volume 5: A Guide for Addressing Unsignalized Intersection Collisions

Objective 17.1 H—Reduce operating speeds on specific intersection approaches
▪ Strategy 17.1 H2—Provide traffic calming on intersection approaches through a combination of geometrics and traffic control devices



So the expert advice (again) seems to indicate that traffic calming measures are a proven technique.
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



John Clifford
Member

Posts: 47
Joined: Jul 2006

Thursday May 01, 2008 5:27 AM

I don't have a problem with speed tables, as a driver or a cyclist. We have one that was put in our neighborhood, and it does its job of slowing down folks.

I do have a problem with narrowing of lanes as a speed calming tactic. Cars may slow down some, but they will also try to pass cyclists in these narrow areas, and that's bad. I speak from personal experience here; we also have several islands in my neighborhood (Bridle Trails) that IMO add to the risk cyclists face... and worse yet the city has eliminated bike lanes where they've put in these islands.

I think that using bike lanes to achieve the perception of narrow lanes while also clearly delineating a portion of the road for cyclists gives the best of both worlds... cars will slow down due to the narrower lanes yet cyclists aren't squeezed between cars and curbs.
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



Steven Stivers
Junior Member

Posts: 6
Joined: Apr 2008

Thursday May 01, 2008 2:26 PM

I do not have an affiliation with beep4bumps.com, but I do, like the supporters of that site, dispute the legitimacy of the installed bumps.

-------------------------
Steve
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



Deborah Thogersen
Active Member

Posts: 79
Joined: Mar 2004

Thursday May 01, 2008 3:01 PM

Gospel Truth, John! Alleluia! Striped Bike Lanes to narrow traffic lanes!

In practice, though, the newer, striped lanes in North Seattle, aren't having that much of an impact on traffic speeds. Well,.... I take that back. The speed limit is still being exceeded (sorry 'bout the passive voice,) but a slower rate than previous. It is helping some. Tragically, the buses and cornering traffic are erasing the lines that were painted just last year.

As far as speed bumps from the cycling perspective, I am in favor of them. Drivers may be paying more attention to the traffic furniture than to cyclists as they cross, I expect, but they'll be going slow enough that I'll have a better chance of avoiding them. Speed tables (or speed humps, as they're described by Kirkland signage) are much better, IMHO, than the shorter, speed bumps. Tables I can ride over without losing much forward motion; speed bumps are just jarring to me.

-------------------------
Hooray, bikes!
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     



Steven Stivers
Junior Member

Posts: 6
Joined: Apr 2008

Thursday May 01, 2008 5:28 PM

It is difficult to explain why these bumps are inappropriate for their location without the audience living in the area affected by them. Do I have an "agenda" to have the bumps removed? Sure, I guess. Am I trying to solicit agreement to my opinions to support their removal? Yes, and maybe that's not the best approach. After all, I don't feel that the bumps make it so dangerous that I won't ride on those roads. I'd rather not go through all of the realistically more important reasons the bumps should never have been installed in the first place, those are all described in great detail on the website I mentioned. But, please let me try to explain further.

The whole premise of these bumps was to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety, and in fact they used funds from the cyclist/pedestrian road budget to install the bumps. However, when this road was improved about five years ago, there was a community-wide vote as to what types of cycling/pedestrian infrastructure would be improved. Options were (a) 3-foot shoulders on both sides, (b) 8-foot shoulders on both sides, and (c) 3-foot shoulder on one side and separate bicycle/pedestrian path on the other. There was overwhelming community support for the separate path, but the property owners along what is now the bump section of roadway vetoed both the path and the 8-foot shoulders because they refused to give up property right-of-way to benefit the community. Obviously the vetoed options would have been better for recreational cyclists and pedestrians. Also, the money spent on the bumps could have been spent on projects that would have much more benefit to cyclist safety, such as paving a gravel section of road that would allow cyclists to bypass a 20-degree slope which has a rough surface, less than 50 feet of ahead visibility, and NO shoulder.

I mentioned earlier that the county engineering study determined the proper speed limit for this roadway is 40 mph. Yet the speed limit was set at 30 mph. Pre-bump traffic studies determined that the 85% vehicle speed distribution was something like 41 mph (this means that 85% of all vehicles traveled this road at 41 mph or less, and is a typical method for setting the posted speed limit - e.g. the speed limit should have been 40 mph). There have not been any accidents on this road in several years so there was no justification for further "calming" of the typical traffic. Thus, there was only a "perceived" speeding problem.

Keep in mind these bumps were installed on the only two roads going into a town of a couple thousand residents. Thus everyone is forced to transit the bumps twice daily, presuming they're not retired. It would be completely different if people were speeding through a residential area as a shortcut and bumps were installed to encourage them to transit the preferred roadway. However, that's not the case.

The installation of these bumps sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion. If I live on Dexter Ave N, do I have the right to establish a special interest group and have speed bumps installed so that my kids can play on Dexter Ave N?

-------------------------
Steve

Edited: Thursday May 01, 2008 at 5:44 PM by Steven Stivers
 
Reply
   
Quote
   
Top
   
Bottom
     

FORUMS > Bike Talk < refresh >

Navigation:

home | events & rides | education | advocacy | community | about | site map | contact

© 2002 Cascade Bicycle Club. All rights reserved. Terms of Use & Privacy Policy. About this site.