Viking Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 One assumes the 10cm rule applies for both....... Thing is that seems to be a little vague is the rate the 10cm is achieved? What's the graduation!! From what I recall, there's a seperate regulation covering raised pedestrian crossing areas, which are not covered under the regulations for normal speed humps. To put it simply, a pedestrian crossing is not a speed hump so therefore doesn't need to comply with regulations for speed humps. In fact, the regulations for speed humps state "no road hump shall be within the limits of a zebra controlled area as defined in regulation 3(1) of the regulations mentioned in that paragraph or within 30 metres from the imaginary line along the centre of the pattern of stripes mentioned in that paragraph." I believe you have missed out an important bit. The sentence that you have quoted starts with the phrase "Save as mentioned in paragraph 2 above, no road hump etc" The paragraph 2 to which the exception refers sets out the way in which a speed bump may be created as part of a pedestrian crossing. There are similar paragraphs for Pelican crossings. For simplicity I have reproduced the relevant paragraphs in full. I can see no interpretation other than that a speed bump may form part of a pedestrian or a Pelican crossing and that it must conform to the dimensions set out in paragraphs 4 (1), (2) and (3) Nature, dimensions and location of road humps4. (1) Subject to regulation 7, no road hump shall be constructed or maintained in a highway unless— (a)each face of it across the carriageway of the highway in which it is constructed is at right angles to an imaginary line along the centre of that carriageway; ( it has a minimum length of 900 millimetres measured parallel to an imaginary line along the centre of that carriageway from the point where one face meets the surface of that carriageway to the point where the other face meets the surface of that carriageway; ©the highest point on it is not less than 25 millimetres nor more than 100 millimetres higher than an imaginary line parallel to the centre line of that carriageway connecting the surface of that carriageway on one side of the road hump to the surface of that carriageway on the other side of the road hump and passing vertically below that point; and (d)it has no vertical face of any material forming part of that road hump exceeding 6 millimetres measured vertically from top to bottom of that face. (2) A road hump may be constructed and maintained in a highway so that an imaginary line along the centre of the hump from one side of the road to the other is in the same position as an imaginary line from one side of the road to the other along the centre of the pattern of black and white stripes specified in paragraph 4(1) of Part I of Schedule 2 to the “Zebra†Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1971(1). (3) Save as mentioned in paragraph (2) above, no road hump shall be within the limits of a zebra controlled area as defined in regulation 3(1) of the regulations mentioned in that paragraph or within 30 metres from the imaginary line along the centre of the pattern of stripes mentioned in that paragraph. And paragraph 2 clearly points to a seperate regulation other than "The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999", namely "Part II Schedule 1 to the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997". As I said previously (in the post you have kindly quoted), "there's a seperate regulation covering raised pedestrian crossing areas, which are not covered under the regulations for normal speed humps". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 So there's no regulation regarding the incline, or have i missed something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 So there's no regulation regarding the incline, or have i missed something. None that I have seen Tony, (other than the one that defines the maximum height of any vertical surface) but the relevant government and local government authorities do publish design guides from time to time that deal with issues such as inclines and profiles. I have seen research papers in the past that dealt with the effects that are caused by variation of incline and profile. They cover not only the effects on vehicles and the people in the vehicles, but other issues such as wear, maintenance, traction etc. Some of the papers are very learned indeed, but I should think that the big problem lies in translating design guidance into the actual laying of tarmac etc.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 And paragraph 2 clearly points to a seperate regulation other than "The Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999", namely "Part II Schedule 1 to the Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997". As I said previously (in the post you have kindly quoted), "there's a seperate regulation covering raised pedestrian crossing areas, which are not covered under the regulations for normal speed humps". Sorry Viking, but your interpretation and mine are obviously very different. I have read the whole of the regulations again very carefully, including the document to which paragraph 2 refers and I can see no basis for believing that the dimensions of speed humps incorporated into pedestrian (or Pelican) crossings are specified anywhere other than in the Speed Hump Regulations. If you know differently, could you give me a reference to the regulation and the relevant paragraph/sub paragraph etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 I'm sorry you think differently. You seem to think that simply because a raised pedestrian crossing looks and behaves like a speed hump, that it is in fact a speed hump. I think that because a raised pedestrian crossing is a raised pedestrian crossing covered by different regulations, that it is not a speed hump. Essentially, if road conditions require it, a raised table or platform would be built/installed to make the crossing suitable for disabled/wheelchair access, and that platform would be part of the crossing construction and therefore wouldn't be encompassed by the regulations for speed humps. A speed (or road) humps primary function is to control traffic speed within defined areas, whereas with a raised table at a pedestrian crossing the primary function is to allow wheelchair users to use the crossing.Admittedly, there's an argument for dropping the kerb to facilitate the same thing, but either way is an acceptable method of crossing construction. However, I've not researched the pedestrian crossing regulations in depth at all, and I'm not about to just for the sake of this topic. Suffice to say that pedestrian crossings etc. are not speed or road humps, and as such the two should not to be confused. Which was the main point of referring them in my earlier post. Edit: For further clarification I would suggest picking any one of the raised pedestrian crossings, measuring the height and relevant dimensions, and reporting it to the authorities as non compliant for a road hump. And wait for their reply. As they're in the business of specifying, building, maintaining etc. such constructions, I'm sure they'll have a legal department who are eminently more qualified than myself to advise on the regulations. To put it bluntly, I've said what I think, and if you think otherwise you may pick an argument elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sagitar Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Thanks Viking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hms Posted April 29, 2014 Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 There is a lovely speed bump in Cardington Street alongside Euston Station. It's so high you need crampons. Top of the bump is full of big gouges where lorries have grounded out with their underbody. I've had a coach ground out on it. Wrote to council months ago, no reply! H Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 "lorries have grounded out" reads like it needs a flag planted on top of it!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMARTLY Posted April 30, 2014 Report Share Posted April 30, 2014 I've had a coach ground out on it. Were the horses OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hms Posted May 2, 2014 Report Share Posted May 2, 2014 I've had a coach ground out on it. Were the horses OK Oi, I'm not that old! h Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 3, 2014 Report Share Posted May 3, 2014 I am Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoffers Posted May 3, 2014 Report Share Posted May 3, 2014 Our local council recently constructed one at the bottom of our cul-de-sac as we have a doctors on the corner and it helps people with limited mobility. Unitl we knew the full story, we campaigned against it and went to the meetings. A few things were pointed out to us as to why they didn't fall into normal traffic calming regulations. They are governed by other factors such as the height of the kerb, slope, etc. the kerbs couldn't be lowered as the main road our cul-de-sac attaches to is on a gradient and there were concerns with ice and snow in winter with wheelchairs, etc. and it was decided a level walkway straight across was required. As soon as we realised the benefits to the people going to the doctors we never persued so I'm not sure what the legalieies are I'm afraid. Lucky for us, its angle is ok and we're going at a snails pace anyway with it coming up to a junction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted May 4, 2014 Report Share Posted May 4, 2014 At least the council had the decency to listen to the residents concerns. Rules and regulations get on my nerves though but since we now live in a suing state i'm not surprised Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.