News

Sports

Business

Multimedia

Life

Opinion

Obituaries

Community

Classifieds

Jobs

Motors

Real Estate

Columns

Tom Koenninger April 22: Speed bumps, humps must be dumped

Wednesday, April 22 | 1:00 a.m.

BY TOM KOENNINGER

'Ding Dong! The witch is dead! Which old witch? The wicked witch! Ding Dong! the wicked witch is dead!"

Those lyrics from the Wizard of Oz express my sentiments about speed bumps in Vancouver, or anywhere else.

Street bumps, humps, or cushions come under the euphemistic term, "traffic calming devices." They are anything but "calming" for anyone not driving a horse and buggy. In most cases, they reduce the legal speed posted for a given street. And that is by no means the least of problems that come with their installation.

Street " humps" may not be dead, but there is no money to install more at present in the city of Vancouver.

Good. The bumps are no substitute for good policing. Nor are they a replacement for parental training of children to watch out for traffic.

For discussion purposes, Columbian reporter Scott Hewitt, writing April 8 of the lack of funding, included the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) definition: Speed bump — a jarring kind of barrier found in parking lots and school driveways; speed hump — the three to four-inch-high barrier on neighborhood streets, which is wider than a speed bump. Drivers can motor over them "without … too much of a jolt." A speed cushion is one lane wide with room around the edges to allow the wider wheelbase of a fire truck or bus to straddle them without loss of speed.

Consider, then, the inconsistency of Kauffman Avenue between 39th Street and Fourth Plain, which presents a spine-jarring ride at the posted 25 mph. Then, cross Fourth Plain, and encounter a bumpy, but more car-friendly speed hump system extending to Mill Plain.

If your neighborhood wants to buy its own street lumps, FHA reports prices: Speed hump, $1,500 each; speed cushion, $2,000 each; and speed tables (a gentler, wider barrier), $2,000 to $15,000.

They have been nuisances to vehicular traffic at any price since the "traffic calming" devices were introduced to a few U.S. cities from Europe in the 1970s. But that should not imply all Europeans are happy with them.

The Association of British Drivers (ABD) seems particularly incensed. Sample comments: "Speed humps are fundamentally ineffective. Depending upon the vehicles and hump design, going over a hump at a higher speed may cause less discomfort than a lower speed … Accelerating after negotiating a hump generates more pollution than if the hump hadn't been there."

ABD quoted research in Austria indicating cars driven one mile with six humps emitted 10 times more nitrogen oxide, three times more carbon monoxide and 25 percent more carbon dioxide "than vehicles maintaining a constant speed." ABD included a Jan. 12, 2008, Manchester Evening News story reporting a police van on an emergency call went out of control after hitting a speed bump and struck six people who escaped with "relatively minor injuries."

In Kitsap County above Bremerton, Hansville-area residents are looking for a response from the county commissioners to a petition bearing 632 signatures that calls for removal of Hansville-area speed bumps (Beep4Bumps.com).

Obviously, a constant speed cannot be maintained on a street with built-in bumps, which one critic called "inverted potholes." Those mounds of asphalt must be approached at 15-20 mph.

Then, there's the safety issue. FHA will report the bumps make roads safer. That aspect was challenged in 2006 in an article by Randal O'Toole (Thoreau Institute) and Kathleen Calongne (Independence Institute Center for The American Dream). It said that an Oakland, Calif. study reporting that the humps make streets safer for children, "actually shows nothing of the kind." The writers cited what they said were numerous flaws and declared: "In fact, the study's data can even be interpreted to mean that humps make streets more dangerous."

In this advanced electronic age of photo radar, red-light cameras and sobriety tests, why should anyone, least of all government, make our streets more difficult to drive?

Tom Koenninger is editor emeritus of The Columbian. His column of personal opinion appears on Wednesdays. Reach him at koenninger@comcast.net.

by bonnie blue : 4/22/09 5:52am - Report Abuse

Even worse than the ridiculous humps, bumps and whatever is that %$#@ traffic circle they dumped in the middle of 130th Ave and 49th Street!! Who's stupid idea was that??????????? With all the money they spent building that, and inconveniencing the neighbors, they should have just hung a 4-way light and been done with it. This bit of foolishness is just an accident looking to happen. I've seen WAY to many close calls going through there and try to avoid that intersection, even if it means going out of my way. Talk about a waste of money!!!!!!!!

by Rob Perkins : 4/22/09 7:45am - Report Abuse

That traffic circle is better than the four-way stop it replaced.

Tom, if an "extra polluting" set of traffic calming devices can slow the reckless driving (45-50 MPH in a 25 MPH zone) taking place on NE 45th ST up to 162nd Avenue, and on Poplar across 162nd, the kids we're training to watch for traffic might stand a chance of responding to the traffic before it's upon them.

by B A : 4/22/09 7:47am - Report Abuse

Bonnie, the round-a-bout was the cheaper option. According to the info those of us who live in that area were sent, a traffic light would have cost twice as much since they would have had to buy and demo more houses at the intersection.
The circle itself isn't that bad, but many of the drivers going through it are horrible. More than half don't seem to know what a yield sign is. I see far too many people stopping when no traffic is coming. I'm surprised there hasn't been a ton of rear end collisions.

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 4/22/09 8:50am - Report Abuse

Once again we get more of the smug grandiosity and "the-world-should-revolve-around-me-and-my-cronies" narcissism from Mr. Koenninger. Speed bumps are for the most part confined to places where previous incidents have taken place and where other forms of trafic control and mitigation have failed. If studies show they reduce injuries and deaths of small children, or reduce dangerous road racing, Mr. Koenninger waves off the results of such studies saying they "could" be read otherwise; of course they could, by those seeking to cherrypick and find what they need in the data. His answer to potential rckless speeders? Train the kids to look out for them; if they are too young yet too train, well crap happens. As for photo radar etc, they do not prevent children getting run over, they just get a nice shot of who did it, but the child stil winds up dead. Why is this guy writing this drivel when the world is shaking? This is but one more example of the smug, entitled, not well educated--or even formally schooled--inbred crowd fiddling while Vantucky is burning.

by K Gero : 4/22/09 9:12am - Report Abuse

I myself prefer the traffic circles in areas designated only for passenger vehicles. Larger vehicles and trucks towing large boats or trailers have difficulty managing through these. My only question I have regarding traffic circles is why do they landscape the center? When the vegetation is thick, you cannot visualize traffic from the opposite direction that may be turning left, thus posing the threat of more T-bone accidents when you pull out. As for 137th avenue and 49th street, look who designed it and who built it. Great moneymaker for the city and for the company who just happens to be working on I-205 at Mill Plain.

by Charles Eppes : 4/22/09 10:22am - Report Abuse

I, just like the ABD have learned the faster you go over ANY bumb the less you feel it. I ususally have to speed around 40mph in a 25mph zone to get rid of the incovience of traffic calming devices.

Omah, there are always going to be speeders no matter what you do to try to slow them down. Educating your childern is the only way to keep them safe, if they are too dumb to catch on then you better be keeping them in the fenced back yard. Wouldn't you want to be out there watching your kids playing or whatever if they were "too young to train"?

As for those "circles" they will never work, because after driving for many years i've noticed the majority of drivers forgot who has the right of way. Most of the time they are thinking "Oh I'm going straight I have the right away" or "Ok I'll just sit here until its safe for me to go or everyone stops to let me in". Seriously people how hard is it to remember the person on the RIGHT has the RIGHT OF WAY.

by Bruce Cipowski : 4/22/09 12:20pm - Report Abuse

This is one of the dumbest things I have read in the Columbian. The idea of traffic calming devices is NOT to keep the driver comfortable. In fact, the purpose is to make the driver UNCOMFORTABLE with driving faster than the posted speed limit! Policing is ineffective with controlling neighborhood speeds because the officers have bigger crimes to fight elsewhere. I used to live on a street that had a posted 25 mph limit, and many cars exceeded that limit by driving in excess of 35. This was a residential area, too. Speeding card are noisy and dangerous. They reduce the quality of life along the street. Speed bumps at least provide an incentive to keep motorists at or near the speed limit, thus maintaining the quality of life along the street. Finally, if cars are emitting a greater amount of polutants because the bumps force them to speed up and slow down, then the solution is for them to drive at the constant speed limit, not 35, slow to 25, and back up to 35 after the speed bump. Driving a constant, slower speed reduces fuel consumption, not a constant fast speed.

Tom Koenninger must be one of the speeders, and is more concerned for his self-centered comfort behind the wheel than the quality of life along the streets he drives. I hope he gets nailed by the police!

by B A : 4/22/09 1:01pm - Report Abuse

Charles you need to review the traffic rules. In a round-a-bout the person in the circle has right of way.
At a controled intersection (one with stop signs) the first person there has right of way. If two or more arrive at the same time, then the person on the right has right of way.
Only at uncontroled intersections does the blanket person on the right apply.

by FelidaJoe : 4/22/09 1:17pm - Report Abuse

Round-a-bouts are just some idiot's idea to "make things different" and have been promoted all over the nation. It's amazing how much money we spend on such foolishness.

by Charles Eppes : 4/22/09 1:26pm - Report Abuse

B A - Sorry for being so vauge I guess I could've posted all the right of ways but I thought the other ones were obvious. Stuff like this should be common sense for people.

by Jim DeFord : 4/22/09 3:05pm - Report Abuse

Round-a-bouts are awesome! It's the people that are stupid. A stupid driver will be stupid both at a light, or a round-a-bout. Round-a-bouts save tons of money, reduce traffic and save YOU gas money by not having to sit idling waiting for the light to turn green. If more people would pat attention while they are driving, instead of the myriad of others things they do, this town would have a ton less traffic.

by Bruce Cipowski : 4/22/09 3:43pm - Report Abuse

Jim, you are on to something. At major intersections round-a-bouts in Vancouver could eliminate one of the primary causes of slow traffic...the traffic lights. It's amazing how often I am sitting in an intersection at a red light, waiting, while there are no cars moving through the green light! Round-a-bouts solve that problem by ensuring traffic is always moving through the intersection. Bend, OR has many round a bouts in town, and it's a pleasure to drive there.

I'm surprised the downtown business association did not mention poor traffic light operation as a cause for poor sales. It takes forever to get anywhere by car in downtown because the lights force too many stops. It's aggrivating.

by Matthew M : 4/22/09 5:03pm - Report Abuse

Sounds like something Royce Pollard would write. "In my day, we didn't waste money on all these STOP signs. No sir, we just looked both ways..."

by Jaime E : 4/22/09 6:22pm - Report Abuse

Ok, I'm here to set the rocord stright:
Streets are for DRIVING, not for use as a playground. We've worked for 2,000 to make better roads. But we do need to make driver's licenses harder to get. I've been thru this round-a-bout. People act like an alien spacecraft just landed. They stop and stare and look around and then go to the middle and stop again. JUST GO! And then there's the business operators that have to go over those humps. Florists and handicapped ppl and plumbers and window hangers. Just get rid of them. People who scream, "Its for the children!" every five minutes don't understand how the world works. Most kids will grow up just fine, and sadly we're gonna lose a few. It won't change, its just nature in action.

by FelidaJoe : 4/22/09 10:32pm - Report Abuse

You mean if we lose enough dumb kids we won't have so many stupid adults?

by Charles Eppes : 4/23/09 7:13am - Report Abuse

Don't get your hopes up Joe, the parents are still complete morons so they dont know how to raise them.

by K Gero : 4/23/09 8:43am - Report Abuse

Charles Eppes: Didn't we have a conversation recently about labeling people morons? Many neighborhoods do not have a park at the end of their roads for children to ride their bicycles. The same neighborhoods also do not have sidewalks. Speed humps are intended to slow the drivers which in turn gives them shorter stopping distances in prevention of hitting a child on a bicycle or skateboard. You can hardly call parents morons because of irresponsibility by drivers who are inattentive of their surroundings and cannot obey traffic laws. Granted, the children should be taught traffic safety while on bicycles before they venture into the street, but I have seen adults on bicycles and skateboards who are far worse when it comes to obeying the law. (For example, the bicyclist who ran into the school bus at 4th Plain and Ft. Vancouver Way.)

by FelidaJoe : 4/23/09 12:11pm - Report Abuse

Then the solution would be to first put the stupid adults on roller skates in the middle of I-5, Charles? That might be an idea.

by dee little : 4/23/09 12:33pm - Report Abuse

"It's amazing how often I am sitting in an intersection at a red light, waiting, while there are no cars moving through the green light"

we don't need roundabouts to cure this, just put the da*n traffic light on BLINKING RED. this ain't rocket science

by Omahkohkiaayo I'poyi : 4/23/09 1:29pm - Report Abuse

Is Mr. Koenninger aware that children, no matter how raised, go through predictable developmental stages in terms of focus and attention, recall of lessons learned, situational awareness of potential dangers etc? As Mr. Koenninger ever held the hand of a child only to have the child bolt into the street with no warning? And some tree or perhaps several died so that he still has a megaphone to promote this kind of stuff and and these non-transparent, non-accountable, somewhat covert and inbred networks running ol Couve Holler and Olympia of which he is a proudly self-professed and admitted member?

by Jessica Green : 4/23/09 1:38pm - Report Abuse

I wish you would write about more urgent issues that your concern regarding humps, bumps and other "traffic calming devices." Sure, you can argue that it was timely given this posted on Earth Day and you cited, "Accelerating after a hump generates more pollution than if the hump hadn't been there." But this almost read like something out of The Onion. Maybe I should call Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change and suggest making t-shirts with the slogan, "End Global Warming. Stop Humping." I suggest looking at other issues that make our streets truly unsafe.

by Jon Alldritt : 4/23/09 9:10pm - Report Abuse

What where they thinking when on SE Park Crest Av they put them in on the 25 MPH section and in a 30 MPH section at the north end. Where it is 30 MPH you find people crossing the center line to lesten the inpact. Then what about the nongreen costs of speed up slow down and energy required to go over. What about the nongreen cost of wear and tear on vehicals.