cuse04 wrote:
not only is it excessive (considering all the new stop signs in the area), but it also seems to be contributing to the cluster-f that already is rush hour traffic on erie getting to the tunnel. you have to go so slowly over it, that traffic backs up to 6th street and no one can get through the intersection before the light changes.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
This is all Obama's fault.

Obama should have micro managed Christie
Christie should have micro managed Fulop
Fulop should have micro managed the Traffic Engineers
The Traffic Engineers should have micro managed the contractor
The contractor should have micro managed their own supervisors
The supervisors should have micro managed the blue-collar workers
The blue-collar workers should have read the code height of the hump.

Obama you bastard - you wrecked my car

colleen wrote:
FAB will you be covering topics such as approach and departure angles, break-over point, overhang and ground effects?
The standard is 3? to 4 inches. These moguls are Total overkill, designed to liberate JCPD from modifying driver behavior thru Community Oriented Policing and strict dtadardized enforcement of current traffic laws.

bodhipooh wrote:


I don't think you understand geometry very well. Surprising, since you work in the construction industry, if I recall correctly.

A 90-degree curb is completely different from a hump. In the situation of a car going over a curb, once a set of wheels has cleared the obstacle, they remain elevated in relation to the other set of wheels. So, the body of the car will continue to clear the curb. In the case of the humps, once a set of wheels has cleared the hump and gone past the apex of the hump, the wheels start to come down and, as the vehicles progresses over its path, the wheels will reach same elevation, but the body will not necessarily clear the hump. That's why there are published guidelines for height, width and depth. Looking at all the pictures, these humps are not at all like other humps I have seen. And, that is why cars are bottoming out.

Of course, going by VERY SLOW (crawling?) will probably allow for MOST cars to clear the humps, but that's not realistic nor fair. You should be able to clear the humps by traveling at, or below, the speed limit. That's not possible right now for many, or most, cars.

OneSkirt wrote:

And while I can appreciate that the Councilmen were trying to do damage control on the horrible rollout, I'm horrified in how they came to a decision to remove it. On the fly, right there at the meeting, they told the Traffic guys to remove it this Friday.

OneSkirt wrote:
They are opposed because they weren't a part of the decision making process to put these on the streets. The one woman is also opposed because she is is trying to make the area a Designated Historic District and has said in writing that she does not feel that speed humps would "fit the look and feel of [a historic neighborhood]". Then she flat out denied she ever said that when I called that out to the audience. Um, dtjc got humps in the hisoric district area and there is nothing in historic district guidelines against speed humps. (This is also the same woman who is trying to push through this designation with a small group of supporters for a wide swath of Ward B without involving the appropriate council people in the process or adequately announcing the handlful of public meetings being held on it...also not fully notifying all homeonwers in the proposed district that this is underway and what the process is...smh). Such a bunch of crap.

And while I can appreciate that the Councilmen were trying to do damage control on the horrible rollout, I'm horrified in how they came to a decision to remove it. On the fly, right there at the meeting, they told the Traffic guys to remove it this Friday. I am left to wonder if Council people have that authority to do that in that manner. Isn't there a process to reverse a public works project since lots of money and safety issues are at stake? I've alerted the Mayor's office that Council are taking matters into their own hands with little to no analysis. We shall see.

OneSkirt wrote:
It is true. Its horrible. And during the meeting, the irate woman leading it had the nerve to tell some of us that we didn't get a say because we didn't live on that specific block (I live half a block away), yet we were invited to the meeting. WTF?? I am FURIOUS.

OneSkirt wrote:
An irtate resident on Duncan Ave. called a meeting last night about the speed hump installed on the street. Councilmen Ramchal & Lavarro and the 2 main traffic and engineer reps from the city came to speak/answer questions. Even though only about 20 residents were there, the meeting was a horror show.

Every resident agreed the rollout process and the height were disasterously done/handled. However, when the city reps siad they planned to shave/lower the hump and finally properly mark it tomorrow, a few very loud people balked at this and insisted on its immediate removal to be followed by a traffic study. The Councilmen waffled, first saying let's shave/mark it and see how that works for a few weeks, then decide. Then after these few yelled some more, they back-peddled and decided to removie it entirely tomorrow. WITHOUT ANY COST/FINANCIAL DATA to inform the decision.

What a sh$tshow.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
I'm starting to have my doubts with some of the claims on JClist - I took a friends 1998 Ford Clunker Sedan and went over the so called humps at the posted speed sign and didn't bottom out once...and my friends car is a real piece of crap with faulty shock absorbers.

The claim of bottoming out and loosing front spoilers etc is crap as all cars can clear a 90 degree curb without a slope to them and all the humps are sloped.

Speed and cars with faulty or poor suspension appears to be the main problem here.

JCman24 wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
I'm starting to have my doubts with some of the claims on JClist - I took a friends 1998 Ford Clunker Sedan and went over the so called humps at the posted speed sign and didn't bottom out once...and my friends car is a real piece of crap with faulty shock absorbers.

The claim of bottoming out and loosing front spoilers etc is crap as all cars can clear a 90 degree curb without a slope to them and all the humps are sloped.

Speed and cars with faulty or poor suspension appears to be the main problem here.

Your use of "loosing" renders your argument invalid.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
I'm starting to have my doubts with some of the claims on JClist - I took a friends 1998 Ford Clunker Sedan and went over the so called humps at the posted speed sign and didn't bottom out once...and my friends car is a real piece of crap with faulty shock absorbers.

The claim of bottoming out and loosing front spoilers etc is crap as all cars can clear a 90 degree curb without a slope to them and all the humps are sloped.

Speed and cars with faulty or poor suspension appears to be the main problem here.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
...
I took a friends 1998 Ford Clunker Sedan and went over the so called humps at the posted speed sign and didn't bottom out once...and my friends car is a real piece of crap with faulty shock absorbers.

...