Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Surrey_Scientist


I went over a speedhump in Streatham, South London this week, about 15mph. An almighty "clonk" from the front, and the steering started making rattling noises as it turned right....

Just been up the MOT station who jacked it up for me and the drivers side front coil spring has snapped.

Obviously I wil lhave to get a new set fitted...

I was not going fast, and the hump is quite high, and has lots of gauge marks on the descending part - and is very steep. Do I stand any chance of claiming back any of the cost from the council as as far as I am concerned this is the cause of the spring to break as it is far too steep.

If so where do I write.....
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Armitage Shanks {p}
There are permitted dimensions for these vile objects! This may help

The Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 1999 No. 1026 which can be seen on HMSO web site on the internet (see www.hmso.gov.uk - use their site search function) with a subsequent minor amendment called the Highways (Traffic Calming) Regulations 2000 No. 1511 plus the Highways (Road Humps) Regulations 1999 No. 1025, all on the same web site.


Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 28/03/2009 at 14:00

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Manatee
You could check the height - they are not allowed to be higher than 4"/100mm and the recommended maximum height is 3"/75mm. Might be worth a measure. If it's in a 30 limit there should also be proper signage and lighting.

These things are vile. There are some "cushions" in Pitstone and Ivinghoe, Bucks which are less about traffic calming than about traffic obstruction. Most residents must hate them and I can only think that people who support them haven't considered the wear and tear on their cars. I had a Scorpio which would straddle them reasonably comfortably - all well and good until the car went for a service and they pointed out to me that my otherwise half-worn tyres had steel cords coming out of the inside edge. When I have to pass that way now, I put one wheel on and one wheel off - the cushions are so high that this entails almost a dead stop, as well as a swerve towards the centre or edge of the road - a major contribution to road safety, as Sir Robert Mark might have said.

I like the idea of hooting every time I drive over one -

www.abd.org.uk/speed_humps.htm
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Hamsafar
If you do take them to small claims court, you need to make sure it is based on facts applied to laws rather than just saying you don't like them.

You need to gather impressive evidence of the dimensions of the hump and photographs and compare them to the regulations, so make sure you read the regulations first, so that you gather the right evidence to support your claim.

Good luck.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Altea Ego
>as far as I am concerned this is the cause of the spring to break as it is far too steep

so nothing to do with age, wear and tear, manufacturing defect or rust then? All the tests you have had done back that up?



Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Armitage Shanks {p}
Being at work (on Time and a Half!) I have managed to fit in a long search of the Law and Stautory Instruments etc into my 15 minute lunch break and have found the following:-

Nature, dimensions and location of road humps
4.?(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;
(b) 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;
(c) 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.


I realise that this does not cover speed cushions so the search will continue!

Edited by Armitage Shanks {p} on 28/03/2009 at 15:22

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Fullchat
Playing devils advocate here but wouldn't a counter argument be that the spring was already weak for reasons not attributable to that particular local council and that incident just finished the job off?
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Hamsafar
No.
1901 English case, Dulieu v. White and Sons, 2 KB 669 where it was stated:

?If a man is negligently run over or otherwise negligently injured in his body, it is no answer to the sufferer?s claim for damage that he would have suffered less injury, or no injury at all, if he had not had an unusually thin skull or an unusually weak heart.?
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - George Porge
I think I might sue my local council, too many road junctions, roundabouts and traffic lights are wearing my brakes out.................................................

Car parts wear out, it may come as a shock to some but they do
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Manatee
>>Car parts wear out, it may come as a shock to some but they do

Harsh and rather patronising I think. These things are a menace, and if the spring was weakened and pre-disposed to break, then it seems very likely that the accumulated damage had a lot to do with a lifetime of being thumped by "traffic calming" measures.

If the silent majority of motorists stopped to think about the needless wear and damage inflicted by these things they'd elect the first party that pledged to get rid of them.

If there's the slightest chance of giving the council a hard time over this and Surrey_Scientist has the time, he should go for the throat.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Hamsafar
Go for it, give them chance first and if they don't pay up, then use moneyclaim online (Northamton Councy Court)

www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/csmco2/index.jsp

Here is a succesful claim that I made for £1300. The Council send 3 people including a solicitor to court to defend themselves!

"The Defendant is soley responsible for
maintaining the carriageway, namely Bluecote
Street in Nottingham, on which a defect
caused an accident resulting in damage to the
Claimant's motor vehicle and a personal
injury to the Claimant.
The Claimant's claim is for damages, as
remedy for part of the cost of repairs
carried out to the motor vehicle to make good
the damage sustained during the accident.
The Claimant claims that the Defendant's
inspection and maintenance regime was
inadequate, and that there was a lack of due
diligence and reasonable care in carrying out
duties."
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - scouseford
My perception of this never ending debate about speedhumps is that many of the complainants drive over them at an unreasonable speed. They are constructed to slow down the flow of traffic because of safety issues. Nobody likes them but there is an uncomfortably large volume of drivers who refuse to accept that they drive too fast in certain situations. Speedhumps become a challenge and we have all seen drivers who virtually ignore them and drive at the speed that they would have done had there been no obstruction in their way. In my opinion that is where most of the damage to vehicles occurs.

My local Sainsburys has speedhumps throughout their car parking area but they are the type that can be negotiated without ones vehicle being subjected to any buffeting if you drive sensibly and slow down to a speed that is reasonable given the dangers to pedestrians and other motorists that are inherent in large (and not so large) car parks. Indeed, it is possible to drive around most of them if the traffic is not too busy but watching cars driving over the high point of most of the obstructions makes me wonder whether they (the drivers, not the cars) do it deliberately either in ignorance of the consequences to their vehicles or for more sinister reasons.

Humps are there to slow us down. We don't like them but if we slow down I reckon that little damage will be caused to our cars. If we protest about them by driving over them as though they weren't there then I'm afraid that most of the damage caused is down to the driver not the authority who constructed the hump. The original poster said that he went over 'his' hump at 15mph, which he claimed was not excessive although he said that the hump was 'quite high'. I would disagree. I think that 15mph over a high obstruction is excessive.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Manatee
Scouseford - I certainly don't advocate shooting speed humps at excessive speed. Some of them are very unpleasant at 5 or 10 mph and are actually less uncomfortable at speed.

I have no problem with a 20 limit, or even a 10mph limit in the right place - by all means make a limit and enforce it. But don't build obstructions in a thirty limit that have to be negotiated almost from a dead stop to avoid damage.

Dox - I have never had to replace a coil spring, or indeed any spring since I took off in a Morris Oxford on the canal bridge at Gargrave and landed rather heavily breaking a rear leaf spring!
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - George Porge
If there's the slightest chance of giving the council a hard time over this and
Surrey_Scientist has the time he should go for the throat.


Are you going to underwrite surreyscientists losses should he lose?

I replaced a pair of front springs last year and I'm about to do the same again soon (different cars), I see the top coils off vehicles lying in the gutter all the time, they're like tyres, they wear out.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - b308
I agree with souseford, we have a set right outside the house and its noticable that a large number of people just ignore them, or travel over them too quickly.

I have found that 21/22 mph is about right, but there is one hump (a replacement) that is worse than all the others, most people know this and either slow right down, or if possible go round it... its not too high, the sides are not sloped correctly.

I've followed this debate from the start and would have thought that it would be difficult to prove that the hump was at fault and not just that the spring was at the end of its life... I suppose it depends on whether the LA are prepared to fight it or just give in... the only way of finding that out is to try suing them I suppose...
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Manatee
>>I have found that 21/22 mph is about right

So have a 20 limit and enforce it - your local ones may feel OK at this speed but hit half a dozen of these twice a day and what is the cumulative damage?

They are an illogical abomination. You might as well just leave the roads potholed on the grounds that this will slow people down a bit.

The unfortunate fact is that the council probably does have a good defence in that the last event simply broke an already cracked spring - but would the spring have been in that state without thousands of earlier speed bump encounters?

I refuse to damage my car or tyres over these things, and traverse them at snail's pace if necessary - I'm sure the planners didn't intend me to slow to 0.5mph, or to stay at 10mph between humps to avoid extra brake wear and fuel consumption, and the following drivers often don't appreciate it, but I'm not playing their game.

Enough is enough - I can see this being the next big motorists revolt if say Watchdog made a story out of it. Perhaps too politically incorrect for them, sadly.

Edited by Manatee on 29/03/2009 at 12:18

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Bagpuss
Whether or not speed humps are necessary is a different discussion as to whether they are built properly.

I used to have a Golf GTI whose front spoiler grounded on a number of speed humps where I lived, despite me driving over them at walking pace. To me this means either the car was too low or the speed hump was too high.

Cars, of course, are painstakingly designed and built according to construction and use specifications against which they are also independently tested before the manufacturer is allowed to sell them. Whilst there are also construction specifications for speed humps, the ones I have seen built seem to have relied to a large extent on guesswork on the part of those doing the building. I'm guessing councils just farm these jobs out to whomever is cheapest and no one worries too much about checking whether the end result conforms to specifications or not.

I've mentioned this before, but there seem to be an incredidble number of people on this forum and other UK motoring forums who suffer from broken springs. There don't seem to be anything like so many broken spring problems discussed in motoring forums in the US or Germany for example.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Altea Ego
"I used to have a Golf GTI whose front spoiler grounded on a number of speed humps where I lived, despite me driving over them at walking pace. To me this means either the car was too low or the speed hump was too high.Cars, of course, are painstakingly designed and built according to construction and use specifications against which they are also independently tested before the manufacturer is allowed to sell them"

Its not formula one - there is no enforced rules about ride height or splitters/spoilers.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Bagpuss
Its not formula one - there is no enforced rules about ride height or splitters/spoilers.


There are construction and use rules regarding entry and exit angles for passenger cars which are used (among other things) to determine ground clearance, front valence/spoiler depth and exhaust positioning when a car is designed.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Altea Ego
There are construction and use rules regarding entry and exit angles for passenger cars which
are used (among other things) to determine ground clearance front valence/spoiler depth and exhaust positioning



really ? -- reference please
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Bagpuss
really ? -- reference please


Sorry, can't be bothered trawling through my old Car Industry specs. It's beer time :-)
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Altea Ego
Oh I see.

I shall treat your assertion with the care it requires then.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Stuartli
>>I used to have a Golf GTI..>>

My VW Bora's front spoiler grounds in the same way on many speed bumps despite going over them very slowly.

I recall a few years ago that Sefton Council had to reimburse motorists whose vehicles had been damaged because new speed bumps in Maghull were over the permitted size. All the speed bumps had to be rebuilt.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - yorkiebar
have to agree with scouseford, lot of fuss over nothing.

Like speed calming measures or not; thats what they are. I have never had a spring break going over thousands that i do.

I replace springs on cars regularly, sometimes daily. Even after car has just been parked up too. Sadly on a lot of cars they are poorly designed and wear out/break.

I say poorly designed, because some cars such as Rover, Audi, most japanese are hardly ever affected by this issue. Vauxhall, Ford, Renault, Peugeot, VW and others are. So some cars are affected others arent = design issue in my book.

But to a speed hump breaking a spring? Not if the spring is in good roadworthy condition and the speed hump traversed at an appropriate speed.

Claiming against the council just puts my taxes up. Don't do it!
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Armitage Shanks {p}
If a speedhump is in a 30 limit then 29 is an appropriate speed to traverse it without having your car wrecked, always taking into account pedestrians, weather, cyclists etc. If they want the limit to be 20 then post it and enforce it. I appreciate that the limit is not a target but, if the conditions are appropriate, it should be possible to cross a bump/hump/cushion at a speed below the posted limit without damaging any part of your car or spine!
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Manatee
>>it should be possible to cross a bump/hump/cushion at a speed below the posted limit without damaging any part of your car or spine!


Hear hear!
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - scotty
Hear hear!


I second that - hear hear again.

As I mentioned in a previous thread, the 20 mph speed limit through our village has been deemed unenforceable and is to revert to 30. Are the speed limits designed and installed to control a 20 limit to be altered or removed for the higher 30 limit? ... No, of course not.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - b308
>>I have found that 21/22 mph is about right
So have a 20 limit and enforce it


Ok, M, how do you propose to ensure that the vast majority of the motorists go down our road at 30 (the limit, btw) without them (and bear in mind costs when you propose something, 'cause we taxpayers have to pay for it)...

It is a 30 limit but the normal speed was 40 or so by the majority before they introduced them, they tried speed traps and that only worked when they were around, rest of the time speeds went back up. Its a residential street in a 60s/70s built estate and anything above 30 is wholy unacceptable, but that doesn't seem to get through to people...

So we got the humps...

I've said before that I don't like them but they are a neccessary evil until someone comes up with a foolproof and cheaper method of ensuring that people don't exceed the limit in residential streets then we'll have to live with them...

As for an "illogical abomination", actually they are not, they are a very logical step taken by authorities when people cannot, or will not, abide by the law of the land.

Edited by b308 on 29/03/2009 at 15:52

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Manatee
>>As for an "illogical abomination", actually they are not,

Roads should not be designed in a way that damages cars and their occupants, increases noise and emissions, and distracts the driver. But you are entitled to your opinion.

>>Ok, M, how do you propose to ensure that the vast majority of the motorists go down our road at 30 (the limit, btw) without them (and bear in mind costs when you propose something, 'cause we taxpayers have to pay for it)...

It would be an idea to site cameras where they are actually useful wouldn't it? The technology is available, and it could be deployed as budgets allow - speed humps and the attendant paraphernalia are not free either, millions have been spent.

If obstructions have to be used, there is a whole series of alternative traffic management/calming options available. Only in Britain do we seem to need these things in such numbers. They are a plague, and the local authorities that have rejected them are not, apparently, seeing an increase in accidents, quite the reverse.

I also live on a straight stretch of road in a 30 limit where some drivers are accelerating hard and hitting 60, before braking for a bend 200m further on. I'd like the limit enforced, but I do not want half a mile of humps under any circumstances.

Edited by Manatee on 29/03/2009 at 16:13

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - gordonbennet
I've said before that I don't like them but they are a neccessary evil


I fully agree with you, when the satellite technology is in place for road pricing these things maybe won't be so essential as road speed will be automatically recorded anyway, not something i'm looking forward to for many reasons.

Until then some drivers will insist on driving at idiotic speed in the wrong place and humps are one thing that helps to slow them down.

Ironically enough the humps work better against the chav type with lowered bespoilered cars that cannot cross these things fast without damage/pain, and as they are often one major group of offenders thats a good thing.
If they want to brake violently for each bump and speed back up till the next, it has the same effect in that their usual heap of a car won't last long either so another good thing.
Unfortunately they don't work well against the number one offender...white van man, and i can't see a way of making them drive sensibly anyway.

Until then if people want to go thumping over humps at the speed limit they'll just have to pay for the resultant damage to their cars.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - b308
Thanks, GB, put it much better than I!

A minority spoiling for the rest of us, as usual....

M,

>>Roads should not be designed in a way that damages cars and their occupants, >>increases noise and emissions, and distracts the driver.

I agree, but until you can get some common sense into our fellow drivers then we're stuck with them...

>>It would be an idea to site cameras where they are actually useful wouldn't it? The >>technology is available, and it could be deployed as budgets allow - speed humps >>and the attendant paraphernalia are not free either, millions have been spent.

But humps are cheaper than the alternatives, including cameras which only work actually where they are located (if the fixed type) and average ones don't work in residential streets because people will speed past them and then stop in their drive before the next one...

>>If obstructions have to be used, there is a whole series of alternative traffic >>management/calming options available.

Such as? They also tried the "block half the road" chicanes but they didn't work... sorry, m8, but the only thing that actually slows most people down was humps, so thats what we got!

It seems that the only way forward is going to be some sort of electronic control, as GB says, but that will also take all the fun out of motoring...

But perhaps if we motorists actually took some responsibility for our actions and actually drove at appropriate speeds for the location they wouldn't have to, would they... but, from my experience on the road I live on, that just doesn't happen, because there's always some joker(s) (please substitute a stronger word) who won't play ball and spoils it for everyone...

Well, I hope they'll be satisfied with the results... not!
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Lud
What a load of sanctimonious garbage people talk about these offensive and wholly unnecessary things, most of which are illegal if they are only supposed to be four inches high anyway.

AS HJ points out they are one reason why well-heeled city dwellers buy otherwise unnecessarily large and high vehicles, and why special desert-racer developed suspension would be a good idea for an urban runabout.

That way we coulld ignore the things while local authorities slowly realise that they can't afford to carry on spending a fortune hampering traffic flow and obstructing the road system, and spend the little they have left repairing the road surfaces and getting them back in decent condition. Damn carphounds.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - yorkiebar
There seems to be 2 different discusions on this thread.

1 Do we like humps etc? We all dont

But the op question was, did it damage his spring. The answer is directly, no; it may have contributed, but so did other factors too.

Pursuing the councils and raising my taxes over wear and tear items is virtually a dead loss unless you can prove it is built wrong, and that the spring was in good condition before mounting it, and wasnt speeding when he hit it etc etc.

Simply disliking humps is not going to change the answer to the question.

30 mph outside a school at kicking out time may be legal; but its not safe. Because people have been brainwashed into thinking that 30 (or 20) is acceptable everywhere and no longer drive at an appropriate speed for the surroundings we are stuck with these items that annoy rather than calm ! However, trying to maintain 30 at all costs in the 30 limit is part of the reason we have got them!

Think about your own driving standards before knocking attempts at trying to curb you. Yes YOU !
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Lud
Surely you can't mean me yorkiebar? I was thinking about my own driving standards, in highly critical fashion too, decades before greed, corruption, stupidity and too many badly driven automobiles provided local authorities with excuses for these false and irksome quick fixes.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - yorkiebar
If you wish it to include you Lud, you may.

But i meant you plurally, not singularly !

It was actually at all of us! Myself included. We all drive perfectly and its always the others I know !
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - welshlad
having perused the aforemention points to affirm a conclusive overview of the stautory requirements of traffic calming measures (i read what everyone wrote) i think that what we have here is a traditional 'we changed they didnt occurance'.

most newer cars these days have slimline tyres, and are lower to the ground, whereas the local authories are still blindly following legislation that was concieved when cars rode on 4 inches of rubber and you could get underneath without jacking the car up and dintnt come with bits that protude below the front bumper, so really i think its about time the rules for building traffic calming measures were changed to accomodate the changes in car design
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Marc
My 53 Vectra (that I've virtually owned from new) had a broken front spring at the last MOT on about 65k. I've never had a broken spring on any of the nine cars I've owned (even the old bangers I drove as a student)

I asked the tester what could have caused it and he said speed humps/cushions. It's par for the course these days apparently. Oh, and I do drive over these "devices" gently.

Edited by Marc on 29/03/2009 at 23:54

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - bell boy

2001 was the turning point for spring manufacture
after this time they are all made in pontefract out of liquorice
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Andrew-T
I regard speed humps as no more than an irritation, and it depresses me that authorities consider them as a solution to any problem; but I don't object violently to trundling over them as gently as is required to avoid damage.

What I really object to, is the obstruction they must present to vehicles in a serious hurry, such as a loaded fire engine or an ambulance with an injured person who would prefer to travel more comfortably.

It seems too much like authority saying 'if you won't conform to our driving standards willingly, we shall have to make it less pleasant for you'; and for all other drivers, of course.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - L'escargot
Car parts wear out it may come as a shock to some but they do


Absolutely. A friend had a front spring on her Citroën C3 break and the car had never been over a speed hump in its life.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - L'escargot
The number of speed humps must vary widely from one area to another. I do 10,000 miles a year and I only see one hump, and that's in a cul-de-sac that I don't use very often.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - treecott
I have read with interest this discussion, and all the replies. I am at present trying to make a claim against my local council. I have an 02 Corsa, which has done 14,500 miles. I have recently had a service and an MOT on this car. It has done precisely 903 miles since last MOT. I live in a small village, where two years ago, speed cushions were placed at either end. The only speed cushions or humps I have to go over are the ones in the village. My car failed it's MOT as THREE coil springs were broken. This cost me £276 to get repaired, and I feel that the speed cushions definitely have caused the problem. Whilst I agree with some posts that parts wear out, and to a degree I agree wear would have played a part, given the age of the car, but the speed cushions have definitely played their part as well. Had they not been put there, I have no doubt on the mileage I do, the coil springs would not have broken, perhaps one may have done, but not three.

The speed cushions are in poor condition already, with bolts protruding above the top of the cushion, and the edges of the cushion are lifted off the road, and are well above the 6mm regulation for vertical height. I therefore feel that as they are not maintained, and have not been maintained since they were put in, the council has failed in it's duty of care. Therefore no matter whether I was driving at 30mph over these cushions, or 5/10 miles (which I do), the damage would be the same, as they are in my opinion, not up to the regulations stated when they were put in.

I feel like some other repliers, that if there is a 30mph limit, then you should be allowed to travel at that speed, and if an obstruction is in the road, you should still be able to drive at the permitted speed limit, without damage to your car.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Rattle
I had to get two rear springs replaced on my V reg Corsa just 200 miles after a fresh MOT was issued. I didn't report it though. My car did have 80k on the clock at the time though. Personaly the bumps near me if I drove over them at 30mph I would cause a lot of damage!!

The speed limit is not a target to be reached, it is the maximum speed you can drive at. There are lots of roads near me with a 30mph limit but if you drove at them at that speed it would be pretty stupid and dumb.

Sorry I just have little sympathy, the suspension is always failing on my dads every MOT time it is just the way the roads are now. If people didn;t drive too fast we would have no need for speed bumps.

Edited by Rattle on 18/05/2009 at 22:07

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Armitage Shanks {p}
I will re-post my views on this vexatious matter. A speed hump/cushion is a 'blunt instrument' with no science or much thought put into its design or construction. Road conditions and weather permitting it should be possible to proceed thru a 30 mph limit at 29 mph without having your car, spine or neck damaged. Any council that puts these obstructions in the road should be prepared to pay for the damage they cause to people and machines. If there was a pothole the size/depth of a speed hump in the road they'd be obliged to repair it or pay for damage. Why should a pothole that sticks 'up' be any different? Discuss!
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - perro
Having reflected on the matter of speed humps, their total countrywide removal and attending to the problem of excessive speed through built up areas, I have come to the conclusion that 'The Way Forward' would be Pilotless remote controlled drone aircraft.
The very thought of being vaporised would tend to focus ones mind outwards to other members of the community instead on inwards on ones selfish desire for speed on public roads at all costs and its inherent danger.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Honestjohn
If you report a pothole or crumbling, tyre-shredding speed cushion using www.fixmystreet.co.uk then the problem is automatically reported to the relevant authority and a record kept. That then creates a liability on the authority to repair the road or to compensate anyone for any damage caused by the problem.

HJ

Edited by Honestjohn on 19/05/2009 at 13:07

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - treecott
Hi all, I placed a message on this thread in May. Briefily, my car had 3 broken coil springs I feel were damaged by the speed cushions in the village where I live. I contacted the council to claim the money I had to pay out to get the coil springs replaced. They initially wrote back saying that the cushions were within the regulations, and I had to prove negligence on their part, or a failure to comply with a Statutory duty. Not deterred, i contacted the Dept. for Transport, to get clarification on the Regulations for speed cushions, and this is what I was given.

All Local Authorities have given guidance on traffic calming in Local Transporrt Note 1/07: Traffic Calming, which includes advice on maintenance of road humps. Indeed, section 4.3.5 states "that it should be remembered that, if a poorly maintained hump has a vertical upstand of over 6mm, it will no longer be in accordance with the road hump regulations".
This also applies to speed cushions. This is an official reply by the Dept for Transport.

Having got this information, I again contacted the council, and threatened to take legal action without further notification if I did not get satisfaction within 28 days. I got paid 75% of the claim on a Without Prejudice basis, the other 25% was wear and tear, which I felt was fair.

The moral of this little story is to persist with a claim, but know your rights as well. The council has a duty to maintain these humps, and if they dont. they are liable for damages.
I would suggest anyone who has pre-formed/moulded speed cushions nearby, that are distorted with wear, bolts protruding, and edges raised, go check them with a tape measure, take photos, if they are over 6mm from road surface to top of the vertical edge, you have a valid claim. Check on the dft's website, for LTN 1/07, the address is:- www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tpm/ltnotes/. This should get you the information you need to validate negligence. Good Luck. If I can do it, you can.

I have now got our local MP on the case to try to get these cushions removed, until they can be replaced with something that conforms with the regulations. Will keep you advised.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - b308
The very thought of being vaporised would tend to focus ones mind


LOL!

Thats about the most sensible suggestion yet!

AS, I've said many times before that whilst I don't like speed humps either I can't see any alternative that would keep drivers to within the speed limit... if you take the humps away from our road the 30 limit would just be seen as a minimum speed, not a a limit, like it was before their introduction...

As far as I can see the only workable alternative would be speed governors as mentioned in a previous thread... if that technology was limited to use within 40 limits and below only I can't really see any sensible objection... the problem is that they want to use it on all roads... and also that, as most of us are a suspicous bunch, we would not trust them to keep their word...

Edited by b308 on 19/05/2009 at 11:50

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Rattle
Thats the problem there is a road near me, ten years ago people used to do 40 easily down it. They have now put bumps on and its impossible to go over 20mph (there is also a 20 limit down some of it) and since then I don't think there has been any deaths.

Most drivers seem to be thick and have no idea when to adjust the speed for conditions hence councils have to force them.
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - barney100
I am very grateful to the speed humps because they opened up a clear view of my towns attitude to its residents. Traffic calming in Basingstoke has sprung up all over the place and despite opposition....especially from me .....the council just do exactly as they like. The local humps cost me a rear spring. I never had a spring go pre humps by the way. Tracking is always being done. Not only humps round here, priority to oncoming traffic islands which are just plain stupid. Road junctions narrowed so only one car can get through at a time with no priority indicated. Speed ramps which jar the car and you etc etc. The thing which stands out in all this is that the authorities cannot control speeders by policing so the majority of careful law abiding drivers are paying the price. I wouldn't be surprised to see humps on the M3...................................
Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - antonitus

I went over a bump in Haringey Council and both my shock coil springs at the front of my car broke at the same time, what bad luck. I just went to my mechanic and I am going to be charged £320 to get it fixed. There are so many humps wherever I go in the Haringey Borough and those bumps broke my springs. I go over them at around 10-15 mpg, which is normal. I want to sue them for some oversized rough humps. I am going to measure some of them. Do you think I have a case as I believe some of them are over 100mm. I've had enough of these stupid humps. They should be shorter and much smoother and not like cliffs. They broke my springs, so therefore they should pay for it. Does anyone know of a case being won by a motorist because of this? I am going to set up a Facebook page to expose them. I am also going to create a petition to abolish these high unsmooth humps through the UK.

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Bromptonaut

Lets keep this to facts not campaigns.

What is make/model/age of your car and is it modified in any way?

Is there a link (eg streetview) to street etc involved.

Speedhump broke Front Spring - claim from council - Avant

"I went over a bump in Haringey Council......I go over them at around 10-15 mpg...."

Either the councillors are all very fat - or else to use that much petrol you must have been going at such a speed that I'm surprised all the springs didn't break.

Sorry, I couldn't resist that, but seriously your first steps should be to find out if you can how many others have had broken springs from going over the humps. The more there are, the more you have a case: the fewer there are, the more the council will deny that there's a problem.

Edited by Avant on 23/03/2017 at 23:49

 

Ask Honest John

Value my car