Stupid speedhumps

PeteZahut ( snipped-for-privacy@this-address.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

It would seem so, yes.

Did it break after just going over the bump once? If that's the case then it must have already been on its way out!

I really do sympathise with you though. Look on the bright side, it's better your car breaking than it is your back! I hate them! In my car (a small car) I can sometimes drive between the humps, but it depends which humps they are. If it's a wide road, then maybe you can do that i you scenic?

I'd suggest the shock absorber was ready to break anyway. I can't believe a jolt like that could break a shock absorber in condition. Mike.

"PeteZahut" wrote in news:JsLJe.84703$ snipped-for-privacy@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

Get a claim in with your local council. A lot of other people have successfully claimed off the council for damage caused by speed humps. Talking to local exhaust fitters in my area, they have almost doubled their business during recent years, since speed humps began to spring up everywhere!

depends which humps they are. If it's a wide road, then maybe you can do that i you scenic?

Peter, do you ever *read* the posts you respond to?

;-)

Chris

French car build quality? ##

Fairly common I've seen a lot of renaults with broken shockers, mainly meganes and scenics.

I suggest posting this to uk.mothers.nursery

I used to go over them that way in my Focus, until one day I knocked my exhaust off its mountings. Simple matter of putting it back on again, but bear in mind that if you go over the humps that way then you're effectively lowering the distance between the road and the underside of the car. A point I neglected to notice until my exhaust was rattling one day! I now make a point of going over two at once, or else just making sure one side of the car goes over them.

Pain in the butt, and adds a good ten mins to my journey now, but I have to say they were badly needed in the locations they're at.

Oh and I also had a pinhole puncture on the inside sidewall of a front tyre last year, which neccessitated a new tyre about a month after I'd got two new ones fitted... I put that down to the humps too, as there's nowhere else that the inside wall of the tyre would have been in contact with anything.

Gary.

Sorry but either something was already wrong with the shocker or you're being economical with the truth.

I rattle over them in a Capri with 20 year old shocks without any issues.

Renault shockers = s*it, the most snapped shocker at the mo

"Gary McClean" wrote in news:42f7aa0f$0$97112$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net:

These are the places where speed cameras should be employed, IMHO (perhaps with a 20 limit if a particularly tight & narrow street), not on clear open roads where the risk of injury/death due to increased speed is much less.

Of course, as our beloved law enforcement agencies will keep telling us, speed cameras are purely a safety measure, absolutely *nothing* to do with generating *shitloads* of revenue for them.

BTW, I'm not bitter, I've never been caught by a speed camera or picked up any points whatsoever. I'm just rather cynical with regard to the motives of traffic police in general.

{Dons flame retardant suit}

Cue PC Paul.....

An oxymoron shurely?

What about checking whether the humps conform to the legal standards ?

(watch the wrap)

errr yea

Road Hump Dimensions The only dimensions now constrained by the regulations are: maximum and minimum heights of 100mm and 25mm respectively; a minimum length of 900mm; and no vertical face to exceed 6mm in height. It should be noted that the tolerances included in the 1990 Road Hump Regulations do not apply to the new regulations. So exceeding the 100mm height, without authorisation. So exceeding the 100mm height, without authorisation, would be likely to mean that Section 90E of Highways Act 1980 did not apply, with the result that the road hump could be viewed as an obstruction. (Humps constructed prior to the 1996 regulations will not be affected by this). Additionally it is not considered good practice to deliberately choose heights which are either higher or lower than those prescribed, on the grounds that the regulations would not then apply. This again would mean that Section 90E of the Highways Act would not apply with consequences for the highway authority in providing the device was not an obstruction.

renault build kwality

Economical with the truth? Thats what happened, like it or lump it. Maybe it was coincidence, maybe the shocker was on its way out, we'll never know. I didnt say they were in perfect condition and I dont get under the car to have a look every day. I was just venting that *if* that car hadnt been parked illegaly then I *mightn't* have had to drive over the bump and my shocker *might* still be working today.

"PeteZahut" wrote in news:C42Ke.85333$ snipped-for-privacy@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:

It's most likely that the spring was already broken and that hitting the speed bump unseated it. Coil spring breakages *do* happen occasionally and you don't always find out about it until MOT time or when something drastic happens like what you describe. If this was the case, you're lucky to have done it on the speed bump whilst travelling slowly, rather than hitting a pothole at high speed and sending the car out of control.

Stu ( snipped-for-privacy@home.com) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying :

Lovely, an' all - but he was talking about a damper, not a coil spring.

Yes, it is the spring that absorbs shocks, and therefore ought to be called the "shock absorber", rather than the damper - but we all know what he was referring to.

Besides, doesn't the Scenic have a torsion-beam rear, not coils?