Jump to content

Talk:Speed bump

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellaneous

[edit]

At the time of this writing, the article Sleeping policeman contains the following text:

"A Sleeping policeman is a British term for a speed bump.
This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

This took five edits. This has got to be some low-productivity record.

(Just to make sure, I am not mocking the good men and women who took the time to edit this article, including the removal of a vandalism. I am mocking the world in general. The world, you see, can't hit me.) -Itai 19:18, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)


YouTube isn't considered an acceptable source, but a video on it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg79_mM2CNY shows the result of a lambo hitting a poorly unmarked speedbump at high speed.

[edit]

It seems like this is a specific example of traffic_calming, or at least relates to that also and should get a link of some kind. -- M0llusk 03:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a link in the first line of the article! Or do you think it needs a See Also section? Softgrow 04:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to write as the title.

[edit]

When I go to Jellystone Park (one of the real Jellystone Parks) with my aunt, I get in a golf cart with her, and she floors the accelerator and drives over every pothole and bump, including speed bumps, to make a really bumpy ride. When one of the park workers or the other members of my family are near, she acts like she's driving normally. It's really, really fun, no sarcasm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE62:8430:D00E:2F84:5383:9D31 (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotal origins.

[edit]

I find both theories of the speed bumps first use unlikely to be true progenitors to the speed bumps we know now. They may have been used independently in both the instances which are covered by the anecdotes, but I fail to see a clear connexion between either of them, and modern traffic control. For what it is worth, the first occurences of the term "speed bump" that the OED records, are from the latter half of the 1970's. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 17:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV and anti-traffic calming

[edit]

I would like to remove (again) the following section from the article and would like to consider it here:

Speed bumps, especially ones that are bolted to the road surface, could also cause bicycle crashes by diverting the front wheel of the bicycle, though in practise, cyclists are usually able to ride around them near the road margins.
A legal action was brought for a spinal injury sustained by a bus passenger whilst crossing a 'speed hump' in the UK:
"Neil Price, 53, an electrical retailer, of Kendal, Cumbria, was travelling on a Stagecoach bus in Dalton-in-Furness. He is now in the Royal Preston Hospital with two broken vertebrae and a damaged spinal cord. Doctors have told him it will be two or three weeks before they know whether he will walk again." (Daily Telegraph 8 October 2005 [1])

The arguments that are being presented here are common to anti-traffic calming groups . The facts quoted here are selective. I understand that one of our Wikipedians did have an accident at a speed hump, but that is original research :-). However looking in traffic engineering material I find that speed humps are tricky to negotiate for bicyclists and motorcyclists (due to the short wheelbase and having only two wheels), but not that they cause accidents. On balance bicyclists will be safer in a traffic calmed area due to lower vehicle speeds. The only conflict a bicyclist has with traffic calming is with roundabouts which create squeeze points where the bicyclist is forced into the stream of traffic. A similar argument of reduced injuries overall to the community applies to traffic calming. To get decent articles for Wikipedia you need to not just google out "facts" but need to consult books in libraries. Softgrow 20:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the West Morland Gazette article and the Daily Telegraph article I've deleted the section about Neil Price. There is no mention of legal action and no clear link between his injury and the speed hump. Softgrow 05:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I feel very sorry for the injured man, but the cause & effect link is only anecdotal. Also, this is a 'man bites dog' type of story. The un-newsworthy converse of 'no children injured on road since installation of traffic claming' is never going to receive national publicity.
Also, with regard to the cyclist's accident - rubber speed humps are not used on the public highway - it must have been on private land. There is possibly a need for this article to distinguish between the regulated designs used on public roads and these used on privately owned land which I believe include a lot of the 'worst' ones.--JBellis 12:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agreee, the article does need some sort of division between public and private speed humps. The private ones are often not constructed to standards and have huge variation. On private land, speed humps are used to try and reduce traffic flow mainly so are often constructed "extra bumpy" without looking at ground clearance etc. The speed hump refered to might have been a bolt on steel one (I've seen one at Bunnings, Mile End, Adelaide). I believe there is a rubber speed hump on a public road at Strangways Terrace, North Adelaide. This was used in an attempt to make it quieter for surrounding residences. I will dig up the dimensions for speed humps from the Australian Standard and incorporate some of its key points under a new section "Design Issues" or similar. Softgrow 20:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rubber bolt-on one that I had the accident on was in a high school parking lot in the US, so I agree that a distinction between public roads and others is appropriate. I'll make a stab at including it. Since I last edited, some new speed bumps have appeared on a public road that I frequent, and I agree that the design is MUCH better, with a nice smooth rise and fall that shouldn't bother a bicyclist nearly as much as the one I encountered. Spalding 00:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may count as "original research" but I figure from lifetime experience (I am now age 62 as of Feb 8 of 2006) driving in USA (since age 14), I have NEVER seen a poorly designed speed bump, and I see them, or drive over them, every day for decades, I figure there has to be a standard some place that is well followed.

Now I often see another kind of thing that I think is poorly designed. There is a concrete block placed at the ends of parking spaces, intended for auto tires to be stopped at, but many vehicles have different elevations between street and bottom, leading to bottom of end of car often scraping on them, their ends can cause tires to be punctured.

Another poorly designed reality is where driveways from commercial areas leave elevation associated with sidewalk and regular roadway. I always take them slowly, I often scrape bottom of car when transitioning them. User:AlMac|(talk) 12:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of a woman who came off her bike on 4th September in Bromley, close to where I live. The hump was camoflaged by the dappled shade of a tree. The broke her jaw in three places and spent several days in hospital. Her name is Anja Szkodowski. London borough of Bromley stopped laying new speed humps three years ago even though they can get the cost substantially covered by the greater London authority. In Bromley, they became an election liability. London borough of Brent are removing them. London borough of Lewisham and Greenwich are installing them.

London borough of Bromley have instead started to use speed reminders. They actually show what speed you are travelling, and using pedestrian refuges and build-outs with trees planted in them. I understand that they have proven extremely cheap and effective at reducing speed and improving road safety. --Nick R Hill 23:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rothkrug

[edit]

Methinks this is made up... I find no mention of the name Edgar Rothkrug anywhere, that added paragraph is kinda weird in general... [Patent Search for Inventor "Rothkrug"]

[edit]

I would like to discusss here the inclusion or deletion of this link. The following bits of Wikipedia Policy would appear to be relevant

and of course

I have looked at the website and it is
  • anonymous (no person or organisation named on the website as owning it)
  • registered on 23 December 2005 to someone with the same name as the editor who inserted it
  • about a local issue (supporting a campaign against road hump schemes in Catford, United Kingdom)
I think the link should be removed as it is not reliable (too anonymous), is about a local dispute and partisan. Softgrow 20:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Softgrow The web site is part of a campaign to encourage discussion of road humps and similar measures in general. Not just in London, or in Catford. As you have rightly pointed out, the web site is fairly new, but has already attracted many members and support as an important resource. In fact, it is being published as a flagship piece in a local paper next week.

The web site includes links to many resources, including the wikipedia articles on road bumps and "traffic calming" which you also closely watch. So it is neither commercial, or a black hole, or POV.

You may find my environmental position is at least as green as yours. I have just turned down an offer of a free flight and boarding in Boston as I am concerned about the unnecessary environmental footprint encouragement of flying causes. I am in favour of limits to drilling and mining fossil fuels. I am anti nuclear, andt-war, I use a bicycle. My light bulbs are compact flourescent, my boiler (furnace) is condensing.

Myself and other people involved in the site project (both for and against humps) are collecting data from real safety and pollution experiences in London and elsewhere to help compensate for the very poor balance of public information.

I am not against local zones where cars are either shut out, or speeding is discouraged or made impossible. I am strongly against the type of one-sidedness and lack of consultation of the relatively new London Mayor. I am in favour of public discourse about issues such as humps and "Traffic Calming". My opinion is that the term "Traffic Calming" is in itself POV. However, I am not silencing anyone from using it. I am concerned about data from the ambulance service casting doubt on the safety of humps, I am concerned about drivers choosing larger vehicles to reduce the effect of humps. These are issues of great public importance and need to be discussed. If not on my site, then on the wikipedia pages. There are many options for speed control apart from humps, these should be discussed. I don't think you are doing the public or the green movement any favours by supressing this.

Softgrow, if you would like to join the discussion and have positive points to make, or counter any arguments given in the discussion section of the web site, you are most welcome. After all, it is an open discussion forum. --Nick R Hill 22:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here Is Cite for the (Removed) Second NY Times Story

[edit]

I was the one who found and quoted the two NYT stories regarding the Chatham, NJ speed bumps. Mareino removed the quote from the second article, presumably because s/he could not find the story. Please check again -- it is titled "Bumps" Check Autos, and can be found on p. 20 of the 4/24/1906 Times. I think the excerpt deserves to be restored because it describes the animated reactions of drivers and onlookers to this never-before-seen device. --MikeMiscione 08:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Mike Miscione.[reply]

Other uses section?

[edit]

Shouldn't the other uses section be in a disambiguation page? Where it is right now, no person who is not specifically interested in the roadway meaning of speed hump would see the other uses. Nova SS 18:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should. This page should be moved to "Speed bump (road)" or similar and a new disambiguation page created. Softgrow 21:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the other uses to a disambiguation page. The most common meaning is the bump on a road so I've left this page as the main article with a pointer to a disambigution page. Softgrow 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV without source

[edit]

I've removed the following two paragraphs which lack any sources and would fall foul of the WP:NPOV policy. If they are to be included they must be statements from a reputable source, not just anonymous criticism or thought of an individual editor.

May encourage drivers to choose larger or 4x4 cars, which tend to be less affected by road humps. Larger cars typically have a larger environmental footprint.
The overall safety of a Traffic Calming scheme must be considered, along with the potential impact on sick, disabled and elderly residents. Where vertical deflection measures are used (for example, road humps), travel can be made painful for the elderly, infirm, those suffering osteoporosis and back or neck injuries. Consideration needs to also be given for potential delays to ambulance and other emergency vehicles. Further research needs to be conducted to determine whether or not road humps have a nett effect of saving lives taking into account emergency vehicle delays and whether humps hamper treatment on-route in an ambulance. Kidney dialysis patients and other patients with fitted catheters may experience a higher than normal rate of dislodged catheters, often leading to otherwise unnecessary emergency surgery.

Softgrow 11:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other criticisms of speed bumps, include: [citation needed]
  • Larger vehicles, such as buses, are unimpeded by speed cushions. These cause serious injury to pedestrians during an accident, unlike the modern motor car where pedestrian safety is taken in to consideration, especially for EuroNCAP ratings [2].
  • kill more people than they save, mainly due to the aforementioned delays in providing timely emergency service.
  • Encourages rapid acceleration and speed increases in certain spots as drivers attempt to make up for time lost slowing down for the bumps. Even between bumps, drivers accelerate and brake harshly.
  • Speed of traffic around speed bumps is unpredictable increasing danger from excess speed (7%) to one of Failure to judge other persons path or speed at 10.7% [3]
  • Traffic moves to the middle of the road to avoid speed cushions, partially against on coming traffic.
  • Motorcyclists are forced to move either side of a speed cushion. This means they are either then often running over slippery man hole covers and drains or in to on coming traffic.
  • Correct operation of anti-lock braking systems is affected, increasing stopping distances.
  • Similar to motorcyclists, push bike users are forced to avoid the speed cushions. If cyclists hit a speed bump too quickly, but within the speed limit, they are launched in to the air, losing control of their bike.

I've removed the above as it has remained anonymous for some time without any movement to actually name the critics. Alex Sims 05:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article comprises mainly unattributed statements, how did you decide which ones you would remove? I've restored the criticisms again and flagged and dated it all as unreferenced. -- de Facto (talk). 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article is well referenced for the most part. Please be nice to other editors and not mark a whole article when only sections need work. I'll go through and mark the relevant sections. Please also reread Policy on original research - Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. The criticism paragraph (which I will remove again) is a list of facts (some of which are from reliable sources) which you link to advance a position critical of speed bumps. This is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. This isn't the case here. Alex Sims 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read it many times before. It applies to the 'synthesis' of all facts, not just of criticism added by anonymous editors. To remain neutral you need to remove or flag all non-attributed synthesis. You really need to know whether it is OR or simply non-attributed. -- de Facto (talk). 10:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I marked it with a fact tag some months ago to try and flush out some attribution. None has been forthcoming so it must be original research (one of the facts listed was personal experience of an editor which is OR). For any editor to reinsert the material they will need to justify it's inclusion. (policy somewhere, will find in a minute). Alex Sims 11:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE - first paragraph - "Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." Alex Sims 11:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raised Crosswalks

[edit]

Shouldn't Raised Crosswalks be explicitly described as a variant of the speed bump? Seanxr 15:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I consider it a variant.--Jusjih 15:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other articles?

[edit]

I've just come across three articles (with a more North American focus) that cover very similar ground to speed bump:

It appears as though much of the content in this article belongs there or alternatively a main "Vertical deflection device used on roadways used to reduce speed" article is needed to make them all linked. Alex Sims 05:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So long as you don't try to say that they're all the same thing! Us road geeks will have your head for that. :) Actually, I do agree that the similarities between them could merit consideration for a general article which deals with each specifically, then links them up with a comparison of advantages to disadvantages. First question: any other thoughts? Second question: anyone willing to undertake this endeavor? --Thisisbossi 05:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a general article along the lines you suggest - "Vertical deflection traffic calming devices" or similar, with a section on each type with their respective applications, benefits, disbenefits, etc. It could be paired with a "Horizontal deflection traffic calming devices" article covering kerb extensions, chicanes and associated ideas. -- de Facto (talk). 09:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a Navigational template to join them together. Alex Sims 02:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a merger is a very good idea. I suggest a single article with discusses them all generally, has a table that lists their sizes and other differences concisely, has a section on their relative benefits, and with (most) photos in a gallery at the end. I think a section on each type is unnecessary; the purpose of a merger would be to more easily show their similarities and differences and cut back on repetition, which separate sections would do. I'll add various merger tags later today unless anyone complains madly before I get to it. —Felix the Cassowary 06:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bump, Hump, Table, and Cushion

[edit]

We need to review this article thoroughly to make sure that it is specifically regarding speed bump and not speed humps or speed tables, or speed cushions. Some comparing and contrasting is OK, but there are several portions within this article which I suspect is not particularly relevant to speed bumps. I'll try and review this whenever I get a chance, but I wouldn't mind if others beat me to it. Of course, this bars any further decision on the above merge recommendation. Sláinte! --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

[edit]

Alex Sims and IP users: take your bickering here, please, and stop with the reversions. Now as far as the info being added by the IPs is concerned, I only request that the information be cleaned up (spelling, grammar, punctuation... it's horrid!), relocated out of the intro and into the appropriate sections, and its sentences combined to form more coherent paragraphs. I'll stay out of the whole is it POV or not issue -- that's for you all to discuss here. --Bossi (talk • gallery • contrib) 22:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Speed Humps in the U.K."

[edit]

Why does this section exist, as is, seeing as none of the "traffic calming" variants listed are actually what amounts to a "speed bump"? - -Freedom4all (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV flag

[edit]

The article as currently written seems to be primarily about why speed bumps are bad for you, your car, and Mother Teresa, and then proposes a "solution" available for a reasonable price at a dealer near you! 150.148.0.27 (talk) 22:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree. While the article could be better written and more facts included, I think the tagging per the above comment is unnecessary. I will remove the tag as there has been no further comment one way or the other in the last month. --Matilda talk 22:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just skimmed it and in my view it is currently very anti in its point of view. It is also quite shallow in terms of the engineering aspects. I've just added yet another "citation needed" for an anti point. If I were likely to come back to this page, I would have retagged it. -- David Woolley (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might as well complain that the NAMBLA and Hitler articles are "currently very anti" in their points of view. Wikipedia has limits to the NPOV idea. Just as you believe that speed humps have some redeeming qualities, there are those who believe that NAMBLA and Hitler have some redeeming qualities. This doesn't mean that a failure to allow for such extreme and unusual views is a NPOV violation. 50.89.71.42 (talk) 05:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow.... There's an obvious difference between the subject of this article and NAMBLA or Hitler. Supporters of either the later pretty much amount to an extreme fringe of society which is reflected in the RS. This clearly isn't the case for speed humps otherwise they wouldn't be so common throughout the world nor a fair amount of research on the benefits and disadvantages. Funnily enough you seemed to partially acknowledge this with your mention of YIMBY. WP:Cherry picking sources to present support for speed humps as an extreme and unusual view is indeed a NPOV violation just as presenting as cherry picking sources to present a fringe positive iew on Hitler or NAMBLA is. Nil Einne (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Advances

[edit]

In the "possible advances" section, there is a claim of a young schoolboy inventing an electricity-generating speed bump with a reference to "islamonline.net". The whole section looks somewhat suspicious to me - I've googled for the inventor name and the only two results shown is an article in islamonline.net (no results from other websites) and this wikipedia article. Another thing that makes be doubt of accuracy and relevance of info in this section, is that almost two months earlier there was an announcement(cited by numerous news sites) of a similar system for which the working prototype is already under implementation. I think this passage is a kind of original research and show be removed. What do you think? --Zigmar (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The passage is word for word directly from the linked reference. Will be removed as copyvio. DarkAudit (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeping ol' policeman

[edit]

Anyone care to put an etymological source for the "sleeping policeman" term? Bennylin (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a different traffic management device formerly common in Australia, and known there as a silent cop. The name of this comes from the old practice of having police officers standing in the middle of an intersection directing traffic. So, standing and waving, but not lying down or sleeping on the job. The wikipedia entry for silent cop claims that these round yellow knobs were also called "sleeping policemen", although it is a completely different device to a "speed hump/bump". I am doubtful, I have never heard the expression "sleeping policeman" used in Australia. Lathamibird (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Speed hump

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It's not at all clear what the difference is between these two things. Both articles cover the same information, more or less. The "speed hump" article contains a section that describes the supposed difference between the two, but it's pretty obvious from both articles that nobody really knows nor understands these terms with that distinction in mind. In other words, the section tries to pick apart two words that are, in most people's understanding, synonyms. CodeCat (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Naming

[edit]

At risk of upsetting what I'm sure was a very contentiously-arrived-at compromise, I feel the need to point out that the name "Vertical deflection traffic calming device" enjoys a currency in popular use effectively indistinguishable from non-existence.

This is an article on various kinds of speed bumps. Call it that, or be preposterous. 174.89.175.59 (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on various speed-controlling measures, of which speed bumps are one. I agree that the title is cumbersome, but it covers the field. bd2412 T 17:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vertical deflection traffic calming device → Speed bump – Last year, after some discussion, a consensus was reached to merge four closely related articles - speed bump, speed hump, speed cushion, and speed table - because they are basically variations on a theme, and there was virtually complete overlap in discussions of their usage, composition, and drawbacks. I chose to name the merged article "vertical deflection traffic calming device" because that title is technically accurate and captures the field of various sizes of bumps put on the road to control traffic speeds. The name has drawn some complaints, and I admit that it is cumbersome and unintuitive. I therefore would like to gauge the opinion of the community on whether "speed bump" is a better title to cover the field. bd2412 T 14:44, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

strange opposite of NIMBY

[edit]

This is strangely the opposite of NIMBY. A really interesting issue with these, and speed limits in general, is that pretty much everybody...

  • demands them near their own home
  • opposes them everywhere else

Thus the devices are undesirable, but it's always the locals who are in control. The devices would go away if we could come to some sort of agreement: you get rid of yours, and I'll get rid of mine.

I'm not sure to call this. Surely it has a name, like NIMBY and Tragedy of the Commons. (maybe "Yes In My Backyard") The article ought to say something about this issue, using whatever term is standard.

50.89.71.42 (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YIMBY! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.115.35.196 (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want them near my house. I don't want them anywhere. I hate them passionately. John2o2o2o (talk) 07:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continental Differences Causing Repetitions

[edit]

Obviously, there's a lot of trouble over the years with this article.

Repetitive Iterations

[edit]
Countries driving on the left or right

The North American and British systems of traffic management, although contemporaneous, have basic differences that range from speed measurement to sizes of vehicle to what side of the road is used (at right). These differences cause difficulties in the article and, though factual, interrupt the flow and cause several redundancies. For example, the discussion of the disadvantages of speed bumps lists a North American example and then a British example where most of the same points are repeated. When you combine that repetition with the subsequent discussion on speed humps (...do I have to say it?), the repetition only gets worse. Last, we have a section that, out of the blue, brings in the UK.

Restructuring

[edit]

I suggest simplifying the article to address the topic from a generalized format describing speed bumps, speed humps, and speed tables, and their key differences in a short paragraph and then bring in national or continental terminologies (sleeping policemen, etc.). Criticisms are worthy of their own section with a surmised list of critical points against the different options. It really doesn't have to be as painful as the present revision, does it? --Srwalden (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Speed bump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Speed bump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Speed bump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Speed bump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

The history section jumps from before 1910 to Compton. It seems to say the speed bump was invented in the beginning of the century and then it was invented later. This is at best confusing. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:1D92:A114:182A:877B (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Speed_bump&oldid=1207996008"