A Brand-New “Near Term Speed Hump” Speed Bump, Installed on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park

Here it is:

20161028_121719-copy

These photos are from a few days back, and this bump / hump itself prolly was installed about ten days back. If you hit this thing at 25 + you will feel it, I promise you. My ride was practically made to handle something like this bump with aplomb, and I certainly felt it. Oh, and look, a speedometer system, of sorts:

20161028_121739-copy

Here’s the “near term” language, straight from our incompetent SFMTA.

Humps cause car deceleration without creating the noise, vibration or safety issues associated with their sharper bump cousins.

I’ll tell you, not a whole bunch of drivers go signif more than 25 MPH on the JFK, despite what SFGov might tell you, or imply, with their nonsensical “some traffic travels through JFK at 32-38 MPH type” of stat. Well, sure, some traffic. I go through at exactly 25 which requires a touch of braking on the downhillier parts like near Speedway Meadow. (Hellman Meadow? I don’t think that’ll take for a good long time.) Anyway, if you get on my rear bumper I’ll simply pull over, pretending to get ready to park, and then pull back in after you’ve passed me. But I don’t do that too often.

(If you wanted to decrease illegal “speeding” on JFK, you’d raise the limit to 30 MPH and, conversely, if you wanted to, for some reason, increase illegal speeding on JFK, you’d lower the limit to 20 MPH.)

Anyway, if you want to lower speeds on JFK, you’d put in a brace of speed bumps – that’ll work. Of course, there’d be the noise, vibration, and safety concerns of San Francisco voters, but that will get addressed later, one assumes…

And of course, a few speed bumps is nothing like this recent proposal.

And oh, down Mexico way, if a municipality want to have a nothingburger speed bumps like this, they’d hire somebody to do it one day and then it’d be done the next – it wouldn’t turn into an expensive half-year “project” with countless meetings and endless news releases…

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply