Went to a few garages this afternoon to find out who does tracking.  When I 
asked about warranty on the work done, all but one of them said there was no 
warranty as the tracking could be knocked out by hitting a bump, etc.

Needless to say, the garage that would warrant their work (even though it 
was only 28 days) got my business.

Would anybody like to comment on why the tracking would be knocked out if 
you go over bumps, etc?  I'll bet none of them would be willing to put it in 
writing so that I could sue the council for their speed bumps contributing 
to it...

Darren

"Darren Jarvis"  wrote in message
news:gtFxe.16382$zM2.9096@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

> Went to a few garages this afternoon to find out who does tracking.  When
I
> asked about warranty on the work done, all but one of them said there was
no
> warranty as the tracking could be knocked out by hitting a bump, etc.
>
> Needless to say, the garage that would warrant their work (even though it
> was only 28 days) got my business.
>
> Would anybody like to comment on why the tracking would be knocked out if
> you go over bumps, etc?  I'll bet none of them would be willing to put it
in
> writing so that I could sue the council for their speed bumps contributing
> to it...
>
> Darren
>
>

well i cant comment about the tracking,
but the idea of taking the council to court over the speed bumps is a good
idea,
they are known to shourten the life of shock,
also they are a restriction. most of them make you go well under the speed
limit,
just amagine what they would say if you place seveal bumps outside of their
houses,, they would say they are an obstruction and take you to court for it
and probably say they are a hazard

On 03/07/2005 01:29 i didnt say that i dont think so wrote:


> "Darren Jarvis"  wrote in message
> news:gtFxe.16382$zM2.9096@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
>> Went to a few garages this afternoon to find out who does tracking.  When
> I
>> asked about warranty on the work done, all but one of them said there was
> no
>> warranty as the tracking could be knocked out by hitting a bump, etc.
>>
>> Needless to say, the garage that would warrant their work (even though it
>> was only 28 days) got my business.
>>
>> Would anybody like to comment on why the tracking would be knocked out if
>> you go over bumps, etc?  I'll bet none of them would be willing to put it
> in
>> writing so that I could sue the council for their speed bumps contributing
>> to it...
>>
>> Darren
>>
>>
> well i cant comment about the tracking,
> but the idea of taking the council to court over the speed bumps is a good
> idea,
> they are known to shourten the life of shock,
> also they are a restriction. most of them make you go well under the speed
> limit,
> just amagine what they would say if you place seveal bumps outside of their
> houses,, they would say they are an obstruction and take you to court for it
> and probably say they are a hazard
> 


IANAL but I believe that you take them to court for "non-feasance" which 
IIRC is failing to perform a required/statutory function - namely, to 
maintain the roads.

I have heard of several cases where Councils have paid for tyres/wheels 
damaged by potholes (and promptly repaired said pothole afterwards). 
Tracking might be a bit harder to prove though as I guess you'd have to 
prove that the tracking was correct prior to hitting the speed bump.

Parish

In article <gtFxe.16382$zM2.9096@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>, Darren Jarvis 
says...


> Would anybody like to comment on why the tracking would be knocked out if 
> you go over bumps, etc?  


Its not so much that as kerbing the wheel.


-- 
Conor

-You wanted an argument? Oh I'm sorry, but this is abuse. You want room 
K5, just along the corridor. Stupid git. (Monty Python)

In article <7kGxe.17234$11.6210@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>,
   i didnt say that i dont think so  wrote:

> well i cant comment about the tracking, but the idea of taking the
> council to court over the speed bumps is a good idea, they are known to
> shourten the life of shock,


Only if you try and take them at an unsuitable speed, and even then
where's your evidence? Take them at a reasonable speed and the shocks do
near nothing.

-- 
*A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

what do you class as unsuitable speed. There are humps by me on a 30mph
road. but you need to slow down to 15 to take them. Thats wrong.

--
--
Kind Regards
Neil B
Orange CS - +447837614753
Live Life in the Fast Lane - www.blueyonder.co.uk
http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/lucy_pargeter
"Dave Plowman (News)"  wrote in message
news:4d84ac1dffdave@davenoise.co.uk...

> In article <7kGxe.17234$11.6210@newsfe2-win.ntli.net>,
>    i didnt say that i dont think so  wrote:
> > well i cant comment about the tracking, but the idea of taking the
> > council to court over the speed bumps is a good idea, they are known to
> > shourten the life of shock,
>
> Only if you try and take them at an unsuitable speed, and even then
> where's your evidence? Take them at a reasonable speed and the shocks do
> near nothing.
>
> --
> *A chicken crossing the road is poultry in motion.*
>
>     Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
>                   To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article <LUSxe.94892$Vj3.34758@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
   Neil  wrote:

> what do you class as unsuitable speed. There are humps by me on a 30mph
> road. but you need to slow down to 15 to take them. Thats wrong.


Been there a million times. If you want to stop cars doing the standard 40
mph+ on urban side roads you put in speed bumps that reduce the speed of
some to about 20 mph. If that's too slow for you find a different route or
leave more time for your journey.

-- 
*Nostalgia isn't what is used to be.

    Dave Plowman        dave@davenoise.co.uk           London SW
                  To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) (dave@davenoise.co.uk) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying : 


> If you want to stop cars doing the
> standard 40 mph+ on urban side roads you put in speed bumps that
> reduce the speed of some to about 20 mph. If that's too slow for you
> find a different route or leave more time for your journey.


Indeed.

That's why my local council are being utterly stupid by putting speed bumps 
on the main road and not on the residential side roads that can be used to 
bypass it.

On 03/07/2005 17:49 Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


> In article <LUSxe.94892$Vj3.34758@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
>    Neil  wrote:
>> what do you class as unsuitable speed. There are humps by me on a 30mph
>> road. but you need to slow down to 15 to take them. Thats wrong.
> 
> Been there a million times. If you want to stop cars doing the standard 40
> mph+ on urban side roads you put in speed bumps that reduce the speed of
> some to about 20 mph. If that's too slow for you find a different route or
> leave more time for your journey.
> 


Neil's right. If the speed limit is 30 and there are no conditions that 
would make 30 unsuitable/dangerous - parked cars etc. - then you should 
be able to drive at 30 and if the LA put an obstruction to 
_deliberately_ prevent you doing that then there has to be a legal issue.

Having said that, I understand why speed bumps are used and, in some 
cases, needed but the big problem is that there seems to be no 
regulations governing them as there is such a diverse range of styles, 
sizes, road markings and signing - even within the same LA area - that 
it seems to be at the whim of the gang laying the tarmac.

We've all seen humps with deep gouges in them and whilst some of those 
may be caused by the local boy racers in their hot hatches with lowered 
suspension and "sports" body kits I've seen bog standard cars (typically 
sports cars) ground even when driving over them as slow as possible, 
clutch-slipping in first. In that situation the LA surely must be liable 
for damage sustained by vehicles if you can prove that the damage could 
occur even at walking pace.

I remember reading many years ago about some flexible speed humps being 
developed/trialled in Holland(?) which were made up of cells containing 
hydraulic fluid with small openings between the cells. They worked like 
shock absorbers and were designed so that at the speed limit they 
collapsed almost completely but even at a relatively small amount over 
the limit and they became a vicious bump. The idea, IIRC, was mainly to 
allow ambulances to drive over them at the speed limit but also reduce 
the noise nuisance to residents of vehicles accelerating after driving 
over one - or drag-racing between them in the case of boy-racers.

Parish

"Parish"  wrote in message
news:42c73384$0$41917$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net...

> On 03/07/2005 01:29 i didnt say that i dont think so wrote:
>
> > "Darren Jarvis"  wrote in message
> > news:gtFxe.16382$zM2.9096@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> >> Went to a few garages this afternoon to find out who does tracking.
When
> > I
> >> asked about warranty on the work done, all but one of them said there
was
> > no
> >> warranty as the tracking could be knocked out by hitting a bump, etc.
> >>
> >> Needless to say, the garage that would warrant their work (even though
it
> >> was only 28 days) got my business.
> >>
> >> Would anybody like to comment on why the tracking would be knocked out
if
> >> you go over bumps, etc?  I'll bet none of them would be willing to put
it
> > in
> >> writing so that I could sue the council for their speed bumps
contributing
> >> to it...
> >>
> >> Darren
> >>
> >>
> > well i cant comment about the tracking,
> > but the idea of taking the council to court over the speed bumps is a
good
> > idea,
> > they are known to shourten the life of shock,
> > also they are a restriction. most of them make you go well under the
speed
> > limit,
> > just amagine what they would say if you place seveal bumps outside of
their
> > houses,, they would say they are an obstruction and take you to court
for it
> > and probably say they are a hazard
> >
>
> IANAL but I believe that you take them to court for "non-feasance" which
> IIRC is failing to perform a required/statutory function - namely, to
> maintain the roads.
>
> I have heard of several cases where Councils have paid for tyres/wheels
> damaged by potholes (and promptly repaired said pothole afterwards).
> Tracking might be a bit harder to prove though as I guess you'd have to
> prove that the tracking was correct prior to hitting the speed bump.


I managed to get 300 out of mine for an unrepairable alloy and tyre plus
tracking. It took me 6 months of perseverance but I eventually got it. In
hindsight though I should have claimed for shock absorbers and wheel bearing
as I have since had to get these changed.

The garage were pretty confident that the shockers and bearings were as a
direct result of hitting the pot hole.

Steven.